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.

 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?

 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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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?

 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

 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

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

 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

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.

 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...

 Mr Morden wrote:

cos the EU is not run for their benefit at all..........

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...

 Mr Morden wrote:

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

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?

 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.

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.

 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?

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

[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.

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.

 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.

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...

 Mr Morden wrote:

cos the EU is not run for their benefit at all..........

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...

 Mr Morden wrote:

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

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..........

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.

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.

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?

I have more Euros in my pocket than £ at the moment.

I have more dollars but thats only to pay from Martial Arts licence tonight

 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.