Dublin Riots....
02 December 2010, 01:04 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 December 2010, 01:13 PM
#92
The infamous rebate, she got? Every time we asked for owt from the EC, they knocked the rebate off first, or took it into account, so we ended up with FAR less, if anything at all.
For example, we'd ask them for funds for a road re-alignment and dualling. Cost would be £100M. Now in France, the EC might pay 50% of that. Here, they'd say: "Well, you have had £250 million this year so far, so that leaves you.....errrrrrr, nothing to come".
That's why the French, for example, have far better road layouts, because a) they admit that there IS such a thing as a dangerous road, (not just dangerous drivers
), and b) they ask from the EC and receive, with NOWT knocked off for the rebate, 'cos they haven't got one.You only have to travel over French roads to see the signage, "Piad for 10% by the local authority, 40% central government, 50% EC".
Is there ANY wonder we have done nowt?
02 December 2010, 01:21 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 December 2010, 01:43 PM
#95
I don't think I agree with that. All the by-passes built in my neck of the woods were planned and actioned whilst under Thatcher's government. (it was originally proposed in the 70's but Labour had ran out of money...deja-vu? ).
Whilst some were delayed due to red tape, many eventually did come to fruition. Unfortunatly, the latter stage projects only started when Thatcher left office with them simultaneously being re-budgeted on the cheap thereafter.
The Black counrtry spine road is a prime example, half of it is graded junctions, slip roads and under/overpases and flows traffic beautifully, the latter half and Dudley bypass is surface level roundabouts with traffic light control and is a mess. Guess which parts was done under a Thatcher govermenet and which bits wasn't.
The irony is Neil Kinnock opened part of it
Then after Labour came into power, any further proposed road upgrades/new routes that hadn't already been started were flatly cancelled. No ifs or Buts, cancelled. Instead we got speed cameras, and they destroyed Birmingham's flyovers and underpasses on the A41 and A47 which were vital for flowing mass volumes of traffic to create more retail area. Causing daily grilock as there is now no alternative route that can flow such an high volume of traffic.
Last edited by ALi-B; 02 December 2010 at 01:44 PM.
02 December 2010, 02:06 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://eutoday.wordpress.com/2008/04...uropean-union/
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
02 December 2010, 02:16 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carpe diem old chap! Ask TDW if that is too much for you!
I would certainly prefer that to being a mere US style state subjugated to the Eu combo telling us how to live our lives and paying them all those billions to maintain their lavish lifestyle at the taxpayers' expense.
Do you honestly think we would have any influence on the general way of things as a member of a federated Eu? We would have virtually no effective say at all, they might pat us on the head metaphorically from time to time with a lump of sugar to keep us quiet!
You really have been "sucked in" haven't you?
Les
02 December 2010, 02:17 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Aye Les, Thatcher was loyal to the people of this country all right........as long as they could do owt for her, like the forces, or the police, or as long as they weren't in a union, or worked with their hands.
The rest of us could go stuff.
Bloody old bitch HATED thew working man, and HATED everyone from the regions except the SE. She is the reason we now have a generation who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves, no manufacturing to speak of, hardly any industry, and the reason that our roads are clogged solid while our railways moulder.
Hateful woman. The sooner she's gone, the better.
The rest of us could go stuff.
Bloody old bitch HATED thew working man, and HATED everyone from the regions except the SE. She is the reason we now have a generation who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves, no manufacturing to speak of, hardly any industry, and the reason that our roads are clogged solid while our railways moulder.
Hateful woman. The sooner she's gone, the better.
The rules and regulations gradually came in under the conservatives (and further under Labour in recent times), but I think they were inevitable anyway, and would have only been brought in more quickly under a more left-wing government.
This country can have a thriving industry again, but to have it would see reports in the papers of people being badly injured in the inevitable accidents and at least for some time people on significantly lower wages. That's something that will never happen, so we'll never get it back.
It's funny how people would be outraged at the above happening over here to their families, yet are perfectly happy to buy all the cheap goods from places abroad where treatment of the workforce is pretty poor to say the least.
When my dad came up here there was still a lot of construction going on in agriculture. Nowadays a lot of the farmers can't afford to invest in expanding production or fix what they have and there is little point anyway. The guy he started working for when he came up here has gone from operating out of a farm shed where he would weld the steel for small farm buildings, to having a company taking on multimillion pound contracts for flats, supermarkets, retail centres etc. That all happened through the boom times - of property etc - under Labour. Great, except where were all the factories, industrial builds to support all this consumption? Because flats and shopping centres sure as hell don't contribute anything productive to the economy. Instead they are luxuries that have to be afforded.
To pay for all that stuff we've just gone on a huge spending spree with money we didn't have, sheltered by the policies of the last government, but also the conservative one before it.
Maybe the problem isn't necessarily the wages, but it is definitely the red tape... all that wealth that has to be diverted to other things before you can even get anywhere near making tangible goods to sell to people... people who've had to go through the same before they can sell anything to you. It's very off-putting for investors and industrial entrepreneurs would much rather go somewhere else, where they can set up thriving businesses without all the state interference.
Countries like Norway can afford all the obstacles in the short-run because they are so resource rich with a small population to boost the per capita figures. But in the long-run where would you rather be if you were thinking of setting up a business? Somewhere that you have to navigate thousands upon thousands of regulations before you can even think about making a profit... or somewhere that you can just get on with things?
02 December 2010, 06:55 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes, of course. You seemed to have completely lost faith in this country, Les. It's exactly this kind of pessimism and lack of confidence that needs to be weeded out. Do you dislike our cousins on the continent? What are you so fearful of? Personally, I'm right behind Churchill on this one and can't understand why you're not.
02 December 2010, 07:22 PM
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well yes, of course. You seemed to have completely lost faith in this country, Les. It's exactly this kind of pessimism and lack of confidence that needs to be weeded out. Do you dislike our cousins on the continent? What are you so fearful of? Personally, I'm right behind Churchill on this one and can't understand why you're not.
Dave
02 December 2010, 07:32 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire, David, au contraire. I'm simply surprised that Leslie doesn't share the same vision as me and Sir Winston.
Last edited by JTaylor; 03 December 2010 at 12:22 AM.
03 December 2010, 12:05 AM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This country became a major world power, that power has givin us leverage when negotiating (un-fair??) trade agreements with other countries that were to our advantage, giving us even more power and leverage.Now times have changed, the third world despot countries, China,Russia (probably India in the years to come) will be in the positions of power which would give them leverage over us.Do we really want to isolate ourselves from Europe leaving us on our own to negotiate cheap (Chinese) imports and (non-piped)gas from Russia, which this country relies on.There's no point talking about war as there are to many billionaires with vested interests in (a highly corrupt) Russia and China to let that happen.Besides its quicker,cheaper and more profitable to ruin a country financially than by fighting.You've seen how quick the Russians turn off the gas to the Ukraine and how ruthless the Chinese are to their own people.
Yes, the EU is corrupt but so is every other system of governance. It's up to society to change that, nobody else.
Yes, the EU is corrupt but so is every other system of governance. It's up to society to change that, nobody else.
03 December 2010, 03:58 AM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in the long-run where would you rather be if you were thinking of setting up a business? Somewhere that you have to navigate thousands upon thousands of regulations before you can even think about making a profit... or somewhere that you can just get on with things?
03 December 2010, 09:08 AM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU consists of three main bodies: The Council, The Parliament and The Commission. Are all of these undemocratic in your view? I'd be interested to see if there's any substance here. I'd hate to think you were simply trotting out wild claims, relying on popular axioms in lieu of an actual argument.
Ways you can respond:
a) flippant comment and some smilies
b) more of the same
c) no response
d) critical, fact-based analysis demonstrating that the EU is undemocratic.
Only one of the responses is credible. You have until the end of the day.
Ways you can respond:
a) flippant comment and some smilies
b) more of the same
c) no response
d) critical, fact-based analysis demonstrating that the EU is undemocratic.
Only one of the responses is credible. You have until the end of the day.
Last edited by JTaylor; 03 December 2010 at 09:11 AM.
03 December 2010, 09:51 AM
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's humour Mr Taylor (or is that a Ms or Mrs??? ). Smilies and flippant comments are par for the course on SN and, in case you haven't realised, they can also make quite valid points. If mine don't seem to make a valid point then maybe an apology is warranted from me for not making myself clear. Alternatively, maybe you need to read things properly and put things into the context they belong in ....
As for the EU being undemocratic, it is, extremely. By design. In the way it allows zero input from the electorate.
See ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...h-of-week.html
and ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...h-of-week.html
Some quotes: "... From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).
Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.
Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.
Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.
Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.
... Therein lies one of the central defects of the European parliament. The essence of a parliamentary system is that it is the core of a system of representative democracy, where the members go to parliament to represent their electors’ views (and safeguard their interests). But British MEPs cannot represent the interests of their electors – there are not enough of them to do so. .... That difference tells the whole story. No matter what individual MEPs might think about an existing piece of EU law – and even if all 732 members wanted it changed (which is highly unlikely) – it cannot force a change. The unelected commission has the absolute right of initiative, and can ignore parliament completely. ....
As I said. Totally undemocratic. As is witnessed by Call Me Dave's charade over the EU budget increase, which you said was 'mere details', when he said he had *kept* the rise by *only* 2.9%, rather than the 6+% that the EU wanted. He has said that is *guaranteed* (more fool him as we know what his *guarantees* are worth, though I don't think he said this one was *cast iron* ...
) because "... They’ve given their word - 2.9 per cent and no further. That’s the word they’ve all given. That’s the word I’ve given. ..."
[From ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...guarantee.html ...]
"... A diplomat from one of EU countries that signed Mr Cameron’s letter predicted that the final deal would be larger than promised. “It will be very difficult to keep at 2.9 per cent with what the parliament is saying,” said the diplomat. ... And a European Commission official stressed that Mr Cameron’s guarantee “doesn’t change anything” because legally binding “conciliation” talks continue until Nov 11. ..."
Even our PM can't change things for OUR benefit. Now tell me how democratic the EU is!
Oh, and the next time, you can just Google yourself if you don't agree with something I write that is so bleddy obvious even a dead rat could figure it out. Or a wind-up merchant like yourself .....
Dave
As for the EU being undemocratic, it is, extremely. By design. In the way it allows zero input from the electorate.
See ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...h-of-week.html
and ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...h-of-week.html
Some quotes: "... From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).
Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.
Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.
Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.
Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.
... Therein lies one of the central defects of the European parliament. The essence of a parliamentary system is that it is the core of a system of representative democracy, where the members go to parliament to represent their electors’ views (and safeguard their interests). But British MEPs cannot represent the interests of their electors – there are not enough of them to do so. .... That difference tells the whole story. No matter what individual MEPs might think about an existing piece of EU law – and even if all 732 members wanted it changed (which is highly unlikely) – it cannot force a change. The unelected commission has the absolute right of initiative, and can ignore parliament completely. ....
As I said. Totally undemocratic. As is witnessed by Call Me Dave's charade over the EU budget increase, which you said was 'mere details', when he said he had *kept* the rise by *only* 2.9%, rather than the 6+% that the EU wanted. He has said that is *guaranteed* (more fool him as we know what his *guarantees* are worth, though I don't think he said this one was *cast iron* ...
) because "... They’ve given their word - 2.9 per cent and no further. That’s the word they’ve all given. That’s the word I’ve given. ..."[From ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...guarantee.html ...]
"... A diplomat from one of EU countries that signed Mr Cameron’s letter predicted that the final deal would be larger than promised. “It will be very difficult to keep at 2.9 per cent with what the parliament is saying,” said the diplomat. ... And a European Commission official stressed that Mr Cameron’s guarantee “doesn’t change anything” because legally binding “conciliation” talks continue until Nov 11. ..."
Even our PM can't change things for OUR benefit. Now tell me how democratic the EU is!
Oh, and the next time, you can just Google yourself if you don't agree with something I write that is so bleddy obvious even a dead rat could figure it out. Or a wind-up merchant like yourself .....
Dave
03 December 2010, 10:06 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although an improvement on other work, this had poor sourcing, lacked objectivity, was emotional and incoherent.
D+
P.S. Do you vote for your civil servants?
D+
P.S. Do you vote for your civil servants?
03 December 2010, 10:17 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What have civil servants got to do with the price of wet fish?
dl
03 December 2010, 10:30 AM
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
So, with that comment you're implying that we could never have a democracy as it is the Civil Servants that do the work anyway and politicians are window dressing? In which case you answered your own question as to *how is the EU undemocratic* ....
Dave
03 December 2010, 11:41 AM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU (democracy or not!)can be improved, but unlikely to happen through democratic means (since when has voting improved anythin, lol).Even if it's not a democracy, so what? This country is a democracy....Your "free" to choose any incompetent,corrupt,dishonest,unaccountable party you choose.
03 December 2010, 12:09 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, at least we're moving on with the discussion. The Council has a democratic mandate and is representative of the elected government of the member state. The Parliament, constituted by direct election, has an even stronger claim to legitimacy. The problem, and I'll concede this point, arises when one considers the Commission. It's a guardian of the treaties, exists to ensure the long-term goals of the EU and endeavours to be unswayed by short-term national political interests.
Democracy dictates () that representation should be directly proportionate to power, it would follow, therefor, that an unrepresentative body should have no power, yet in the Commission we have a body with broad legislative and executive powers; non-unlike The Civil Sevice.
It strikes me (I'm not buggering around here, so please put me straight), that your issue is less to do with the principle of a united Europe and more to do with the flaws of democracy and the compromises the system needs to make.
My view is that, whilst it doesn't sit comfortably, significant executive power has to be entrusted in order to keep the thing moving. Without the executive, the bureaucracy would be even more overwhelming. It is for this reason, amongst others, that I posit GB is best served sitting at the heart of Europe so that it can wield its influence and shape the EU's future.
Democracy dictates (
) that representation should be directly proportionate to power, it would follow, therefor, that an unrepresentative body should have no power, yet in the Commission we have a body with broad legislative and executive powers; non-unlike The Civil Sevice.It strikes me (I'm not buggering around here, so please put me straight), that your issue is less to do with the principle of a united Europe and more to do with the flaws of democracy and the compromises the system needs to make.
My view is that, whilst it doesn't sit comfortably, significant executive power has to be entrusted in order to keep the thing moving. Without the executive, the bureaucracy would be even more overwhelming. It is for this reason, amongst others, that I posit GB is best served sitting at the heart of Europe so that it can wield its influence and shape the EU's future.
03 December 2010, 03:29 PM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes, of course. You seemed to have completely lost faith in this country, Les. It's exactly this kind of pessimism and lack of confidence that needs to be weeded out. Do you dislike our cousins on the continent? What are you so fearful of? Personally, I'm right behind Churchill on this one and can't understand why you're not.
As I said before, you are scraping the barrel to find any kind of meaningful reply now.
The accusations you throw out are shameful to put it mildly. Not only that, they have no relevance to the so called discussion in hand. Sir Winston was around in the days when politicians were much more honourable people.
You may call it pessimism, but I reckon it is necessary to look at the future should we enter a federated European state. We only have to look at what we see at the moment as far as its performance shows to get a pretty good idea of what that future would hold. You consider all the present failings to be just petty and not worth consideration. I say that demonstrates the sort of grossly inefficient and untrustworthy organisation we would be bounden to, and without any significant power to do anything about it.
What do you think we could do to control the power held over us by the commissioners? They are appointed so we cannot vote them out and they therefore don't have to have any consideration for what the people want. What kind of a democratic movement is that? The parliament says what the commissioners want to hear. We have 72 seats out of 736 seats availble. What power does that give to us "at the Heart of Europe"? If you think that is democratic, you are sadly mistaken.
What is the only thing that modern politicians will take any notice of? It is a greater power than theirs, or otherwise they do just what they want for their own convenience. If all 72 of our MEP's wanted the same thing, would they ever succeed? At least with our own parliament we can kick them out if they are failing. What could we do over the water? If we voted out all of our MEP's, what extra power would we have in that parliament with a new set?
We can do nothing about the commissioners, all that is on the old boy network. We would be in the most undemocratic position that this country has seen for as long as we can remember.
Your libertarian ideals are just pie in the sky. In truth we would be under an organisation which has removed all power from the people. If you think that is a good thing, then you have lost sight of the way those in power run things. You should remember that to get a fair deal, the people must have ultimate control of their administration through the vote which was so hard fought for in the past. That is what we have now and we should hang onto it. Our sovereignty is far to precious to give away.
Les
03 December 2010, 03:57 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before, you are scraping the barrel to find any kind of meaningful reply now.
The accusations you throw out are shameful to put it mildly. Not only that, they have no relevance to the so called discussion in hand. Sir Winston was around in the days when politicians were much more honourable people.
You may call it pessimism, but I reckon it is necessary to look at the future should we enter a federated European state. We only have to look at what we see at the moment as far as its performance shows to get a pretty good idea of what that future would hold. You consider all the present failings to be just petty and not worth consideration. I say that demonstrates the sort of grossly inefficient and untrustworthy organisation we would be bounden to, and without any significant power to do anything about it.
What do you think we could do to control the power held over us by the commissioners? They are appointed so we cannot vote them out and they therefore don't have to have any consideration for what the people want. What kind of a democratic movement is that? The parliament says what the commissioners want to hear. We have 72 seats out of 736 seats availble. What power does that give to us "at the Heart of Europe"? If you think that is democratic, you are sadly mistaken.
What is the only thing that modern politicians will take any notice of? It is a greater power than theirs, or otherwise they do just what they want for their own convenience. If all 72 of our MEP's wanted the same thing, would they ever succeed? At least with our own parliament we can kick them out if they are failing. What could we do over the water? If we voted out all of our MEP's, what extra power would we have in that parliament with a new set?
We can do nothing about the commissioners, all that is on the old boy network. We would be in the most undemocratic position that this country has seen for as long as we can remember.
Your libertarian ideals are just pie in the sky. In truth we would be under an organisation which has removed all power from the people. If you think that is a good thing, then you have lost sight of the way those in power run things. You should remember that to get a fair deal, the people must have ultimate control of their administration through the vote which was so hard fought for in the past. That is what we have now and we should hang onto it. Our sovereignty is far to precious to give away.
Les
The accusations you throw out are shameful to put it mildly. Not only that, they have no relevance to the so called discussion in hand. Sir Winston was around in the days when politicians were much more honourable people.
You may call it pessimism, but I reckon it is necessary to look at the future should we enter a federated European state. We only have to look at what we see at the moment as far as its performance shows to get a pretty good idea of what that future would hold. You consider all the present failings to be just petty and not worth consideration. I say that demonstrates the sort of grossly inefficient and untrustworthy organisation we would be bounden to, and without any significant power to do anything about it.
What do you think we could do to control the power held over us by the commissioners? They are appointed so we cannot vote them out and they therefore don't have to have any consideration for what the people want. What kind of a democratic movement is that? The parliament says what the commissioners want to hear. We have 72 seats out of 736 seats availble. What power does that give to us "at the Heart of Europe"? If you think that is democratic, you are sadly mistaken.
What is the only thing that modern politicians will take any notice of? It is a greater power than theirs, or otherwise they do just what they want for their own convenience. If all 72 of our MEP's wanted the same thing, would they ever succeed? At least with our own parliament we can kick them out if they are failing. What could we do over the water? If we voted out all of our MEP's, what extra power would we have in that parliament with a new set?
We can do nothing about the commissioners, all that is on the old boy network. We would be in the most undemocratic position that this country has seen for as long as we can remember.
Your libertarian ideals are just pie in the sky. In truth we would be under an organisation which has removed all power from the people. If you think that is a good thing, then you have lost sight of the way those in power run things. You should remember that to get a fair deal, the people must have ultimate control of their administration through the vote which was so hard fought for in the past. That is what we have now and we should hang onto it. Our sovereignty is far to precious to give away.
Les
The problem for me isn't a European union as such, but THIS version of it. As you point out Les, we have little real control of those making laws that directly affect us and that is a bad thing.
Throw into the mix corruption, e.g. like the fact that the audited accounts are rarely signed off as a true and honest representation and it is not hard to see why so many would rather we were out of it.
All this talk of the threat of other country's economies leaving us all washed up unless we are part of the EU is all well and good as long as we don't get a raw deal from the very organisation that is supposed to be our 'saviour'
03 December 2010, 04:07 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see both sides of the argument here and I think the points you make are very valid Les.
The problem for me isn't a European union as such, but THIS version of it. As you point out Les, we have little real control of those making laws that directly affect us and that is a bad thing.
Throw into the mix corruption, e.g. like the fact that the audited accounts are rarely signed off as a true and honest representation and it is not hard to see why so many would rather we were out of it.
All this talk of the threat of other country's economies leaving us all washed up unless we are part of the EU is all well and good as long as we don't get a raw deal from the very organisation that is supposed to be our 'saviour'
The problem for me isn't a European union as such, but THIS version of it. As you point out Les, we have little real control of those making laws that directly affect us and that is a bad thing.
Throw into the mix corruption, e.g. like the fact that the audited accounts are rarely signed off as a true and honest representation and it is not hard to see why so many would rather we were out of it.
All this talk of the threat of other country's economies leaving us all washed up unless we are part of the EU is all well and good as long as we don't get a raw deal from the very organisation that is supposed to be our 'saviour'
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 03 December 2010 at 04:08 PM.
03 December 2010, 04:29 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 December 2010, 04:47 PM
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
As for an organisation to facilitate withdrawal, what have you been smoking? Government says 'we'll have a referendum on in/out of the EU'. Referendum says 'we want out'. Government says to EU 'Foxtrot Oscar'. End of.
Simples.
Dave
03 December 2010, 05:09 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why an *organisation* to maintain trade links? If a country wants to trade with us they will. No need to belong to any organisations, though the WTO is one that helps ....
As for an organisation to facilitate withdrawal, what have you been smoking? Government says 'we'll have a referendum on in/out of the EU'. Referendum says 'we want out'. Government says to EU 'Foxtrot Oscar'. End of.
Simples.
Dave
As for an organisation to facilitate withdrawal, what have you been smoking? Government says 'we'll have a referendum on in/out of the EU'. Referendum says 'we want out'. Government says to EU 'Foxtrot Oscar'. End of.
Simples.
Dave
An additional question, if I may, what democratic credentials does the WTO hold?