View Full Version : European Constitution
Time to have another go at this topic I think, after Blair's latest spin on the whole issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3091576.stm
What do you think?
Stephen Robb
09-09-2003, 16:09
Yeah why not. We can trash this one as well! My own view, pull out all together, and go back to £.s.d. and Imperial measurment!
BAH who wants to be a bigger part of Germany and France :td:
I'd much prefer us doing more with the States our friends and they have proved over and over again to be our friends unlike some countrys
downquark1
09-09-2003, 16:27
Originally posted by Defiant
I'd much prefer us doing more with the States our friends and they have proved over and over again to be our friends unlike some countrys I trust that was sarcastic. Remember a little something called the US war of independance?
Originally posted by downquark1
I trust that was sarcastic. Remember a little something called the US war of independance?
you worried they might come and tip all our tea into the harbour again? ... :p
downquark1, your post made me laugh. That was just hilarious.
As an outsider I can only really give my opinion. I think it would be better for Britain to remove themselves as much as possible from the European "Union" thing. :)
Originally posted by downquark1
I trust that was sarcastic. Remember a little something called the US war of independance?
Yep I remember at the time we have troops based all over the world too ;)
So lets team up with our old colony :D
Dave Stones
09-09-2003, 17:26
Originally posted by Defiant
Yep I remember at the time we have troops based all over the world too ;)
So lets team up with our old colony :D
just a thought... if we reclaimed the good old british empire everywhere would be ruled by britain and so solving the asylum crisis... :erm:
[edit]WOW my 400th post :D:D
timewarrior2001
09-09-2003, 17:46
ermmm we have had a war with most European countries and won, We got beat by America........stick with the US thats my choice.
Besides at least the Americans can speak English.
Bloody Europeans, wouldnt you like to give them a good hiding?
I dont think their was a big intergration problem then like their is now. I doubt they would have put up with it then either
Dave Stones
09-09-2003, 18:08
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
ermmm we have had a war with most European countries and won, We got beat by America........stick with the US thats my choice.
Besides at least the Americans can speak English.
Bloody Europeans, wouldnt you like to give them a good hiding?
just france germany and belgium. i have nowt much against spain... they supported the US didnt they>?
Originally posted by Dave Stones
just france germany and belgium. i have nowt much against spain... they supported the US didnt they>?
Italy and Holland too, I love the Dutch:D
Ps you mention war but this country has only lost battles and never lost a war ;)
downquark1
09-09-2003, 18:20
Originally posted by Defiant
Italy and Holland too, I love the Dutch:D
Ps you mention war but this country has only lost battles and never lost a war ;) errm the US war of independance???? :confused:
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
ermmm we have had a war with most European countries and won, We got beat by America........stick with the US thats my choice.
Besides at least the Americans can speak English.
Bloody Europeans, wouldnt you like to give them a good hiding?
timewarrior, may I respectfully remind you that the American war of Independence was won only with considerable support from France. Without French assistance it's likely the thirteen colonies may not have gained independence when they did.
:wavey:
Originally posted by Gogogo
timewarrior, may I respectfully remind you that the American war of Independence was won only with considerable support from France. Without French assistance it's likely the thirteen colonies may not have gained independence when they did.
Which made their recent "anti-France" campaigns (they're "Freedom Fries", not "French Fries") because the French wouldn't help out against Iraq even more hypocritical.
Maybe they should give the Statue of Liberty back? After all, it was a gift from the French!!
Originally posted by downquark1
errm the US war of independance???? :confused:
Wasn't a war. It was a colony at the time
Originally posted by Graham
Which made their recent "anti-France" campaigns (they're "Freedom Fries", not "French Fries") because the French wouldn't help out against Iraq even more hypocritical.
Maybe they should give the Statue of Liberty back? After all, it was a gift from the French!!
No, it would be hypocritical if the US claimed to have the kind of relationship it had with France back then, and then started going all anti-France when the French refused to co-operate with the war. In fact, America does not claim to have the same kind of relationship with the French now as it had back then. Changing your mind, or changing policy, especially over a lengthy period of time, is not hypocrisy.
As for the French, their support for the American war of independence, and their gift of the Statue of Liberty to mark its 100th anniversary, always had much more to do with France's anti-British agenda than any pro-American feeling. The French have always been extremely envious firstly of our territories in the Americas, and now both our relationship with the USA and the Americans' massive clout in world affairs.
When you look at France's policy in that light - i.e. self interest with a large side-order of envy - it suddenly gets far easier to understand. Frankly I think we want as little to do with them and their European Union as possible.
Originally posted by Graham
Which made their recent "anti-France" campaigns (they're "Freedom Fries", not "French Fries") because the French wouldn't help out against Iraq even more hypocritical.
Maybe they should give the Statue of Liberty back? After all, it was a gift from the French!!
No, agreed there was some extreme and still is some anti-French manifestations but were not the French hypocritical as they enjoyed favourable oil contracts granted by Saddam Hussein's regime. I think most sensible US citizens still value good relations with France.
:wavey:
Graham: Which made their recent "anti-France" campaigns (they're "Freedom Fries", not "French Fries") because the French wouldn't help out against Iraq even more hypocritical.
Maybe they should give the Statue of Liberty back? After all, it was a gift from the French!!
Man oh man, I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Think for a minute. That was hundreds of years ago. That was during a time when one could be proud to be French, and a time when they had integrity. The France as we know it today is but a bunch of surrendering monkeys.
Towny: Changing your mind, or changing policy, especially over a lengthy period of time, is not hypocrisy.
Well said.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Maybe they should give the Statue of Liberty back? After all, it was a gift from the French!!
Man oh man, I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works.
Probably the same thing that caused you to lose both your sense of humour and your manners.
Originally posted by Gogogo
were not the French hypocritical as they enjoyed favourable oil contracts granted by Saddam Hussein's regime. .
Well, yes. But there again, it was the US who supported Saddam, trained him to assassinate a previous Iraqi leader and then supplied him *with* Weapons of Mass Destruction when he was seen as a useful tool against Iranian Muslim Fundamentalists...!!!
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
ermmm we have had a war with most European countries and won, We got beat by America........stick with the US thats my choice.
Besides at least the Americans can speak English.
Bloody Europeans, wouldnt you like to give them a good hiding? All together now! "Deutchland, Deutchland, uber alles......":D
Originally posted by towny
When you look at France's policy in that light - i.e. self interest with a large side-order of envy - it suddenly gets far easier to understand. Frankly I think we want as little to do with them and their European Union as possible. But they do make such good wine!:rofl: :D
Originally posted by Graham
Well, yes. But there again, it was the US who supported Saddam, trained him to assassinate a previous Iraqi leader and then supplied him *with* Weapons of Mass Destruction when he was seen as a useful tool against Iranian Muslim Fundamentalists...!!! But the French carried on supplying him after he had shown his true colours:rolleyes:
Haven't we been at war with the French for the best part of the past 800 years?
Well their was the 100 yr war with the French too. Now how many battles did they win LOL
Lord Nikon
10-09-2003, 01:57
you could try a google on "french military victories" :D
Originally posted by Graham
Well, yes. But there again, it was the US who supported Saddam, trained him to assassinate a previous Iraqi leader and then supplied him *with* Weapons of Mass Destruction when he was seen as a useful tool against Iranian Muslim Fundamentalists...!!!
Saddam Hussein's army and air force was almost totally supplied with weapons and military hardware from the former USSR and its allies and the existing Russian regime, who also enjoyed lucrative oil deals. If there was any US involvement it was through a multinational corporation who historically never respect frontiers. I think events are not so black and white as you seem to think.
:wavey:
timewarrior2001
10-09-2003, 09:16
Originally posted by Gogogo
Saddam Hussein's army and air force was almost totally supplied with weapons and military hardware from the former USSR and its allies and the existing Russian regime, who also enjoyed lucrative oil deals. If there was any US involvement it was through a multinational corporation who historically never respect frontiers. I think events are not so black and white as you seem to think.
:wavey:
Yes but it was the fact that we did supply him with weapons when he was at war with Iran, and the fact there is tenable links to the fact that the UK and the US suplied him with the toxic gas he used in this war.
IN 1991, yes his military hardware was prodominantly Russian made, we all know Iraq had MiG fighters and their soldiers carried Kalshnikov rifles.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Yes but it was the fact that we did supply him with weapons when he was at war with Iran, and the fact there is tenable links to the fact that the UK and the US suplied him with the toxic gas he used in this war.
IN 1991, yes his military hardware was prodominantly Russian made, we all know Iraq had MiG fighters and their soldiers carried Kalshnikov rifles.
We may have gone way off topic but nevertheless might still be considered relevant:
Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian arms supplies have been rather more than Kalashnikovs or Mig fighter aircraft.
Consider, useless tanks of all sorts and varieties, heavy military vehicles and trucks of all descriptions, anti-aircraft weapons, artillery, small arms, radio, radar, electronic counter measures.
When Iraq was undergoing liberation do you not recall the visual images on TV news networks of masses of Russian supplied equipment decorating the Iraqi desert.
Also consider how much may have been supplied by third parties: Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Syria, UAE, Turkey who knows. The arms trade is a filthy business staffed, managed and manipulated by qet rich quick morons, some state offficials some entrepreneurs, of all descriptions.
Report: Russia agrees to provide Iraq with arms supplies
Iraq-Russia, Politics, 2/15/1999
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990215/1999021509.html
Russian arms dealers have equipped Iraq with supplies and electronic jamming equipment
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81917,00.html
:wavey:
:notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic:
Does anyone want to try to relate this back to a European Constitution designed to absorb our proud nation into some undemocratic swamp of bureaucratic foreigners?
dialanothernumb
11-09-2003, 23:48
Europe debates in Britain often go off topic because nobody quite knows what is good for Britain
"Britain, lost an Empire but not yet found a role" quote from (I forget who!)
Consquently most debates are passionately waged with little evidence, a lot of gut feeling and a fair sprinkling of good old fashioned bigotry.
Let it go off topic or you'll rule out the majority of contributions
P.s. In the fashion of much political debate your poll doesn't include an option that says, "lets have a referendum and hear the arguments and I'll make up my mind"... rather revealing of the intellectual awareness of the author of this thread (n'est-ce pas)
:D
PPS it would be good that those who so passionately defend the country against the wave of immigrants who can't even speak the language, could speak it themselves, heh defiant
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Europe debates in Britain often go off topic because nobody quite knows what is good for Britain
"Britain, lost an Empire but not yet found a role" quote from (I forget who!)
Consquently most debates are passionately waged with little evidence, a lot of gut feeling and a fair sprinkling of good old fashioned bigotry.
Let it go off topic or you'll rule out the majority of contributions
P.s. In the fashion of much political debate your poll doesn't include an option that says, "lets have a referendum and hear the arguments and I'll make up my mind"... rather revealing of the intellectual awareness of the author of this thread (n'est-ce pas)
:D
PPS it would be good that those who so passionately defend the country against the wave of immigrants who can't even speak the language, could speak it themselves, heh defiant
Well excuse me ... I thought four options for a simple straw poll was plenty, but there's no pleasing some people. I'm quite happy with my level of intellectual awareness of the Europe issue and am more than willing to lay it all out with anyone who's interested. So, why not stop assuming you know what I think (and that I must be some sort of imbecile for thinking Europe is, on the whole, not a good thing), and give us the benefit of your opinion? (with suitably intellectual reasons, of course). ;)
Lord Nikon
12-09-2003, 01:14
I apologise if I seem to go off topic in this, but it needs saying.
I want everyone to go to their local shop, go to tescos, and go to cybercandy or any other website and take a look at a product called Altoids..
Just below the name of the product, look at the country it was made...
GREAT BRITAIN.
And what made britain great? THE PEOPLE, The Country, The political leaders and monarchy of the time. That is gone, as it our industry and community infrastructure.
When 9/11 happened a song was re released by Lee Greenwood. That song was "Proud to be an american" and here is a verse from it...
If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life
And I had to start again, with just my children and my wife
I'd thank my lucky stars, To be living here today
cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away
And I'm proud to be an american, where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died to give that right to me..
Tony blair is trying to hand the UK over to europe, in doing so we lose our individuality, our own legal system, the military hands its control over to europe, and we become an island just off france.
There is no song entitled "Proud to be from the UK" and there certainly is no song called proud to be european.
Europe is a stranglehold, economically the only countries with a chance of prosperity in europe are france and belgium.
The time HAS to be here to say no, we do NOT want to be part of europe. Before there IS no more UK
homealone
12-09-2003, 01:47
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I apologise if I seem to go off topic in this, but it needs saying.
I want everyone to go to their local shop, go to tescos, and go to cybercandy or any other website and take a look at a product called Altoids..
Just below the name of the product, look at the country it was made...
GREAT BRITAIN.
And what made britain great? THE PEOPLE, The Country, The political leaders and monarchy of the time. That is gone, as it our industry and community infrastructure.
When 9/11 happened a song was re released by Lee Greenwood. That song was "Proud to be an american" and here is a verse from it...
If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life
And I had to start again, with just my children and my wife
I'd thank my lucky stars, To be living here today
cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away
And I'm proud to be an american, where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died to give that right to me..
Tony blair is trying to hand the UK over to europe, in doing so we lose our individuality, our own legal system, the military hands its control over to europe, and we become an island just off france.
There is no song entitled "Proud to be from the UK" and there certainly is no song called proud to be european.
Europe is a stranglehold, economically the only countries with a chance of prosperity in europe are france and belgium.
The time HAS to be here to say no, we do NOT want to be part of europe. Before there IS no more UK
there is a song called "Anarchy in the UK" by the sex pistols - it might yet happen ?;):p:D
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I apologise if I seem to go off topic in this, but it needs saying.
There's nothing off topic in that m8. The Euro-apologists tend to be the same folk who are trying to make post-colonial guilt a national obsession in this country. They are totally unproud to be British and see our disappearing into some homogenous Euro-state as the only way forward.
They completely ignore the fundamental differences in society, legal practice and cultural tradition that make this a very dangerous path to tread.
timewarrior2001
12-09-2003, 09:33
Can all those people that are Pro Europe tell me what we have in common with Europe OTHER than being part of the same continent, which in my oppinion we arent, we are an island close to the continent of Europe.
nighthawk
12-09-2003, 09:57
Does anyone know if the government needs to go to a referendum? I think they would be embarassed if they did. Everyone i speak says the same. The UK should go it alone.
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 10:22
Originally posted by homealone
there is a song called "Anarchy in the UK" by the sex pistols - it might yet happen ?;):p:D
LOL, very good!
I just read my post from last night.... OMG! Towny, I owe you an apology. It was intellectual claptrap of the highest order.
You asked me to give my view, quite rightly. I thought I had but all I was doing was ranting, so [/rantmode]
What I meant to say was along these lines.
I thing harking back to the past is rarely useful in deciding big issues of the future, except to look for the mistakes so you can learn from them.
There's no doubt these islands have had a glorious three hundred odd years. The Empire built by the British was the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, physically. The trade helped pay for the industrial revolution, which essentially created the modern world as we know it. I saw the Brunel documentary on the BBC and still shake my head in disbelief at what was achieved by the Victorians.
But at the end of the day, this is not the same today. Reality says Britain can never achieve the same influence over external affairs again. The UK was once the largest economy in the world, larger than all others put together. Now the UK economy is fourth largest. The State of California alone was briefly larger than the UK economy in the 80s-90s
The Empire was of great benefit to the UK for many years. But I believe the empire became a millstone round the UK's neck in the latter years. After WW2, Britain was penniless, having spent every penny of capital on helping defeat nazism (a price worth paying, even if today's generation didn't have to pay for it in blood) Yet the Government of 1945 embarked on building a "new Jerusalem" welfare state and housing programme, as if the war had never happened. Even with this social and econoimic commitment, Britain still had 2/3s of its army commited to overseas territories, contributed significant capital and resources to maintaining a military presence in Europe and Asia and kept on spending like it was still a world power. Why? Because nobody in Britain (well in politics) could bear up to the fact that economically, at least, Britain had been destroyed by the war and that the Empire was a meaningless shell into which the taxpayer poured millions of borrowed dollars. Nobody had the political courage to be pragmatic and honest with the British People. The Empire, and Britain's former glory became a millstone round the necks of the people making decisions about their future.
I suspect this transformation from Empire to player has affected most if not all Imperial powers in history e.g the Romans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians... and will affect them in the future the Americans?:eek: (I hope not) Empires with a high impact end have been more furtunate in the aftermath, which maybe the shock needed to face reality, that a slow decline doesn't allow for (e.g. The Minoans after the eruption and the Germans after WW2)
I'm worried that as a people, the British are not being pragmatic enough about the future of the country. There's still debate about whether membership of the EU is a "good" or "bad" thing, which in my mind is rather high-minded debate, like we have the luxury of making a decision. In the real world the existance and fundamental nature of the EU is irrelevant, because it's already there and exists as a very useful and cheap free market. Despite the money we put in, because Britain is still a highly effective trading nation, we've netted gain from EU membership financially.
The social impact of EU membership on Britain has always been largely theoretical. I think most of us see the Brussels decions on the size of a potato chip as laughable, but we don't see the equally lamentable diktats coming from our own Min of Ag in handling BSE or Foot and Mouth as problems in the same light! Perhaps it's because we think we can vote them out, whereas we don't think thnat way about the Brussels politicians (But the advisors are chiefly civil servants who always cover their arse, whilst the politicos take the hit)
We face a choice in our generation. It's not two way, it's not one-off (these discussions will continue because circumstances constantly change) But the attitude sets the course for future generations.
If the British public asks itself "what can I get out of Europe" we'll be doing what most other countries in Europe do; pragmatically shaping the rules to best suit us, looking for symbolic, but largely irrelevant bargaining chips to trade off against what we want. But whilst the politicians pussy-foot about with the symbolic stuff, worried about factions in their parties and voter sensitivities to such an extent that this real horse-trading can't continue, we will always have this angst and fear over Europe.
There is one issue that in my mind is the most pressing negative issue over Europe, and that is the decocracy of it. The EU is NOT an open organisation. Corruption exists in Brussels and Strasbourg that we in the UK don't like to see (at least not in public!:D ) But it is still a prevalent culture in Southern Europe. I think this is the one thing that strikes a chord with Europhiles, Little Englanders and pragmatists alike. It's the one thing that holds Pragmatist like me back from futher reliance on a political structure that is more based on Brussels than on London.
One point, made in a previous post about individuality and the loss of it in Brussels. No-one.. and I mean absolutely no-one can take my individuality away from me or millions of others who live outside Westminster despite being governed by people who rarely ever leave the metropolis. Brussels, in that respect would be "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" (The more things change, the more they stay the same)
Towny, you don't know what you opened up there by asking me to lay my cards down:D
Such a long post is indulgent and I apologise in advance to those who found it irrelevant, but it's my opinion (and it's offered a lot more humbly than last night... apologies again for the unreasonable outburst.
Dial
Originally posted by nighthawk
Does anyone know if the government needs to go to a referendum? I think they would be embarassed if they did. Everyone i speak says the same. The UK should go it alone.
They don't need to, however it would be considered "polite" as it would affect us in such a huge way.
However, as you've pointed out, they'd most likely be hugely embarassed by a loss, so the chances of one being called are slim until they're sure they'll win.
Oh and if they do happen to lose, well they can just keep calling for referendums until the majority of no voters get so fed up they can't be bothered to vote, so it will eventually pass.
Just got back from Gran Canaria.
Now spain used to be a cheap place to go on holiday, I remember it being £1=200p ts
Now with £1=à ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã ‚¬1.4 its nearly as expensive as England.
And monopoly money looks more realistic! (and of course there's the worry about the ink making you impotent)
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 10:38
In the spirit of debate, rather than just say my piece and ignore others' thoughts, I thought I should reply to the points that others have raised in this thread.
Several comments have been made about us being different. I guess the points being made there are either
that by integrating further, that difference would dissapear and we would lose "Britishness" by however we'd each define that. I think that's a fair point, but I wonder how important that is. Being British now is fundamentally different from being British in Victorian times, or pre-empire, in Georgian times. Times change, and people's sense of identity change, but it's never lost.
Or, that fundamentally we are too different from each other to share common goals, economic or social. Futher Union would be hopeless as we try to fit pieces of two different jigsaw puzzles together. The United Kingdom and the USA are made up of fundamentally different historical entities. A Scot goes through a different scooling system, An Ulsterman goes through a different legal system, and the Welsh have more fluent French speakers than any other region in the UK (bizarre, but true)
If you want to win... play the game. If you want to lose, bail out... that's the attitude I take
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 10:42
Originally posted by Xaccers
Just got back from Gran Canaria.
Now spain used to be a cheap place to go on holiday, I remember it being £1=200p ts
Now with £1=à ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã ‚¬1.4 its nearly as expensive as England.
And monopoly money looks more realistic! (and of course there's the worry about the ink making you impotent)
So your point is, that if Britain had joined the Euro, yoiur holiday would have been as cheap as two years ago? Or was that not the point:D
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 10:53
Ah, yes, I remember my problem with the poll. I don't know whether I would vote yes or no to a referendum because I haven't heard all the arguments yet. All I've heard is a lot of screeching and wailing from the press and politicos on both sides. It would seem a bit silly to have a referendum when you've not heard all the arguments. But it's not my poll and of course as you say it was only a simple straw poll, not a scientific judgement.
I'd vote on an option that says "There should be a referendum and I'll decide when I've heard all the arguments"
Don't sweat it, we all get hot under the collar from time to time ...
And as for the length of your post, well, it's a refreshing change from some of the two-dimensional soundbites we often get on such complex issues (and I'm not pointing my finger at anyone or at any particular thread there).
That said, I think your sketch of Britain's rise and fall as an empire is a little overstated as a reason behind the decision making process that goes on in the head of the average UK citizen. Neither do I think it's impertinent to ask whether Europe is, fundamentally, a 'good' or a 'bad' thing.
My reason is this: What we now call the European Union was, at its outset, a free trade area of six (?) nations for the trading of coal and steel. It has grown to where it is today with the addition of nine more member states and several treaties of varying importance, all of which, it is now proposed, should be amalgamated into one new European Constitution. At each stage of this process, the nature of the union - which was at first envisaged as a Common Market, the European Economic Community - has changed. The most radical change until this year's Constitution negotiations was probably the Maastricht treaty, which the then British Government found to be such a radical shift that it refused to accept a whole chunk of it and negotiated an opt out from the 'social chapter'.
If the organisation we signed up for decides to significantly shift its aims and objectives, we are entitled to re-examine our membership of that organisation, exactly as we would any other alliance, or even our personal membership of some interest group or political party. Where we are now is unimaginably far away from the Common Market, membership of which was decided in a referendum. A common market has no need of a standard design of passport or driving licence; it certainly has no business directing social policies in member states. And despite the apparent benefits of a market having just one currency, the huge power this completely unelected body has acquired by default over taxation and public spending policy in the Euro zone is far in excess of what the British people agreed to in the 1970s. Granted we have been promised a referendum on this issue but the French public were not and now they are very sore about it.
It is undeniable that there is a 'federalist' element in Europe that does want to eventually forge a new nation state and it has been very active in trying to insert clauses in the draft cnostitution that, far from making it simply a 'tidying up exercise' through which many treaties signed over 50 years can be neatly sewn into one document, make it an entirely new treaty with the potential to extend the powers of the Union into defence policy, foreign policy and taxation policy. And where exactly is the justification for a Common Market taking such powers?
True, the European Union has until now largely benefited the UK economy as a whole. It has also caused untold damage to some sectors of it, such as our fishing industry, but on the whole it has been positive. The mistake of the Europhile, however, is to assume firstly that it must always be so in the future, and secondly that we somehow have no choice. We are still a sovreign nation state; no longer an empire, but 4th out of all the nations of the world isn't bad, and we do enjoy an extraordinary relationship with the nation that's number one. We have opportunities for world trade that the rest of Europe would love to get a sniff at, thanks to the USA and, yes, the commonwealth. It's a matter of deep regret to me that we loosened our ties with this far larger and more diverse association in order to focus on Europe.
The question of whether we accept the constitution and the handing of further powers to Brussels is very pertinent and the answer is by no means inevitable.
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 11:27
I'm not just sucking up to atone for last night. That was a very good post to my mind. If this were the other site, I'd have spent an hour working out how to give you a rep point, but then it isn't so consider yourself virtually "repped"
You raise a very good argument for debating the nature of what Europe is about, given the significant change... i.e. this ain't what we signed up to. A question that still lurks over the minds of "phobes" and "pragmatists" and that "philes" don't appear willing to debate is "What is the end-game, what are we trying to achieve?" The Common Market was a straight forward idea and it has worked. Like every economic structure there are winners and losers, but in the main it worked. However, The devil is in the detail and harmonisation became more of a policy for its own sake than a genuine economic tool to reduce trade barriers. Now harmonisation is geared towards social issues, the arguments are starting on an individual basis (as in my approach to taxation versus yours, my approach to social welfare vs yours) and the sparks are flying. My approach to this is that we're kind of in the middle of all this and too heavily invested in Europe to pull out now, without at least trying to get our way. But British Politicians go into these discussions without a firm hand. This is of their own making because the Euro debate is so curtailed in the UK that it's impossible for them to get a clear mandate.
So, should there be a referendum... YES definitely, but how would i vote. well I'd want to hear a few more well thought out arguments like yours to help me make up my mind.
Edit: Addendum: The reason I weighed in so heavily about my belief that the Imperial past affects the thinking of the GBP is because of some of the one-liners about Great Britain, "them and us" etc. which look a bit chippy to me. Nobody makes an impression on their future by harking at their past. But you're right, this is probably not a mainstream hangup
Let me just say first that I am a pro-european. That does not mean I agree with all that is done in the EU as it currently stands. I think there is too much corruption. It is not democratic as it stands. The commissoners and the "civil service" have too power whilst the European Parliament has too little. I think C.A.P. is downright stupid and should be stopped immediately.
But all this could be changed. But we need to embrace europe first and then engage it decisvely over many issues. For some reason France and Germany have more power within the EU than they deserve. They seem to get away with far too much.
I see nothing wrong with a federal europe. The US manage very well with this system. They have different taxation levels in different states. In fact I like the idea of a europe of regions, where each region has a population of around 10-15 million.
The european parliamet should be given the prime control of europe and there should be a second chamber maybe based upon the current idea of the council of ministers.
Of course one day I would love to see a sensible world government!!!
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 16:15
Here's what you do
Set up a website called eurohell.com
Let people who've issues with the EU come along and vent steam
Sell the site to the European Commission on the basis of "changing and improving from within". Increasingly realise that the ethos of this site appears to some members to be changing gradually away from healthy debate. Members split into pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans
The EC then want to switch to another site, called oh, lets see, "Community"
Set up a site called eurohell.co.uk. Debate briefly whether the label pro, or anti, is fair
Meet up in a central (ish) location and get rat-faced with the other site
Just an idea
(where's the tongue in cheek smily?)
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Here's what you do
Set up a website called eurohell.com
Let people who've issues with the EU come along and vent steam
Sell the site to the European Commission on the basis of "changing and improving from within". Increasingly realise that the ethos of this site appears to some members to be changing gradually away from healthy debate. Members split into pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans
The EC then want to switch to another site, called oh, lets see, "Community"
Set up a site called eurohell.co.uk. Debate briefly whether the label pro, or anti, is fair
Meet up in a central (ish) location and get rat-faced with the other site
Just an idea
(where's the tongue in cheek smily?)
:rofl:
Originally posted by sraper
Let me just say first that I am a pro-european. That does not mean I agree with all that is done in the EU as it currently stands. I think there is too much corruption. It is not democratic as it stands. The commissoners and the "civil service" have too power whilst the European Parliament has too little. I think C.A.P. is downright stupid and should be stopped immediately.
But all this could be changed. But we need to embrace europe first and then engage it decisvely over many issues. For some reason France and Germany have more power within the EU than they deserve. They seem to get away with far too much.
I see nothing wrong with a federal europe. The US manage very well with this system. They have different taxation levels in different states. In fact I like the idea of a europe of regions, where each region has a population of around 10-15 million.
The european parliamet should be given the prime control of europe and there should be a second chamber maybe based upon the current idea of the council of ministers.
Of course one day I would love to see a sensible world government!!!
One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that it is full of second rate politicians, just like the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and County/District councils throughout the UK. There is no way I ever want that lot with any real power over anything of significance.
I see lots wrong with a Federal Europe; the United States is not a valid comparison as those states have never had any kind of meaningful independence from each other with the chance to build their own body of law and government. Yes, there are differences state to state but the choices and processes that led to those differences are made in the same way in each state of teh USA.
Europe is a continent that has seen countless political, militry and even economic alliances come and go in the last two millennia. The nations that inhabit that continent do have lots in common with each other ... they fought in many of the same wars after all. Sadly, usually against each other. They have almost as many languages as there are members of the EU; 15 legal systems founded on 15 quite different sets of traditions and assumptions; 15 different economies, regardless of what the Euro-enthusiasts might like to believe; and vastly different expectations about acceptable levels of probity in public office.
The concept of Euro-regions is founded on a somewhat arrogant German assumption that everyone else should enjoy the same model of government as them. Certain European nations sit nicely into the 10-15 million category; others, like the UK, just don't. Scotland has less than 6 million inhabitants. Wales has less than 3 million. There is no appetite for regional Government anywhere in England except perhaps in the North East and maybe Yorkshire because British people are instinctively sceptical about excessive layers of red tape and understand that more government costs more money. The only way Euro-regions could work would be at the expense of national Parliaments. The Euro-Federalists, of course, are fully aware of and supportive of this, but they know that to say so at this stage would be politically disastrous. Their whole strategy thus far has been based on creeping federalisation after all.
As for a world Government ... take one look at the nearest we have - the UN - and estimate for us how long it might take (in centuries) for the world to come round to that idea and to learn to agree on anything for long enough to make anything into law.
Well to add my two peneth!
I personally don't see why we should bolster up a failing acconomy whilst others delight in our down fall! They have made some really daft laws over the years. And have made themselves look rather idiotic at times. (eg Banana's, sausages..ect!)
And very few of their laws have been particularely in our favour. Can we not put the GREAT back into Britain? and have a GREAT nation after all?:mad:
Wasn't the creation of the EU partly to prevent France and Germany from fighting again by making them closer anyway?
Originally posted by Xaccers
Wasn't the creation of the EU partly to prevent France and Germany from fighting again by making them closer anyway?
Yes, Churchill actively encouraged close relations between then because he thought it would be a good way of stopping any more wars. He never envisaged us getting caught up in it.
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 19:06
Originally posted by towny
Yes, Churchill actively encouraged close relations between then because he thought it would be a good way of stopping any more wars. He never envisaged us getting caught up in it.
Eh, Churchill was very pro-common market (he just doidn't want to **** the empire off.... hmmm)
Originally posted by Xaccers
Wasn't the creation of the EU partly to prevent France and Germany from fighting again by making them closer anyway?
Your jesting arn't you. Stopping France and Germany fighting. France fighting lol
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Eh, Churchill was very pro-common market (he just doidn't want to **** the empire off.... hmmm)
Fair enough ... actually I was thinking more about all the interfering in domestic politics that goes on now rather than the principle of a free European market. Free trade has to be a good idea.
Pity there's so much small print.
Yessssss!
Thank you, Sweden! :tu: :tu: :tu:
The only two nations ever to be given a referendum vote on the Euro have now both voted 'no'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3108616.stm
Originally posted by towny
One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that it is full of second rate politicians, just like the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and County/District councils throughout the UK. There is no way I ever want that lot with any real power over anything of significance.
You forgot to mention the Houses of Lords and Commons...
Particularly the party in power.
timewarrior2001
15-09-2003, 15:51
originally posted by towny
There is no appetite for regional Government anywhere in England except perhaps in the North East and maybe Yorkshire because British people are instinctively sceptical about excessive layers of red tape and understand that more government costs more money.
There are reasons why the North east wants a regional government.
Mainly because we see little if any government spending, we suffer mass unemployment and yet we still have to pay our taxes.
Its quite annoying to see our proportion of the money be sepnt constantly down south.
Pretty much the same as it would be pretty annoying to give in to Europe and give all our powers away.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
There are reasons why the North east wants a regional government.
Mainly because we see little if any government spending, we suffer mass unemployment and yet we still have to pay our taxes.
Its quite annoying to see our proportion of the money be sepnt constantly down south.
Pretty much the same as it would be pretty annoying to give in to Europe and give all our powers away.
I totally agree with you ... I live dahn sahth but I'm from the northwest originally (Wirral) and the general tendency of officialdom to assume life stops somewhere north of the M25 is very, very annoying.
However I'm not sure that a regional parliament for you (which I guess would probably sit in Newcastle) would necessarily solve the problem. It would cost money in administration that could otherwise be spent on regeneration projects, for example. What we really need is a change in the attitude of the metropolitan clique that runs Britain.
Ooh, look, a flying pig.
timewarrior2001
15-09-2003, 16:20
Originally posted by towny
I totally agree with you ... I live dahn sahth but I'm from the northwest originally (Wirral) and the general tendency of officialdom to assume life stops somewhere north of the M25 is very, very annoying.
However I'm not sure that a regional parliament for you (which I guess would probably sit in Newcastle) would necessarily solve the problem. It would cost money in administration that could otherwise be spent on regeneration projects, for example. What we really need is a change in the attitude of the metropolitan clique that runs Britain.
Ooh, look, a flying pig.
You are quite right, why should the North East parliament be situated in Newcastle when newcastle already gets the lions share of money spent in the area anyway.
This is exactly how I see the whole situation with Europe. Not only can Europeans barely speak english :D neither can the bloody Geordies:D
Ok to be sensible for a minute or two.
I dont see why becoming part of a united Europe is so essential. Theres a deep seated distrust of Europeans within our country and i am one of those people affected by this.
I see the European union as weak, they can barely get France to comply with the Union laws what hope have they got of countrolling a super state?
As for the Euro.....well lets face it, while countries such Portugal are doing reasonable from it, germany is practically crippled. I had a conversation with a Greek hotel owner whilst I was in Zante this year, he told me that the greeks had th eoldest currency in the world and had to give it up for a single currency. The people do not like it and do not want it.
It seems that Europe want to present a glossy little brochure of how we can all live together in harmony, unfortunately they are starting to realise this cannot happen and is not likely to happen in the sense they want.
Lord Nikon
15-09-2003, 16:35
If blair wants to be a part of europe, let him move there and let us continue being ourselves... maybe we can swap him for some of our rights back and he can take the diet rights with him.
I STILL think we would be better allying ourselves with the US, and if we were to consider a unified currency (which I don't see a need for) perhaps the dollar would be a better option.
Stephen Robb
15-09-2003, 21:04
Originally posted by towny
Yessssss!
Thank you, Sweden! :tu: :tu: :tu:
The only two nations ever to be given a referendum vote on the Euro have now both voted 'no'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3108616.stm
Nej! Excellent! Exactly what I thought!
MadGamer
15-09-2003, 22:29
Originally posted by Defiant
BAH who wants to be a bigger part of Germany and France :td:
I'd much prefer us doing more with the States our friends and they have proved over and over again to be our friends unlike some countrys
Yeah totally agree there. They do more for us than any other country.
And I, my British friends, wish you'd dump the European Union. I would really like to see a close friendship and alliance between the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
Originally posted by Jerrek
And I, my British friends, wish you'd dump the European Union. I would really like to see a close friendship and alliance between the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
Now that I could go for.
We're already allies, we all kinda think along the same lines about things, it'll only have a few members so is small enough to manage, we all aren't too keen on giving up our individualities so not much chance of someone suggesting we become one country.
Course Australia may want Japan in on it.
Originally posted by Jerrek
And I, my British friends, wish you'd dump the European Union. I would really like to see a close friendship and alliance between the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
Great, we could call it the Axis of English...:D
Dave Stones
16-09-2003, 09:31
Originally posted by towny
Great, we could call it the Axis of English...:D
wasn't it called the british empire in bygone days?
dialanothernumb
16-09-2003, 12:45
Originally posted by Dave Stones
wasn't it called the british empire in bygone days?
LoL:D
Here is another example of EU madness from the Telegraph.
News in brief
(Filed: 18/09/2003)
EU bans straw pond cleaner
Barley straw, a centuries-old remedy for clearing murky pond water, is to be effectively banned under a European Union directive - because no one knows how it works.
Producers say the only way to escape the ban on barley "patches", sold in most garden centres, is to explain why they work and demonstrate that no harm is caused. However, the expense of doing so would force them out of business.
The EU law on biocidal products, about to come into force, is part of the regulation of pesticides. However, it does not distinguish between manufactured and natural products.
The Health and Safety Executive said it was taking up the issue with the EU.
:(
haven't France been over-spending and breaking EU budget rules for a few years now. They have never been hit by the EU for doing this though. Now we all know what would happen if Britain done something and the frogs would be the first to moan about it
Originally posted by Jerrek
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Oct0402.gif
That cartoon is slightly ironic considering we have a german royal family... I think it is meant to be though.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.