Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 nomsheep wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Funny how Russia is 3 times the size of the rest of Europe... To a European mind, is it actually part of Europe, tho? I always had the impression it wasn't, in a similar fashion as Turkey?

Eastern Europe, yes. But Western Europe has something of a superiority complex...probably not a bad thing given how bloody useless the southern Europeans are

A good portion of eastern Europe was part of the U.S.S.R til recently and are also Slavic in origin, often using the Cyrillic alphabet. whereas western Europe doesn't and never was part of them. So they share a heritage in a similar way that western Europe does. (A few Russian leaders were in fact Ukrainian etc ) Whereas ours (the British)were french(Norman), Scottish and are currently German.

this makes sense right?

Why have you explained that to me? I know this.

The Cyrillic alphabet is very similar to Greek, and the cultural/political origins of Eastern Europe are also derived from Ancient Greece/Rome. Hence they are still "Europe", but have lacked the relative stability of Western Europe for the past couple of centuries.

cos I quoted the wrong person sorry.

On topic, I'm ashamed by the heavily anti-EU attitudes of my country. But the fact is a lot of people simply don't want to be a part of Europe, and I think that's a shame.

Should also note that, despite this, I still intend to vote for UKIP at the next general election. Labour/Tory/Lib Dems are all identical on every single issue. There is no distinction whatsoever, and I want an alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nomsheep wrote:
cos I quoted the wrong person sorry.

Oh okay no worries.

Britain, more accurately England, has always been isolationist in outlook. I'm frankly quite suprised that we joined the EU in the first place. The right also absolutely love it when the more left leaning EU tells them what to do. Just look at the hysteria over prisoners voting rights.

As to what we would gain from leaving the EU? Economic devastation and a poor international reputation.

 Testify wrote:
On topic, I'm ashamed by the heavily anti-EU attitudes of my country. But the fact is a lot of people simply don't want to be a part of Europe, and I think that's a shame.

Should also note that, despite this, I still intend to vote for UKIP at the next general election. Labour/Tory/Lib Dems are all identical on every single issue. There is no distinction whatsoever, and I want an alternative.

Green are a great alternative and have become a proper, multi-issue party (though I must declare some bias), the National Health Action Party might be worth a look too. Please don't think the only alternative is the BNP-lite.

Unless of course you agree with UKIP's policies on health, education, crime, and the economy. Whatever those policies are....

 Testify wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Funny how Russia is 3 times the size of the rest of Europe... To a European mind, is it actually part of Europe, tho? I always had the impression it wasn't, in a similar fashion as Turkey?

Eastern Europe, yes. But Western Europe has something of a superiority complex...probably not a bad thing given how bloody useless the southern Europeans are

A good portion of eastern Europe was part of the U.S.S.R til recently and are also Slavic in origin, often using the Cyrillic alphabet. whereas western Europe doesn't and never was part of them. So they share a heritage in a similar way that western Europe does. (A few Russian leaders were in fact Ukrainian etc ) Whereas ours (the British)were french(Norman), Scottish and are currently German.

this makes sense right?

Why have you explained that to me? I know this.

The Cyrillic alphabet is very similar to Greek, and the cultural/political origins of Eastern Europe are also derived from Ancient Greece/Rome. Hence they are still "Europe", but have lacked the relative stability of Western Europe for the past couple of centuries.

Thanks to all, it does make things clearer for someone who has never yet been across the pond.

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
On topic, I'm ashamed by the heavily anti-EU attitudes of my country. But the fact is a lot of people simply don't want to be a part of Europe, and I think that's a shame.

Should also note that, despite this, I still intend to vote for UKIP at the next general election. Labour/Tory/Lib Dems are all identical on every single issue. There is no distinction whatsoever, and I want an alternative.

Green are a great alternative and have become a proper, multi-issue party (though I must declare some bias), the National Health Action Party might be worth a look too. Please don't think the only alternative is the BNP-lite.

Unless of course you agree with UKIP's policies on health, education, crime, and the economy. Whatever those policies are....

The green's want to destroy the entire economy in *maybe* save the homes of a few thousand Bangladeshis. You could help out millions of the poorest people in this country by simply building cheap power plants rather than wind farm crap (though renewable energy that's commercially viable is obviously fine). They're also insultingly weak.

 Testify wrote:

The green's want to destroy the entire economy in *maybe* save the homes of a few thousand Bangladeshis. You could help out millions of the poorest people in this country by simply building cheap power plants rather than wind farm crap (though renewable energy that's commercially viable is obviously fine). They're also insultingly weak.

Actually they are pretty gak hot on economic matters these days, rent controls would reduce the Housing Benefit bill massively, nationalising the rail service would make a ton while actually providing a decent service for a change, the closing of tax loopholes would increase the tax intake massively (tax avoidance costs a huge amount) . I don't agree with their views on GM crops or nuclear power but the majority of their policies are spot on, pretty much the only leftist party left.

No I agree with almost all of their policies (disregarding energy/environmental), they're just weak as hell.They can't even elect a leader for god's sake, there has to be some weird commune thing. It's all a bit sunday suppliment for me.

Give me Nye Bevin any day of the week

 Testify wrote:
No I agree with almost all of their policies (disregarding energy/environmental), they're just weak as hell.They can't even elect a leader for god's sake, there has to be some weird commune thing. It's all a bit sunday suppliment for me.

Give me Nye Bevin any day of the week

They had such a good candidate in Romayne Phoenix, but apparently she was too aggressive.

 nomsheep wrote:
I believe turkey isn't in the E.U due to them refusing to leave Cyprus.

Thats A reason. You know the real reason.

 Frazzled wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:
I believe turkey isn't in the E.U due to them refusing to leave Cyprus.

Thats A reason. You know the real reason.

Their country shares the name of a bird?

 purplefood wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:
I believe turkey isn't in the E.U due to them refusing to leave Cyprus.

Thats A reason. You know the real reason.

Their country shares the name of a bird?

The fact that they aren't European.

Da Boss wrote:
If that's such a big stumbling block for the UK, would pushing for an exception for the UK on those issues not be more sensible than wholesale EU exit?

(Not that I can see what's wrong with Human Rights legislation, though)

The UK already has an exception to the Working Time regulations, so other sorts of exceptions would not be impossible, within limits.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
If that's such a big stumbling block for the UK, would pushing for an exception for the UK on those issues not be more sensible than wholesale EU exit?

(Not that I can see what's wrong with Human Rights legislation, though)

The UK already has an exception to the Working Time regulations, so other sorts of exceptions would not be impossible, within limits.

I thought you, as an employee, had to sign yourself out of the working times directive? I've had to a few times.

Helping others:

If we left and our money no longer flowed into Brussels bottemless pit then perhaps the Euorcrats might decide to econamise a bit and stop leaching the money from the other European citizens. Although I doubt it

So maybe just have the one massively expensive parliment - instead of several massively expensive ones.
Actually check Eurocrats expenses claims -or just get them to fill one out - you know like most "nomal"people have to do....

Of course the down side is "we" would likey spend it all on Bankers bonuses and exiting BBC DGs who worked a few days and think they need half a million pounds - good job his mates wrote his contract?

 dæl wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
If that's such a big stumbling block for the UK, would pushing for an exception for the UK on those issues not be more sensible than wholesale EU exit?

(Not that I can see what's wrong with Human Rights legislation, though)

The UK already has an exception to the Working Time regulations, so other sorts of exceptions would not be impossible, within limits.

I thought you, as an employee, had to sign yourself out of the working times directive? I've had to a few times.

There are many jobs (my own included) where signing yourself out of the working times directive is a part of the application process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Helping others:

If we left and our money no longer flowed into Brussels bottemless pit then perhaps the Euorcrats might decide to econamise a bit and stop leaching the money from the other European citizens. Although I doubt it

So maybe just have the one massively expensive parliment - instead of several massively expensive ones.
Actually check Eurocrats expenses claims -or just get them to fill one out - you know like most "nomal"people have to do....

Of course the down side is "we" would likey spend it all on Bankers bonuses and exiting BBC DGs who worked a few days and think they need half a million pounds - good job his mates wrote his contract?

Out of interest, how much money should the EU spend, in total? And what do you think the EU should do with that money? And how much should be spent on beurocracy?

 dæl wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
If that's such a big stumbling block for the UK, would pushing for an exception for the UK on those issues not be more sensible than wholesale EU exit?

(Not that I can see what's wrong with Human Rights legislation, though)

The UK already has an exception to the Working Time regulations, so other sorts of exceptions would not be impossible, within limits.

I thought you, as an employee, had to sign yourself out of the working times directive? I've had to a few times.

Yes, that is correct, however in France you cannot sign yourself out of the directive if you want to. Whereas in the UK, you must sign yourself out even if you don't want to. And who really wants to let their company management push them to do 48 hours work for the pay of 40?

My problem is not completely with burecracy, it is primarily that there is no break on it except for itself and we know that is not going to work. IIRC the last report on their budget mismangement they refused to publish.........

The EU budget is about 1% of the economic output of the eurozone. How much is does the UK government cost as a percentage of GDP?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
If that's such a big stumbling block for the UK, would pushing for an exception for the UK on those issues not be more sensible than wholesale EU exit?

(Not that I can see what's wrong with Human Rights legislation, though)

The UK already has an exception to the Working Time regulations, so other sorts of exceptions would not be impossible, within limits.

I thought you, as an employee, had to sign yourself out of the working times directive? I've had to a few times.

Yes, that is correct, however in France you cannot sign yourself out of the directive if you want to. Whereas in the UK, you must sign yourself out even if you don't want to. And who really wants to let their company management push them to do 48 hours work for the pay of 40?

Refreshing to see a British poster with a sensible attitude towards europe. Personally I'd rather have Britain run by sensible Europeans rather than the deranged right-wing lunacy that streaks through England. Though I wouldn't say no to a sensible British government either

Leaving the EU won't get us anything. If we stay in we at least have a chance to try and fix it.

I think that fundamentally the issues that people in the UK have with the EU come down to a dislike of the loss of sovereignty taking place.

Britain has a very long and proud past, and I'm pretty sure that most feel their main loyalty lies with either Britain, or an individual country that is part of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, NI). It therefore doesn't feel right that various European institutions are able to over-rule our duly elected government and the wishes of the people as a whole.

The issue over prisoners voting is a prime example - a relatively minor issue, but one where there is no doubt whatsoever that the UK parliament and the UK population don't want it - but a European organisation (non-EU in this case, a difference that most people don't care about) is dictating to us what we should do.

Given the general inclination towards Euro-scepticism in the UK anyway, it's easy for issues such as this to be used as arguments against European co-operation, without any counter-arguments taking place. I'm pretty much middle-of-the-road as far as UK politics goes, and I try to see both sides of the coin.

On the plus side, the EU provides greater economic and political bargaining power than any single country has when dealing with the rest of the world. The EU is actively working towards improving the economies and standards of living of the former eastern-bloc countries. It promotes human rights across Europe and outside it, and is a significant contributor to overseas humanitarian aid. It promotes free trade and travel between European nations. Europe a massively important source of technological innovation via international cooperation.

On the downside are the moves towards a federal Europe (actively sought by some nations' populations, but anathama to the average Brit), compounded by the lack of democratic accountability in EU institutions. While the budget is small as a percentage of total EU GDP, it is still extremely large, and significant proportions are badly spent (the CAP and administration costs being the main problem areas). No-one who is not an expert understands all of the European institutions (the EU, ECHR, Council of Europe, Council of the European Union, EC, CJEU, European Partiament, and others) and there is a a huge amount of bureaucracy prevalent.

Personally I think the benefits significantly outweigh the costs, but I'm against further EU budget rises or loss of sovereignty to the EU without significant reform taking place. I would like to see Britain's role as being the voice of reason, the country that's not afraid to point out when something is not a good idea, and that brings the bureaucrats blue-sky dreams back to reality. The opportunity and urgent need for reform is there - unfortunately attempting to achieve this also leads to the UK as being regarded as a 'difficult' nation to deal with.

Budget-wise, I'd love to see the elimination of the contentious UK rebate - in return for the total elimination of the CAP and a clamping down on the Brussels gravy train - this would allow the reduction of the EU budget by a third, while affecting almost none of the work the EU does that is actually important and worthwhile!

I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that no one seems to actually have any control over the EU, the people that make it up its governing members, the gak that comes out of it, or the money that sinks into it never to return.

When you have something like that with the power to vote itself more power, money and influence you are not onto something good. The EU was fine when it was a trade union; it worked well and that is what we signed up for. Numerous referendems in many different countries have shown that the majority of the population of Europe doesn't agree with most of what it does or wants to do (at least they do when they allow them to be held...).

How exactly are they still in power?

Because they are not in power and never have been.

Implementation of EU directives is done at the national level.

What would the penalty be for not implementing one?

Probably about the same as the penalty levied against Italy and Greece for violation of the public spending limit (i.e. nothing).

What if the directive was something important, like child prostitution or nuclear waste disposal, rather than bent bananas? I should hope any liberal modern democracy would want to have such regulations anyway.

By "in power" I meant "in existance".

 SilverMK2 wrote:
By "in power" I meant "in existance".

Because not enough people want rid of it.

Sadly Britain is considered "diffciult" or protecting our rebate whilst the French protect their farmers using other peoples money.....and of course refusing to consider just having one parliment bulding - threatening to veto, but thats all fine as its France and no action is ever actually implemented against them.

We have had enough probelms with our own MPs voting themselves pay rises and fiddiling expenses - and they seem to be small fry compared to the abuses in Europe.

@ Nomsheep - or rather not enough people that actually have any say.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
By "in power" I meant "in existance".

Because the extent to which it does harm is greatly exaggerated by the right wing press. In the main, people get a lot of good from the EU, or have done until the Eurozone crisis but that is another thing, of course. Thus, there isn't really a widespread movement to get rid of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sadly Britain is considered "diffciult" or protecting our rebate whilst the French protect their farmers using other peoples money.....and of course refusing to consider just having one parliment bulding - threatening to veto, but thats all fine as its France and no action is ever actually implemented against them.

We have had enough probelms with our own MPs voting themselves pay rises and fiddiling expenses - and they seem to be small fry compared to the abuses in Europe.

@ Nomsheep - or rather not enough people that actually have any say.

All countries are considered "difficult" when they are in the minority and causing trouble. That's democracy.

I'm not saying abuses and corruption should be ignored, but to leave the EU because they are not currently tackled is like dropping a daisy cutter bomb on your next door neighbour because he doesn't close the lock on his food waste bin on recycling days, so the foxes get at it.

I'm not saying abuses and corruption should be ignored, but to leave the EU because they are not currently tackled is like dropping a daisy cutter bomb on your next door neighbour because he doesn't close the lock on his food waste bin on recycling days, so the foxes get at it.

Are saying it's wrong to drop a daisy cutter on your neighbour for leaving their bins unlocked? Man you're just full of crazy ideas.