221
Post by: Frazzled
Que? Britain leaving the EU?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282
David Cameron has said the British people must "have their say" on Europe as he pledged an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the election.
The prime minister said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU, before asking people to vote.
The British people would face a "very simple choice", he stated, either to accept the result of the talks or to leave the EU altogether.
France and Germany both warned the UK could not "cherry pick" EU membership.
Labour said Mr Cameron was "weak" and being driven by "party interest", while the PM's coalition partner, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, said "years of uncertainty" caused by a future referendum would hit jobs and growth and "was not in the national interest".
In a long-awaited speech, welcomed by many Conservative MPs, Mr Cameron pledged to hold a referendum during the early part of the next parliament - by the end of 2017 at the latest - if the Conservatives win the next general election.
He said it would be a decision on the UK's "destiny" and, if he secured a new relationship he was happy with, he would campaign "heart and soul" to stay within the EU.
"It is time for the British people to have their say," he said. "It is time to settle this European question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be your decision."
However, Mr Cameron did not spell out what powers he would like to see the UK take back as part of a new settlement or what would happen if the negotiations did not go his way.
'Very simple choice'
The Conservative leader has been under pressure from many of his MPs to give a binding commitment to a vote on Europe.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Iain Watson
Political correspondent, BBC News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has taken quite some time for the prime minister to go from promising a major speech on Europe to delivering it.
But today marks the beginning of a process, not the end.
The many Eurosceptics in his party will be pleased that he is offering an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU - although some will regard the timescale as tardy.
But there are important hurdles. He has to win the next election with an overall majority. His European partners will have to be willing to renegotiate Britain's relationship.
And while the promise of a referendum will unite many in his party this side of an election, the process of renegotiation might re-open divisions. What the PM didn't say today is what would he do if the negotiations deliver less than he would like.
Would he still proceed with an in/out referendum? Would he still argue for a yes vote? Would others in his party who would be prepared to stay on the EU on the right terms defect to the No camp if they don't like the deal the PM strikes with Brussels?
Labour and the Lib Dems say David Cameron is creating damaging uncertainty for business, but he has thrown down the gauntlet to them.
Can they allow him to be the only major party leader to offer voters a say on EU membership after the next election?
Annotated transcript: Cameron speech
Mr Cameron said "disillusionment" with the EU was "at an all time high" and "simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice" was likely to accelerate calls for the UK to leave.
"That is why I am in favour of a referendum," he said. "I believe in confronting this issue - shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away."
Setting out the conditions for a future poll, he said he would seek a "mandate" for a renegotiation and a referendum in the next Conservative election manifesto.
"And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in/out referendum."
But he said holding such a referendum now would be a "false choice" because Europe was set to change following the eurozone crisis and it would be "wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right".
Mr Cameron said he "understood the appeal" of Britain going it alone and he was sure the UK would survive outside the EU. But, he said, the UK must think "very carefully" about the implications of withdrawal for its prosperity and role on the international stage.
"If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return," he added.
The prime minister rejected suggestions that a new relationship was "impossible to achieve", adding that he would prefer all other EU countries to agree a new treaty but would be prepared to seek negotiations on a unilateral basis.
However French foreign minister Laurent Fabius warned "you can't do Europe a la carte... to take an example which our British friends will understand - imagine Europe is a football club and you join, once you're in it you can't say 'let's play rugby'".
Advertisement
Nigel Farage: 'The attempt to kick the can down the road for five years is not good enough'
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle said Germany wanted the UK to "remain an active and constructive part of the European Union... but cherry picking is not an option" before adding that Europe needed more, not less, integration.
Conservative MPs who want a looser relationship with the EU said it was a "watershed" moment.
Douglas Carswell told the BBC it was the speech he had "been waiting to hear from a Conservative prime minister all his adult life" while Mark Pritchard said it was "a major triumph" and would unite his party.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson said the British people had not been consulted on Europe since 1975, and it is "high time" they were.
But the former European commissioner and Labour cabinet minister Lord Mandelson told the BBC that Mr Cameron was putting forward a "completely bogus and rather phoney set of demands and circumstances" designed to appease critics in his party.
Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander added: "We understand the need for change but I don't honestly believe the best way to get change in a club of 27 is to stand at the exit door demanding change or threatening to leave."
'Threatening to leave'
The Lib Dems say pursuing a wholesale renegotiation of the UK's membership will cause uncertainty.
"Efforts to reconcile his own position with that of his eurosceptic backbenchers leads logically to the position that if he could not get what he wanted out of Europe, he would be willing for the UK to leave," said its former leader Sir Menzies Campbell.
"This will hardly commend his approach to those in the EU whose co-operation he requires."
The UK Independence Party said the "genie was out of the bottle" about a possible exit from the EU.
Advertisement
Nick Clegg: "In my view it's not in the national interest"
"Winning this referendum, if and when it comes, is not going to be an easy thing but I feel that Ukip's real job starts today," the party's leader Nigel Farage said.
John Cridland, director general of employers group, the CBI, said "closer union of the eurozone is not for us" but Mr Cameron "rightly recognises the benefits of retaining membership of what must be a reformed EU".
The BBC's Steve Evans in Berlin said opinion was hardening in Germany and France, with many politicians believing that those opposed to further European integration would be better off "leaving gracefully".
The speech, which has been in the planning for six months, had been scheduled for last Friday in the Netherlands, but was postponed because of the Algerian hostage crisis.
Tweets from BBC reporters
What are tweets?
David Cameron gets a very welcoming response from his own benches as he enters the chamber for PMQs
@iainjwatson
3 mins agoCameron's referendum pledge: the great political gamble http://t.co/9ZJvI8Qc
@bbcnickrobinson
16 mins ago
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah, on the whole the British are pretty intensely Euroskeptic. Lots of unreasoning anger at the EU there, stoked up by their venonmous yellow press for some reason or another.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Hay, not all. Probably not even most, just a large vocal minoraty who make up reasons to hate the EU by imagining laws that never existed and complaining that the French and Germans ignore EU law becasue a friend of a friend told them they once saw something.
Personaly I think that whilst the EU has some failings on the whole it is a good thing and we have a net gain from it.
Most of the complaining apparently is comeing from small businesses who blaim the EU for overburdening them with red tape because of things like employment law and heath and safty, nither of which are actualy much to do with the EU.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
I think the problem is that the spirit of imperialism is still alive and well in british society, we still see ourselves as an 'empire' even though that era has long since passed, and the idea of an unelected commitee imposing often arbitrary rules on us as a country sparks that patriotic attitude in us. Combine that with the current more-or-less unregulated immigration (which even the left-wingers in UK government admit is an issue at the moment) that occurs as a result of free movement of labour within the EU and you've got a dogma for anti-EU.
Plus, the EU isn't exactly known for making sound decisions. As an example, I work for a company developing software for Life insurance and Pensions, the EU recently passed legislation that makes it illegal to alter insurance premiums based on gender. Now then, with respect to life insurance, women get a slightly worse deal because they are statistically likely to live longer than men (so need cover for longer), but in car insurance they get a slightly better deal because they are statistically less likely to claim on car insurance (because of the whole 'boy racer' thing.
The net result is that both genders are now worse of in both car and life insurance, as the companies absorb the costs of the changed premium calculations by passing them straight onto the consumer, and they can no longer offset the extra cost of males against the savings on females.
Also, at a time when 50% of all food eaten in the western world goes to waste, we have EU legislation that prevents farmers from selling fruit and veg that are not a certain size or shape (an example springs to mind of a farmer who had to landfill a good few tonnes of perfectly good kiwi fruit because they were XXmm in diameter less than is allowed by the legislation).
Me, I think we need to go all or nothing, either dissolve the current european nations and create a super-state, or don't bother with the EU at all...
24190
Post by: rodgers37
So we going to leave Europe and become an American state? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
No Greater Texas. Remember boys: vote Cthulu. Why pick the lesser evil?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Britain has also been warned by the White House and a host of business leaders it would lose global influence if it left the EU.
Doesn't seem likely? 
Also I find myself oddly agreeing with the French:
France went so far as to call Britain's bluff and say it was free to leave. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he had told a recent meeting with British businessmen: "If Britain wants to leave Europe we will roll out the red carpet for you."
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Same old story, a Tory leader trying please both sides in his party. How strange it is that he wants the referendum after the next election. If he gets in he's free to do what he wants, and if not, then he can ignore it. I would imagine he's hoping that he can grab some anti euro voters, then betray them once in power by "tweaking" the actual trigger or content of the referendum.
It's about time somebody actually printed out the facts in B&W so we can make an informed decision about it. I personally feel that the biggest moaners are the businesses that see the EU stopping them taking advantage of their workers.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Sounds eerily similar to how Americans talk about the UN
Guess we're not so different after all.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
The reason for this is really quite simple. The tories are haemorrhaging voters to UKIP and a lot of Tory MPs are becoming rebellious. This move cuts off UKIP support at the knees and throws a bone to the hard right of the Tory party.
I think that its a moot point though as I doubt that the Tories will be in power after then next election. I also doubt that the EU will allow the Uk to renegotiate so that leaves withdrawing from the EU entirely and most of the UK population isn't stupid enough to let that happen.
I do find it illuminating that one of the biggest complaints with the EU is with the working time directive (how dare those fat cats in Brussels prevent our BRITISH workers from working more than 48 hours a week and giving them at least 20 days leave a year!1!).
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
And the joke is that David Cameron doesn't even want to leave the thing...
Personally I'm against this, its just conservatives saying "rabble, rabble, rabble". When the rest of the EU's looking at you like a spoiled child who just want their way I'd say its time to grow up. By this I mean that the line that the EU's putting out is, "we're all making sacrifices, what reason do you have to make less than the rest of us?". The Tory backbenchers have someone above them telling them what to do, thus they're unhappy. =P
Anyhow, what's the point in leaving? The next government will just appeal to rejoin when the Tories are out. All the current government is doing is giving the next one more paperwork to do (oh and fudging up the country as much as they can until they can worm their way into power again).
53595
Post by: Palindrome
If the Uk rejoisn they would have to adopt the Euro, I can't see that happening unless the economy is completely wrecked.
34390
Post by: whembly
Palindrome wrote:If the Uk rejoisn they would have to adopt the Euro, I can't see that happening unless the economy is completely wrecked.
I thought that the impetus to leave the EU was to protect your currency??!?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
The isolationist nature of the English is what provides the real impetus to leave the EU 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Nah, the Sterling isn't connected to the Euro except in the general way that if the Eurozone collapses, it'll likely drag down the British banking system too, since so much money is owed to britain from Euro-using countries.
Glad to see sensible posts here.
I think if the UK leaves it will end up with far less political sway and will be on the poorer end of any agreements with it's neighbours, having given up it's ability to influence the decision making process due to irrationality. I hope Britain stays in, and that it's hysterical press are reigned in or go out of business.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Da Boss wrote:Nah, the Sterling isn't connected to the Euro except in the general way that if the Eurozone collapses, it'll likely drag down the British banking system too, since so much money is owed to britain from Euro-using countries.
I think that comment was in reference to the fact that there'd no longer be a special exception for the UK, because I don't see the EU playing nice with the UK if they come crawling back after breaking out.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Leave now, not after the next election David.
Quangos and the stupid human rights act have been the bane of this country for too long.
The human rights act only seems to apply to crooks and terrorists. So what about their victims, are they not human to, and require their rights and welfare to be taken into account as well?
The e.u says the crooks and the terrorists rights must come first, and our rights take a back seat to that (just look at all the treatment they get in prison while their victim/s are left with what?) And thats why it's a no on the e.u. for me.
5470
Post by: sebster
Palindrome wrote:The reason for this is really quite simple. The tories are haemorrhaging voters to UKIP and a lot of Tory MPs are becoming rebellious. This move cuts off UKIP support at the knees and throws a bone to the hard right of the Tory party.
Yeah, this is just about positioning the party for the next election so they minimise the loss of votes to the UKIP.
Leaving the vote until after the next election is pretty transparent politics. "Vote us into office and you'll get your referendum, but vote for the UKIP and risk Labour winning and missing out on the referendum."
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Da Boss wrote:Yeah, on the whole the British are pretty intensely Euroskeptic. Lots of unreasoning anger at the EU there, stoked up by their venonmous yellow press for some reason or another.
Most people actually don't care. People want a referendum on anything that you ask them.
This is about one thing only - the tory party. They just hate Europe and I don't get why.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
The European Union, in my view, is great. It's benefited my country, Ireland, it's promoted Europe instead of the tiny individual countries and it's protecting European jobs.
What's wrong with it? Sure, some of the economic policies are a bit weird, but overall it's good.
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
 BryllCream wrote:Da Boss wrote:Yeah, on the whole the British are pretty intensely Euroskeptic. Lots of unreasoning anger at the EU there, stoked up by their venonmous yellow press for some reason or another.
Most people actually don't care. People want a referendum on anything that you ask them.
This is about one thing only - the tory party. They just hate Europe and I don't get why.
It's not that strange. The EU's attempts at financial regulation don't sit well with the City bankers. Cameron's efforts to protect the British financial sector from outside meddling have put him at odds with the entire Union.
However, I also suspect Cameron, like many other leaders of center-right parties all over Europe, is trying to scratch some votes from populist and far-right parties by assimilating some of their proposals.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 Agent_Tremolo wrote: BryllCream wrote:Da Boss wrote:Yeah, on the whole the British are pretty intensely Euroskeptic. Lots of unreasoning anger at the EU there, stoked up by their venonmous yellow press for some reason or another.
Most people actually don't care. People want a referendum on anything that you ask them.
This is about one thing only - the tory party. They just hate Europe and I don't get why.
It's not that strange. The EU's attempts at financial regulation don't sit well with the City bankers. Cameron's efforts to protect the British financial sector from outside meddling have put him at odds with the entire Union.
However, I also suspect Cameron, like many other leaders of center-right parties all over Europe, is trying to scratch some votes from populist and far-right parties by assimilating some of their proposals.
The City needs to be regulated. The fact that Europe has to do it is a damning inditement of our own political class's willingness to regulate financial services. Not that it matters since the City Of London *is* financial services in Europe, so they'll get what they want from the EU anyway.
The Conservative Party has a history of irrational, almost fanatical anti-European ferver. The fact that UKIP exist as a party outside of that is testament to the anti-European feeling amongst our political class.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Total shambles. 5 years for a vote? What a mess.
I'm quite annoyed that the Americans are sticking their nose into this. Quite frankly, it's none of Washington's business. If any American poster objects to that, then get a rowing boat, and I'll meet you halfway in the Atlantic!
Anyway, I see nothing wrong with letting the British public decide its constitutional future. Why are Labour and the Lib dems against people voting?
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Probably because the whole thing is a thinly veiled effort by the Tories to drum up votes with the right wing to keep them in another term. ...And that naturally following on from that its just a tad childish. =)
Sure we could do with some reform in the EU, but you shouldn't go about it being demanding more rights than everyone else, then going off in a huff if you don't get them...
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Reform? The EU is a corrupt, bloated mess of an institution.
If Miliband cannot defeat one of the worst Prime Minister's in British history, then that says more about him than Cameron.
5394
Post by: reds8n
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If Miliband cannot defeat one of the worst Prime Minister's in British history, then that says more about him than Cameron.
16.1.13, but..
" 75% of Tories are satisfied with Cameron but just 53% of Labour supporters are happy with their leader "
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Ed Miliband was the wrong choice for the Labour leadership, certainly initially, but he has definately been getting better. If he keeps improving the way that he has been then he should be in a good position by the next election.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
 Themanwiththeplan wrote:Leave now, not after the next election David.
Quangos and the stupid human rights act have been the bane of this country for too long.
The human rights act only seems to apply to crooks and terrorists. So what about their victims, are they not human to, and require their rights and welfare to be taken into account as well?
The e.u says the crooks and the terrorists rights must come first, and our rights take a back seat to that (just look at all the treatment they get in prison while their victim/s are left with what?) And thats why it's a no on the e.u. for me.
The EU isn't the organisation for the European Court you are referencing. It's the council of europe. If you voted yourself out of the EU, you'd still be part of the council of Europe (which contains many countries not in the EU) and would still agree to be subject to it's rulings.
If you're going to have a strong opinion about something, it's worth making sure the facts are straight first, yeah?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Da Boss wrote:
If you're going to have a strong opinion about something, it's worth making sure the facts are straight first, yeah?
An excellent example of one of the prime reasons for the popular dislike of the EU, sheer ignorance.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Palindrome wrote:Ed Miliband was the wrong choice for the Labour leadership, certainly initially, but he has definately been getting better. If he keeps improving the way that he has been then he should be in a good position by the next election.
Are you a relation?
Doom mongers warned that Britain would be, er, doomed, if we didn't join the Euro. No doubt they'll say the same if we leave the EU.
We could be faced with the possibility of an independant Scotland joining the EU and England exiting. Interesting times ahead.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Nope, I'm not even a Labour voter. Well I will be in the next election so that I do my bit to keep the tories as far from No 10 as possible. I was a Lib Dem supporter but that didn't turn out too well did it 
Miliband's perfomance on PMQs has been a lot better than they were, if nothing else he is a lot more confident now.
I have no real interest in doom mongers but an isolated Britain will be a lot weaker both financially and diplomatically than one within the EU.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Reform? The EU is a corrupt, bloated mess of an institution.
If Miliband cannot defeat one of the worst Prime Minister's in British history, then that says more about him than Cameron.
What Gordon Brown? I'm no huge Tory fan (More libral, but not Lib dem as such. I don't belive in party politics) but "the worst Prime Minister's in British history"... Thats just silly anti Tory nonsense. Nothing will ever change in UK politics until people stop seeing in terms of red, yellow and blue and start looking at facts.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
He was a very dour Scotsman, and couldn't smile without looking kinda creepy
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Which makes him a bad prime minster because....?
Plus the guy was blind in one eye....
11029
Post by: Ketara
Palindrome wrote:I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.
It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
It might also have something to do with the fact that for large parts of the past 900+ years or so large parts of europe were trying to conquer/defeat Britain. That could raise your hackles right there.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 Ketara wrote: It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking.
Its not as if the worlds economy tanked at the same time, he was also largely right in his approach to the aftermath of the Lehman brothers collapse http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk
OK he was unelected but if he had called a snap election after he came to power it is highly likely that he would have won. It seems to me that he has become a scapegoat due to lazy journalism and short sighted politicans (as if there is another kind).
I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a good prime minster (certainly not 'Dave') but it doesn't seem fair to claim that Gordon Brown was noticably bad.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 Ratbarf wrote:It might also have something to do with the fact that for large parts of the past 900+ years or so large parts of europe were trying to conquer/defeat Britain. That could raise your hackles right there.
Lets be fair, Europe has spent the best part of the last 3000 years infighting in one way or another. Basicly the moment someone said "This is my land" someone else said "No, I want it" and we were fighting each other in basicly one ongoing fight right up until 1945.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Palindrome wrote:I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.
Because the media needed a scapegoat for the financial crisis, and the Tories were using it as one of the reasons to elect Cameron. I recall that the Tories were using the fact that Britain had had two Scottish Prime Ministers in a row, and had stuck the country in a bad position as a result, it was time to stick an English one in to make everything better.
Who actually voted in the Tories anyway?
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Da Boss wrote: Themanwiththeplan wrote:Leave now, not after the next election David.
Quangos and the stupid human rights act have been the bane of this country for too long.
The human rights act only seems to apply to crooks and terrorists. So what about their victims, are they not human to, and require their rights and welfare to be taken into account as well?
The e.u says the crooks and the terrorists rights must come first, and our rights take a back seat to that (just look at all the treatment they get in prison while their victim/s are left with what?) And thats why it's a no on the e.u. for me.
The EU isn't the organisation for the European Court you are referencing. It's the council of europe. If you voted yourself out of the EU, you'd still be part of the council of Europe (which contains many countries not in the EU) and would still agree to be subject to it's rulings.
If you're going to have a strong opinion about something, it's worth making sure the facts are straight first, yeah?
You also fail to mention the many British people that this Act has helped over the years after their own legal system failed them. If you were innocent of something wouldn't you want the benefit of a fail safe that could save you? What you are forgeting is that the whole "innocent until guilty" is there for a purpose, it's there to stop the innocent getting stitched up. Yes it's a right pain in the arse when a terrorist gets let off, but a completely different story if you've been banged up for rape or murder and are innocent of this crime.
PS, slighty off topic, but still about the Tories...
Anybody see that the IMF have said perhaps our belt tightening might be going too far? Will be interesting to hear how they spin this as they usually have the IMF on their side. I'm sure that it will start with "people are missing understanding what the IMF are saying, they are still 100% behind us..."
Like our American cousins like to say about guns, "it's not the gun that kills, but the person holding it", the same applies to The Human Rights Act. If the police screw up with their evidence it's not the Act's fault that the terrorist gets off.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ketara wrote:Palindrome wrote:I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.
It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.
Thankyou for posting this, Ketara. It means I don't have to.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Da Boss - The E.U court is still part of the corrupt E.U Council as it passes it's laws so is part of the problem.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
The European Council is entirely seperate from the EU. It was also founded by Winston Churchill.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:The European Council is entirely seperate from the EU. It was also founded by Winston Churchill.
Still part of the problem.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Themanwiththeplan wrote:Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts.
I don't think its me that needs to do some research...
The Council of Europe is here to say, even Russia is a member.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Palindrome wrote: Themanwiththeplan wrote:Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts.
I don't think its me that needs to do some research...
The Council of Europe is here to say, even Russia is a member.
Sorry, just felt that that was appropriate (beats the rolling dog).
Now find me a picture of David Cameron riding shirtless on a horse dammit. 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The whole thing is a load of rubbish.
There are any number of more important problems than the EU. The economy, the war on terror, the environment, the housing crisis, the energy crisis, immigration, education, etc.
Cameron's proposal is that in 3 years if he wins the election he will think about a referendum on proposals regarding something he hasn't even begun to formulate.
Utter. Nonsense.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
 Kilkrazy wrote:The whole thing is a load of rubbish.
There are any number of more important problems than the EU. The economy, the war on terror, the environment, the housing crisis, the energy crisis, immigration, education, etc.
Cameron's proposal is that in 3 years if he wins the election he will think about a referendum on proposals regarding something he hasn't even begun to formulate.
Utter. Nonsense.
Agreed, people care more about their sports team than their country. He will back out of the pledge or not give the BRITISH people a yes or no referendum and confuse the issue.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Themanwiththeplan wrote:Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.
The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
My main concern about voting on the EU is that most people don't seem to know what it does and are being led by the irrational tabloid media who have managed to give things like 'human rights' a bad name, where as in fact, other than a minority of unfortunate cases, we are all a lot better off for having our human rights enforced and the trade that the EU brings. I see a lot of people moaning about the supposed evils of human rights, moaning about immigration, and then repeating a lot of those silly stories like the one about the EU forcing us to eat straight bananas. It's all incredibly short sighted, the EU protect a lot of rights in this country such as those covering working conditions, your hours and holidays, and leaving the EU wouldn't address things like that silly old human rights act either. The Tories are very keen to screw over workers and giving more power to employers, they're already eroding rights to access to unfair dismissal tribunals and extending the period for which you can be sacked without reason after starting a new job. Cameron is a weak man, his more conservative back benchers are getting out of his control and he's losing voters to further right wing parties like UKIP, so now he's trying to pander to those right wing ideals to shore up his own position as PM, at the expense of the well being of the country and the majority of the people. When the Tories get more powers to remove workers rights, beware.
34390
Post by: whembly
Palindrome wrote: Themanwiththeplan wrote:Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.
The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.
I thought the english did have the bill of rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
EDIT: If you notice... our founders stole some of that... they were the ORIGINAL Napster! 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Themanwiththeplan: I'm not impressed by someone who can't even get the name of the court they are bashing right, sorry.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
That predates the United Kindom . I do know that the Tories tried to push through a real UK bill of rights recently but they didn't get very far.
I don't know the specifics, I am not a lawyer, but I find it incomprehensable that the subject matter experts failed to see such a massive loophole in the European convention on human rights for over 60 years yet some guy on a forum knows about it; especially someone who calls the Council of Europe the European Union Council.........
15594
Post by: Albatross
Palindrome wrote: Themanwiththeplan wrote:Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.
The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.
The Bill of Rights is a component part of the British Constitution, along with the Act of Union etc.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Because they do know about it and that's why they keep telling people that the bill of rights is not real (it applies to all provences aka canada, northern ireland and their like, please read it).
I may not spell properly ( lol) or get the names right all the time, but your still got schooled
And yes that means we have to arrest every P.M since edward heath (proberly getting names wrong again) or who ever it was who first signed us up to europe for treason.
P.S Thanks Whembly 
5470
Post by: sebster
Ketara wrote:It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.
He was elected to the prime ministership by the members of his party. The same way every Prime Minister you've ever had has been elected.
The way people in countries with the Westminster system keep talking about popularly electing their Prime Ministers is very odd.
15594
Post by: Albatross
 sebster wrote: Ketara wrote:It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.
He was elected to the prime ministership by the members of his party. The same way every Prime Minister you've ever had has been elected.
Actually, I'm not sure he was elected by the party membership. It was more of an arrangement between cabals.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: Ketara wrote:It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.
He was elected to the prime ministership by the members of his party. The same way every Prime Minister you've ever had has been elected.
The way people in countries with the Westminster system keep talking about popularly electing their Prime Ministers is very odd.
Yeah... I was confused on that statement...
I honestly don't see how the EU can survive in it's current iteration.... we'll see, right?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 Albatross wrote:
The Bill of Rights is a component part of the British Constitution, along with the Act of Union etc.
Yes it is but it isn't a UK bill of rights becuase if it is why are the Tories trying to create a new UK bill of rights? Automatically Appended Next Post: Themanwiththeplan wrote:
And yes that means we have to arrest every P.M since edward heath (proberly getting names wrong again) or who ever it was who first signed us up to europe for treason.
Which has never happened, despite it being sufficently common knowledge for some random guy on a forum to know about it. Surely would have been mentioned by the defence (if that is the right word) in the European court of human rights before know?
Schooled? Yes I have been educated, just not by you. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure he was elected by the party membership. It was more of an arrangement between cabals.
Isn't that always what happens?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Eh... I feel like the British wouldn't be losing anything of value by stepping out of the EU. So good on Cameron for going after it, and luck to the subjects of the Crown in making their decision to ditch. or not.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I don't like or trust either the present (or past) government OR the EU.
The EU does not help itself by:
Having two incredably expensive buildings to house its Parliment and screaming everytime anyone suggests that the spending on this or the related organisations is reduced.
Allowing powerful member states (Mainly France) to flout laws and regulations.
When referendums are actually held on membership - they will only accept one result and will keep having the referendum again and again until the "right" result is achieved.
The Expenses system for Euro MPs was (and may still be) even more corrupt than the one for our MPs - and sadly thats saying something.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Why the five years, though? As I said earlier, it's a complete shambles. Why not this year, or next year? By the time any vote comes round, the entire world will have been conquered by North Korea or the UN, or zombies
On a more serious note. Let's be fair, if David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick 'turncoat' Clegg, Ed Miliband, Boris Johnson et al, are the best this country can produce, it's no wonder we're in trouble.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 Mr Morden wrote:I don't like or trust either the present (or past) government OR the EU.
The EU does not help itself by:
Having two incredably expensive buildings to house its Parliment and screaming everytime anyone suggests that the spending on this or the related organisations is reduced.
Allowing powerful member states (Mainly France) to flout laws and regulations.
When referendums are actually held on membership - they will only accept one result and will keep having the referendum again and again until the "right" result is achieved.
The Expenses system for Euro MPs was (and may still be) even more corrupt than the one for our MPs - and sadly thats saying something.
I was typing an elaborate reply with all the points in which your opinions are just blatant misinformation based on tabloid headlines rather than facts, but I just can't be troubled with it.
If the British people wan't out of the EU, then feel free to leave. In the past 10+ years you've been little more than the "voice" of the US in the European Council and a blockade force for the entire federal Europe project. And the EU needs to move towards a true federation of states if it plans to stay relevant in the future geopolitical landscape.
Put out or get out, I that is how the saying goes.
55408
Post by: Graphite
Scottish referendum on independance:
"YOU WILL BE THROWN OUT OF THE EU AND DIE IN A FIRE AND ALEX SALMOND WILL EAT ALL YOUR PIES AND EVERYTHING WILL BE DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!! UNCERTAINTY!!!!!!!ONE!!!1!!!"
"Wait, what? If you stay with the UK you might leave Europe anyway? Errrrrrrrrrrr..... let me think...."
The gibberish from the politicians up here (on both sides, since nobody appears to have a really definitive answer to anything) is reaching truly intense levels. It's awesome.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Which of these is incorrect?
European Parliment wastes money by having and running two hugely expensive buildings rather than one in order to pander to specific nation states?
The European MPs did not have a properly audited expense system like the majority of working people and not have to submit reciepts or other form of proof of costs etc?
Several referendums that said no to EU membership had to be repeated until the people of the relevant country capulated to the dictates of europhile political class and gave the correct answer - therefore making the whole thing moot and worthless.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
PhantomViper wrote: Mr Morden wrote:I don't like or trust either the present (or past) government OR the EU.
The EU does not help itself by:
Having two incredably expensive buildings to house its Parliment and screaming everytime anyone suggests that the spending on this or the related organisations is reduced.
Allowing powerful member states (Mainly France) to flout laws and regulations.
When referendums are actually held on membership - they will only accept one result and will keep having the referendum again and again until the "right" result is achieved.
The Expenses system for Euro MPs was (and may still be) even more corrupt than the one for our MPs - and sadly thats saying something.
I was typing an elaborate reply with all the points in which your opinions are just blatant misinformation based on tabloid headlines rather than facts, but I just can't be troubled with it.
If the British people wan't out of the EU, then feel free to leave. In the past 10+ years you've been little more than the "voice" of the US in the European Council and a blockade force for the entire federal Europe project. And the EU needs to move towards a true federation of states if it plans to stay relevant in the future geopolitical landscape.
Put out or get out, I that is how the saying goes.
Wouldn't the whole "Get a new government that isn't yours to rule you be a NEGATIVE thing? I can't see it as being positive myself. Not that the EU's on the best footing as is.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Mr Morden wrote:Which of these is incorrect?
European Parliment wastes money by having and running two hugely expensive buildings rather than one in order to pander to specific nation states?
The European MPs did not have a properly audited expense system like the majority of working people and not have to submit reciepts or other form of proof of costs etc?
Several referendums that said no to EU membership had to be repeated until the people of the relevant country capulated to the dictates of europhile political class and gave the correct answer - therefore making the whole thing moot and worthless.
Basically all of them.
European parliament costs aren't that much higher than the costs of the parliaments of the bigger members, especially if you consider that they have to cater to the bureaucracies and linguistic needs of the 20+ member nations.
European MP's at least over here, still have to present receipts if they want to be paid for stuff like travel expenses and the like. I know this because a scandal broke out a few years ago where an European MP was presenting family travel expenses as his own. No idea if it is different in the UK, but if it is, then that is hardly the EU fault.
Besides, at least here European MP's are elected by direct vote, if you think that they are corrupt, then treat them like you would any other corrupt politician.
Membership referendums are the responsibility of each sovereign state! The EU as absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a common tactic to keep making them until you get the result that you wan't (we used it regarding the liberalization of abortion, for example), again, blame your local government for it not the EU. Automatically Appended Next Post:  KalashnikovMarine wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Mr Morden wrote:I don't like or trust either the present (or past) government OR the EU.
The EU does not help itself by:
Having two incredably expensive buildings to house its Parliment and screaming everytime anyone suggests that the spending on this or the related organisations is reduced.
Allowing powerful member states (Mainly France) to flout laws and regulations.
When referendums are actually held on membership - they will only accept one result and will keep having the referendum again and again until the "right" result is achieved.
The Expenses system for Euro MPs was (and may still be) even more corrupt than the one for our MPs - and sadly thats saying something.
I was typing an elaborate reply with all the points in which your opinions are just blatant misinformation based on tabloid headlines rather than facts, but I just can't be troubled with it.
If the British people wan't out of the EU, then feel free to leave. In the past 10+ years you've been little more than the "voice" of the US in the European Council and a blockade force for the entire federal Europe project. And the EU needs to move towards a true federation of states if it plans to stay relevant in the future geopolitical landscape.
Put out or get out, I that is how the saying goes.
Wouldn't the whole "Get a new government that isn't yours to rule you be a NEGATIVE thing? I can't see it as being positive myself. Not that the EU's on the best footing as is.
Why isn't it "ours"? Is the government of the US your government? If "yes", then why is it your government? If "no", then why haven't Americans rebelled against this rule from a foreign power?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Mr Morden wrote:Which of these is incorrect?
European Parliment wastes money by having and running two hugely expensive buildings rather than one in order to pander to specific nation states?
This isn't true.
They have 3 hugely expensive buildings, you forgot the one in Luxembourg.
The thoroughly pointless sessions in Strasbourg -- according to the MEPS who want it stopped -- costs us €180 million every year.
http://www.singleseat.eu/resources/Single+Seat+ECJ+PRESSER.PDF
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 reds8n wrote: Mr Morden wrote:Which of these is incorrect?
European Parliment wastes money by having and running two hugely expensive buildings rather than one in order to pander to specific nation states?
This isn't true.
They have 3 hugely expensive buildings, you forgot the one in Luxembourg.
The thoroughly pointless sessions in Strasbourg -- according to the MEPS who want it stopped -- costs us €180 million every year.
http://www.singleseat.eu/resources/Single+Seat+ECJ+PRESSER.PDF
Your house of Commons costs €244 million a year to the British taxpayers (and I believe that this doesn't take into account the MPs salaries and pensions?)...
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-resources/administration-annual-accounts-486.pdf
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-resources/Members-annual-accounts-487.pdf
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Your missing the point - the EU has several building for no other reason that to keep the French happy - several parliment buildings when they only need one - how is this not a waste of all of our money?
what is the jusitifcation for this other than giving France the rents - which were also previously looked at as being hugely dodgy and inflated.
Even many Euro MPs say how wasteful it is - but the French President has gone on record as stating that this will never change as long as they have a veto - sound familiar.
cos the EU is not run for their benefit at all..........
re expenses - the "normal" measures - eg providing some form of proof as Inderstand it only came in in 2005 - before that it was just a free for all and submit what you like.
latest news on this show how far they till have to go?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europe-braced-for-meps-expenses-storm-2300806.html
5394
Post by: reds8n
Mr Morden wrote:Your missing the point - the EU has several building for no other reason that to keep the French happy - several parliment buildings when they only need one - how is this not a waste of all of our money?
Exactly.
I appreciate there will be (large) costs for an organisation like this, but the Strasbourg jaunt doesn't help at all and is viewed as a PITA by a fair few MEPs.
No other nation or Govt. does this. Congress doesn't uproot to Portland every now and again, the HoP don't all sit in Birmingham for a change, etc etc
11029
Post by: Ketara
I''ll extrapolate on my previous comments in order to counter some of the anti-tory, pro-eu rhetoric that seems to have filled this thread.I feel I should state that I have no particular political allegiance to any party.
New Labour was a complete disaster for this country. Why? Because when they got into power, they inherited a country where the books were balanced, income was greater than outgoings, and the country was already positioned for economic growth from the years of tory pain in the eighties. However in their term in power, they successfully ratcheted up public spending to vastly unsustainable levels, worked up a massive deficit, and did their bit to help plunge this country into economic chaos.
Gordon Brown was at the forefront of that. He sold the gold reserves, raided the pension funds, and generally aided New Labour in deceiving the public as to thinking the country was doing great, when in reality they were simply borrowing vast sums of money we couldn't repay. All in order to basically buy votes, because hey, who votes for the fellows who advocate giving you less public services and money? It should be noted Brown's proposed solution to the current crisis was to borrow loads more money, because he thought the whole affair would blow over within 12 months. Narrow miss there, eh wot?
There's a line trotted out every so often about how the public should vote a party into power, not a person, so there should be no complaining over Gordon Brown's ascent to PM. This argument is largely negated by the fact that ever since Blair turned the role of PM into more of that of a President, and completely eroded cabinet responsibility, who sits in that primary seat of power is now a very relevant question. When Brown came in, he essentially WAS the Labour party, with all the ministers being yes men, and him more or less solely dictating the party's stance on a whole ranger of issues. However, as he was NOT voted into power, all of his policy changes from the previous administration represent to an extent, a change in government in actuality, if without a change in official name. Hence the upset.
As to the EU, a line constantly bandied about is that voters are ignorant as to how great the EU is, and if only they were properly educated, they'd be its most staunch advocates, and we'd all happily skip towards a bright future together. Unfortunately,the british public is a bunch of weak-willed fools being deceived by a negative press, their own lack of knowledge, and manipulative business leaders.
Whilst not entirely inaccurate in some respects, such a reading is intellectually dishonest, and generally used as a way of simply ignoring valid counter-arguments.
One of the primary founding goals of the EU was to prevent another continental war (most likely with Germany again), and unite the continent against the Soviets. However, the last issue is currently more or less a moot point, and the former highly unlikely. I keep the European Common Market, and the European Court separate from the EU, as they are separate agreements and institutions, although there is a certain amount of crossover.
The EU is a highly undemocratic institution being pushed towards a US equivalent superstate by a large numbers of highly involved and well paid politicians. It is fundamentally unaccountable to the individual electorate of any given nation, and there currently does not really exist the political apparatus or union for it to be properly controlled and monitored. The European Parliament is a complete joke. The reason the US works is because certain political framework and rights were laid out more or less from the inception and refined over time, and because there exists a level of cohesion and shared culture across the continent. This does not exist in Europe. And is unlikely to.
I believe that is remains entirely possible to maintain a common market, freedom of travel between states, and a certain level judicial co-operation, without surrendering fiscal responsibility and total sovereignty to a group of more or less unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. I do not see the need for greater unification beyond what we already have, and I believe that the potential exists for some of the more needless red tape and power ceded to be repatriated without any great problems.
If certain countries wish to continue their drive to unify, they are more than welcome to do so. I do not however, see the need for us to join them. There are two solutions to the Europe crisis. The first is to make the pseudo EU-state into a real state. The second is to remove any pretensions as to the EU being a superpower, and return it as a mere supplementary economic and judicial aid. I personally would go for the former.
There currently exists a large amount of 'in or out' rhetoric by both sides. I would motion that we put aside such childish extremities, and negotiate a beneficial agreement that satisfies both of the parties involved, namely the two tier system. Let those who wish to be ruled by an undemocratic super state merge to become one, and allow the rest of us to roll the clock back by twenty years to the previous arrangements and understandings.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Mr Morden wrote:Your missing the point - the EU has several building for no other reason that to keep the French happy - several parliment buildings when they only need one - how is this not a waste of all of our money?
what is the jusitifcation for this other than giving France the rents - which were also previously looked at as being hugely dodgy and inflated.
Why do they only need one?
Don't you think that if all the European entities would to be "housed" in any single one of the existing buildings, then that complex would have to be expanded with all the added costs associated with it?
Not to mention the huge potential leverage that that single country would gain inside the EU?
Mr Morden wrote:
Even many Euro MPs say how wasteful it is - but the French President has gone on record as stating that this will never change as long as they have a veto - sound familiar.
Sure, sounds like the attitude that the British have been having for the past 10+ years...
France is IINM, the second largest contributor to the EU's coffers and the EU has been the single greatest factor of peace and prosperity in Europe for the past 30+ years. I'm perfectly fine (and I'm guessing most other people are as well, since there is no large popular uprising regarding this) for them to get a few million in rent for a building that would have to be paid in any other country anyway.
But this reply of yours shows what I think is at the root of British discontent and why Cameron is using it to gain votes with your right wing: France is upstaging the UK in European politics and your nations institutional "hatred" of the French can't stand this state of affairs...
So one of the situations that you are so angry about, doesn't happen since 2005? And additional policies to increase transparency for everyone are also being implemented?
Isn't this the way that things are supposed to happen? Doesn't this show an actual will to improve and stop these kinds of wasteful practices?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Ketara wrote:
New Labour was a complete disaster for this country. Why? Because when they got into power, they inherited a country where the books were balanced, income was greater than outgoings, and the country was already positioned for economic growth from the years of tory pain in the eighties. However in their term in power, they successfully ratcheted up public spending to vastly unsustainable levels, worked up a massive deficit, and did their bit to help plunge this country into economic chaos.
Labour inherited a £374 billion debt and in 2007 it was £500 billion. When the wheels fell of the global economy it obviously ramped up massively and it continues to do so despite all the spending cuts.
Should Labour have reduced the deficit? Yes
Was it catastrophic that they didn't? No.
It is entirly possible that the Tories would have done at least as badly.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Palindrome wrote: Ketara wrote:
New Labour was a complete disaster for this country. Why? Because when they got into power, they inherited a country where the books were balanced, income was greater than outgoings, and the country was already positioned for economic growth from the years of tory pain in the eighties. However in their term in power, they successfully ratcheted up public spending to vastly unsustainable levels, worked up a massive deficit, and did their bit to help plunge this country into economic chaos.
Labour inherited a £374 billion debt and in 2007 it was £500 billion. When the wheels fell of the global economy it obviously ramped up massively and it continues to do so despite all the spending cuts.
Should Labour have reduced the deficit? Yes
Was it catastrophic that they didn't? No.
It is entirly possible that the Tories would have done at least as badly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a massive chunk of that deficit was run up prior to Thatcher's Government, by the previous ineffectual Labour administration, and two world wars?
What Thatcher's lot did was balance the books. New Labour had their chance to capitalise on an advantageous situation, and institute a policy of sustained growth. One where the deficit was paid, and government spending did not vastly outweigh government earnings.
Instead they did the equivalent of getting their first paycheque, blowing the lot, and then taking out thirty payday loans. Not the smartest move, and one that's positioned us incredibly badly for the current recession.
I daresay that having paid off the majority of the deficit and having income matching outgoings would have made us considerably more flexible as a nation. The interest on the sheer amount of debt is utterly crippling us financially.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mr Morden wrote:Your missing the point - the EU has several building for no other reason that to keep the French happy - several parliment buildings when they only need one - how is this not a waste of all of our money?
what is the jusitifcation for this other than giving France the rents - which were also previously looked at as being hugely dodgy and inflated.
Even many Euro MPs say how wasteful it is - but the French President has gone on record as stating that this will never change as long as they have a veto - sound familiar.
cos the EU is not run for their benefit at all..........
re expenses - the "normal" measures - eg providing some form of proof as Inderstand it only came in in 2005 - before that it was just a free for all and submit what you like.
latest news on this show how far they till have to go?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europe-braced-for-meps-expenses-storm-2300806.html
Given the fact that the French are the second most important nation in the EU I think keeping them happy is a good use of money.
Do you want to build an EU parliament complex in every national capital, just so we can stop worrying about the French?
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
The debt will continue to go up until the govenment starts printing money and stops asking the bank of england (a private bank) to print theirs.
The govenment continues to ask for debt based money instead of printing intrest free money.
If you have to pay back a extra pound for every pound you get how can you ever pay back a debt? add intrest and bingo you've got the debt of any country that gets it's money from private banks.
Please stop listening to their jargon of legalese (a real language that sounds like english but is not, look in the black dictionary from translations. Ever wondered why your name is all in capital letters on bills and your driving license and why statues and acts aply to you because of that) it really is that simple as I have just stated.a
53595
Post by: Palindrome
[quote=Ketara 502657 5215686 14720f7329ed4dce5f88731de37
I daresay that having paid off the majority of the deficit and having income matching outgoings would have made us considerably more flexible as a nation.
Is that what the Tories would have done though and if they did what else would they have broken?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The UK government has run a "National Debt" since the late 18th century. (That is not counting the spending on credit by kings such as Edward III.)
Obviously many governments since then have issued more debt for the purpose of covering the gap between spending and tax income, during crises such as wars, but in good times have paid down the debt.
The amount of money spent servicing the debt is still fairly low as a part of the total budget:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2011UKbt_12bc5n
The thing at the moment is that three years of austerity have resulted in an increase of the Debt and the deficit that creates it, which is the opposite of what was supposed to happen. I don't know how long it might take to turn this around, but the worry is that the austerity measures are prolonging the recession rather than getting us out of it.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Themanwiththeplan wrote:The debt will continue to go up until the govenment starts printing money and stops asking the bank of england (a private bank) to print theirs.
The govenment continues to ask for debt based money instead of printing intrest free money.
If you have to pay back a extra pound for every pound you get how can you ever pay back a debt? add intrest and bingo you've got the debt of any country that gets it's money from private banks.
Please stop listening to their jargon of legalese (a real language that sounds like english but is not, look in the black dictionary from translations. Ever wondered why your name is all in capital letters on bills and your driving license and why statues and acts aply to you because of that) it really is that simple as I have just stated.a
No, no its realy not as simple as that. You clearly don't understand the very basis of economic and fiscal policy and national economics.
Lets start at the begining, the BoE is not a private bank, It was nationalised in 1946. In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Government. The govenment cannot print money outside of the BoE. It also cannot just say "hay we have no money. Lets print more". That completly destabalises the economy, causes run away inflation and loss of confidence in the currency. What happens then? You turn in to Zimbabwe. All half way democratic countrys have a central bank that works much the same way as the BoE.
And I don't even know what you mean by "Ever wondered why your name is all in capital letters on bills and your driving license and why statues and acts aply to you because of that" please do explain? As far as I am aware names are in capital letters on some bills and driving licences because of a formating choice made at implimentation of the companys computer systems.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
PhantomViper wrote: Mr Morden wrote:Your missing the point - the EU has several building for no other reason that to keep the French happy - several parliment buildings when they only need one - how is this not a waste of all of our money?
what is the jusitifcation for this other than giving France the rents - which were also previously looked at as being hugely dodgy and inflated.
Why do they only need one?
Don't you think that if all the European entities would to be "housed" in any single one of the existing buildings, then that complex would have to be expanded with all the added costs associated with it?
Not to mention the huge potential leverage that that single country would gain inside the EU?
Mr Morden wrote:
Even many Euro MPs say how wasteful it is - but the French President has gone on record as stating that this will never change as long as they have a veto - sound familiar.
Sure, sounds like the attitude that the British have been having for the past 10+ years...
France is IINM, the second largest contributor to the EU's coffers and the EU has been the single greatest factor of peace and prosperity in Europe for the past 30+ years. I'm perfectly fine (and I'm guessing most other people are as well, since there is no large popular uprising regarding this) for them to get a few million in rent for a building that would have to be paid in any other country anyway.
But this reply of yours shows what I think is at the root of British discontent and why Cameron is using it to gain votes with your right wing: France is upstaging the UK in European politics and your nations institutional "hatred" of the French can't stand this state of affairs...
So one of the situations that you are so angry about, doesn't happen since 2005? And additional policies to increase transparency for everyone are also being implemented?
Isn't this the way that things are supposed to happen? Doesn't this show an actual will to improve and stop these kinds of wasteful practices?
I am sorry do you work for the EU publicity dept cos is sure sounds like it and I can see that you see it as a perfect example of efficient management and probity – god help us, rather than a corrupt club for the rich to enjoy.
If you want to ignore the fact that the multiple buildings is a waste of both yours and my money - so be it - but when even the Euro MPs are saying it is wasteful - well does not that say something and France is blocking it - that’s fact not opinion or dislike of any nation in particular.
Huge leverage is what two countries already gain by the location of the Parliment - or does that also escape you?
The French Presidents attitude is the same as our - national interest - its just that for the most part France gets what it wants and so does not complain - of course when it does - things either are blocked or are changed to suit them.
People have already huge discontent about the EU Parliament building - and the credibility of the institutions related to suffers immensely - again actually bother to read what the Euro Mps are saying about it and understand why it is a farce.
No what I am saying about expenses is that before 2005 they had NOTHING in place to stop the fraud that was occurring – now they have started putting in the same safeguards that most working people already have to work to. The report the EU is trying to have covered up (examined in the linked article) shows how epidemic is the corruption remains – in a similar manner to that in the UK parliament.
There is "no will to put things right" only a will to cover up..........
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Ketara, thanks for your post.
I think there is undoubtably waste in the European Union, and I would like that to be cut down. But I think the crisis shows a need for MORE integration, not less. Free trade without proper regulation is always going to be a boom-bust cycle. If we are to have a free trade system, regulatory systems will be needed and they will need to be centralised and enforced.
I would like to see a "proper" integration into a federal europe at this stage. A few years ago I wouldn't have, but watching the total lack of anything approaching unity or a collective approach to the current issues has made me think we need to start thinking as Europeans first.
If the UK doesn't want that, we're probably better off without them in the long run as they will slow down the progress. I do worry about the effects it will have on Ireland, essentially isolating us from the European core by putting a non EU blocker between us and the rest of Europe. We'd have to come up with a new free trade agreement too, because we are each other's most significant economic partners.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Da Boss wrote:Ketara, thanks for your post.
I think there is undoubtably waste in the European Union, and I would like that to be cut down. But I think the crisis shows a need for MORE integration, not less. Free trade without proper regulation is always going to be a boom-bust cycle. If we are to have a free trade system, regulatory systems will be needed and they will need to be centralised and enforced.
I would like to see a "proper" integration into a federal europe at this stage. A few years ago I wouldn't have, but watching the total lack of anything approaching unity or a collective approach to the current issues has made me think we need to start thinking as Europeans first.
If the UK doesn't want that, we're probably better off without them in the long run as they will slow down the progress. I do worry about the effects it will have on Ireland, essentially isolating us from the European core by putting a non EU blocker between us and the rest of Europe. We'd have to come up with a new free trade agreement too, because we are each other's most significant economic partners.
You said it much better than I could ever have. Exalted.
63636
Post by: Themanwiththeplan
Palindrome - coming from a guy who told me that england has never had a bill of rights.
The B.O.E LTD is no more public than the federal reserve or express or any corperation.
What I said above earlier is the basics of banks lending (minus inflation) and quantitive easing just means print more money (basicly). It is that simple so please don't confuse the issue, I just broke it down to it's basic form so people can understand. If everyone knew the paper in our pocket was just paper they would lose confidence and inflation would rise.
please tell me if thats pound stirling in your pocket and if the govenment has any?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I have more Euros in my pocket than £ at the moment.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I have more dollars but thats only to pay from Martial Arts licence tonight
221
Post by: Frazzled
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Total shambles. 5 years for a vote? What a mess. I'm quite annoyed that the Americans are sticking their nose into this. Quite frankly, it's none of Washington's business. If any American poster objects to that, then get a rowing boat, and I'll meet you halfway in the Atlantic! Anyway, I see nothing wrong with letting the British public decide its constitutional future. Why are Labour and the Lib dems against people voting?
Other than asking a few questions I haven't seen anyone from the US saying much. But in that vein you have to give up your Dallas avatar you Foreign Devil! *I'd row out to the middle of the Atlantic to meet you, but in addition to being lazy, thats unAmerican. If I can't drive there in a giant pickup truck it aint worth going! EDIT: I see US posters now. However I still want my Dallas Avatar back.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think he meant Obama weighing in on it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh well, that guy does emote a lot.
34390
Post by: whembly
That was my sense...
It's no different than tell non-Americans to stay out of our gun debates!
59193
Post by: Aquilanus
I don't know much about Law or Economics (numbers make my head hurt), but someone commented earlier that there should be a concise breakdown of what the Referendum entails, any and all consequences of voting yes or no would result in and it should be done in a way that the UK papers can't twist (yes, I'm looking at you Daily Fail Mail ). I genuinely feel that a lot of the UK general public's opinion (such as it is) is made up of what the Tabloid and "Broad" sheets want them to think.
If there was an informed, easy to understand way to pass such information to the masses then it should be done asap.
Before anyone asks on how I'd vote - I honestly don't know.
49775
Post by: DIDM
every time I hear his name on The BBC Hour on NPR all I can think of is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bzTgbtXRC0
|
|
