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.

Fair enough. I also agree that Europe is a dysfunctional mess of a system. But I just want to tear the whole thing down and try it again in a decade or two once everyone has calmed down and forgotten how nice it was to work together.

The current system wasn't designed for this, and I think there is too much bad blood between some of the countries for a federal system to work out. Greece didn't seem to keen on Germany recently when it looked like they were going to default for example. The individual countries themselves have problems staying together. Bolting them together into a supracountry would probably make the whole system worse.

I think the world is too uncertain at the moment, especially with the current situation in the Middle East. A lot of people are getting irrated by the so called "refugee problem." And the "Immigrant problem." Because people have short term memories and seem to forget about the benefits of migration. And at this time of year, Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader.

I believe a Federal Europe would have:
a) Kept a closer eye on fiscal policy and financial regulation in Greece to prevent it getting as deep in the hole as it did
b) Not allowed (or required, since no one else was showing any leadership) Germany or any other large country to just grab the reins in a crisis of that sort - things would have to be hashed out properly.

It wouldn't be perfect, but hopefully it would help harmonize relationships and give a forum for differences to be hashed out while keeping everyone on the same page with regard to certain administrative norms.

I think fragmenting and destroying the EU would be a terrible idea, and frankly, it would never fly on the continent for many different reasons.

Well if something positive doesn't happen in the next few years. I think the EU will tear itself apart without the need for any help.

I think Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves.

It's a terrible thought to have, each country should be in charge of its own finances, but sometimes someone needs to keep an eye on it.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader.

It is? I thought it was about a family returning to the male's place of birth for a census. Who were they fleeing from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves.

Who should run Greece then?

 Da Boss wrote:

It's the way in which it is done. EU diplomacy is a story of compromises and give and take. Britain is coming in with the Brexit as a nuclear option to intimidate everyone into getting what they want.

Are we? See, I actually take issue with that. 'You're just threatening to leave unless you get everything you want'. No, we're not. Europe has changed considerably in the last fifteen years. It's mandate has expanded tremendously, and what the British public signed up for, is no longer what Europe is. And demand in this country has reached a point that the politicians deemed it politically wise to offer us a referendum.

That is to say, a democratic decision on whether or not we want to be part of Europe. We are taking a course of self-determination. Cameron, being pro-EU has basically said, 'Hey guys, let me see if I renegotiate a few of the more unpopular aspects first before you make your decisions', and then rushed in to sit down with Europe and said, 'Guys, you might want to renegotiate a few unpopular things over in the UK, or they might vote to leave'.

It is not a case of Cameron announcing a referendum as a bargaining chip to try and gain bargaining leverage. The referendum was promised in his parties manifesto long before any of this renegotiation stuff entered the picture.

People find that extremely offputting because it's frankly, rude. If you are under no obligation to be good to the EU, why should we be under any obligation to be good to you?

Because it is in the EU's interests for us to remain. It is unclear whether or not it is in our interests. If I've misread that, then it's in neither sides interests, and Britain will leave. Make no bones about it, what's being gauged here is whether or not Europe believes its in their interests to have us on board. If not, then everyone in the EU will refuse to budge, and we'll politely make our way out of the EU and forge our own path.

We, as a sovereign people, are determining the course of our future in a democratic way. If that is felt to be 'rude', then well. Again, that says much about the undemocratic nature of the EU, quite frankly.

To be fair, you guys are the ones who are talking about quitting. How did you feel when it was Scotland talking about quitting the UK?

IIRC, we wanted them to stay, and renegotiated accordingly. We didn't tell them deciding to have a referendum was rude though, and pledged to respect their decision one way or the other. Something the EU could use as an example.

a)"Cut some red tape" exactly which regulations do you want done away with? I intensely distrust this sort of rhetoric. "Leaner, meaner and more competative" usually means "Let's screw over the workers for the benefit of corporate interests!". The Tories track record on this is terrible.

There are many bits of red tape that have proven to be annoying and financially expensive for this nation. I daresay the specifics will come out in good time, and will be judged accordingly then. I doubt we're alone on feeling the EUP issues too much legislation though.

b) Core tenet of the EU is that people are treated equally by the different states. If you want to cut subsidies to immigrants who have contributed nothing, you have to cut subsidies for those in your population who have contributed nothing, as well. It's a point of principle that I do not want to see compromsied (as an immigrant in an EU country).

Why? Seriously, why? If I went to Poland, I wouldn't expect their Government to pay for me. I know you're Irish and living in Germany, but why does that mean the Germans should be paying your housing benefit? If you've paid in some tax, then fair enough, but if you'd literally just moved there and gone straight onto benefits, then why should they pay? If Europe really feels that way on this issue, then it should bill the collective members and pay for those benefits collectively.

Not to mention the fact that if we leave, no Polish people will be drawing benefits either way, so it's more a case of either conceding it at the negotiating table, or potentially losing it anyway. The obvious choice there should be clear.

But as mentioned, this is really just a watered down proposal to try and make some headway over a bigger, separate issue.

c) Protection for Britain as not being Eurozone, perhaps. Special protection for your financial sector? No. The finance industry in Europe need stricter regulation and control and oversight.

As far as I understand it, it's more about the EU (or France specifically) trying to pass laws that would effectively move financial hubs away from Britain and into Europe. We, as an economy, rely quite heavily on them, and there have been several proposals, on the basis that we don't use the Euro (among other reasons), to try and strangle the City, not for regulation purposes, but for relocation. In other words, to economically damage this nation to the advantage of others.

That's not exactly playing dice in the whole 'spirit of goodwill' thing, and therefore a perfectly reasonable thing to bring to the table. Our economy dictates our living standards, so ensuring one of the bulwarks of that is maintained for the future is inherently logical.

I'd also like to see some of the "many, many" other issues outlined to be honest.

God, where to start. The European courts have been a pain in the arse to legislation to this country in innumerable ways, the vast weight of legislation enacted in Britain these days comes out of Europe and is quite often not to our benefit, the EU is a bureaucratic unaccountable mess, the cross border arrest warrants have proved both a boon and a burden and need to be sorted out properly, the insistence on stupid EU vanity projects to try and 'bring us all together', etcetc. I'm sure there are several essays spread about on things problematic with Europe composed by many different nationalities scattered about the place you could locate and peruse at your leisure.

It's an issue driven by british xenophobia.

I don't buy that. That's one step weaker than saying it's essentially down to racism, which in this instance, is an intellectual cop-out I feel. It tars everyone with the same offensive brush in order to ignore perfectly sound economic reasoning. If that's your stance, then let's not debate it, because frankly, I'll end up offended and this whole conversation will take a nastier turn. Polite and friendly, that's the game of debate as I see it.

The way in which you ask is just as important as what you ask for. Threatening a brexit and then coming in is not good diplomacy, it's brinkmanship.

Like I said above, that's mixing up the chronology and motivations here. We decided to have a spot of self-determination, and somebody who likes the organisation said he'd take a stab at renegotiating a few things (in order to see where we stand with Europe). The potential 'brexit' here is an expression of democracy and self-determination within this country, and illustrating that as a 'threat' is the opposite of that. We are deciding what we want our future to look like. We're not doing it to wrangle one or two concessions from a bunch of politicians in Belgium, and portraying it as such cheapens the democratic institutions we hold dear.

Cameron has isolated himself in Europe by taking the Conservatives out of the main conservative block in parliament and into a far right eurosceptic block. This was a stab in the back for the group he used to be part of, who are the majority of ruling governments, and the majority in the EU parliament. This is bad politics. You guys have a large number of UKIP MEPs, who don't show up to vote (worst voting records of any group of MEPs) and then whinge about things they didn't use their influence to effect. (Farage for example whines about the Fisheries policy constantly, because it plays well with the coastal constituencies he has the best chance in. He's been a member of the fisheries committee and barely ever shown up, let alone voted on issues).

Isn't that the point of him though? I personally dislike UKIP, but if you hate Europe, voting for someone who refuses to engage with it is a logical move from a moral standpoint (if a terrible and nihilistic move from a practical one). Democracy in action.

If you disengage from European politics and isolate yourself in parliament, is it really shocking that your influence declines? If people seem unresponsive, it's good to reflect on why. We can read the British press too, and we can see the amount if inaccurate vitriol that gets flung at Europe. We can see the lies and misrepresentations. I am personally pretty sick of it. I do not like being threatened by the UK. You are making out that the UK is being reasonable, when in reality it is issuing an ultimatum to Europe. This is bad diplomacy and bad politics.

I fear that is where our opinions ultimately digress at the core. You view the democratic expression of self-determination by the British people as a 'threat', or some sop/ploy to gain a few minor political favours. I view it as essential, given the evolved structure of the EU from the last agreement, in deciding where our country will head diplomatically in the future. And if that remains the two opposing viewpoints, then the most likely course is that the two will go their separate ways.

Essentially, I do not disagree that Britain leaving is entirely up to the British.

I would be much happier with Britain leaving as is, rather than attempting to use it's threatened exit as a bargaining chip. We've got a lot on our plate here at the moment without this.

If you want out, fine, vote. If you leave, it will screw Ireland over, but whatever. I'd prefer britain out of europe and no longer impacting how things are done to a disruptive britain in europe obstructing what I want to see and pushing for agendas I don't agree with. So on that part, we are in total agreement and I don't argue with the principle of the referendum at all. I am against Europe giving concessions to Britain off the face of it, because these concessions could be hashed out in the normal course of EU politics if the British politicians would engage with the process rather than criticising it.

I'm sorry if I've been uncivil in what I've said here. It's an issue that gets my back up, because I'm a pretty pro-Europe person and I've been reading too much of the toxic commentary on Europe in the UK for too long.

I don't want to do a point by point rebuttal right now (tired) but I will say: I do not entirely believe it is in the interest of Europeans like myself that Britain remains, if it is to remain as a disruptive and obstructive force.

I also think it's up to each country how they manage their benefits. In some countries in Europe, citizens as well as EU citizens must all pay in to get benefits. In Germany I have to pay into the unemployment insurance scheme or I do not receive full unemployment cover (as I understand it, perhaps a German will correct me).

But like most immigrants, I've been working and paying tax in Germany since my arrival.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader.

It is? I thought it was about a family returning to the male's place of birth for a census. Who were they fleeing from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves.

Who should run Greece then?

It's called the Flight into Egypt. Where King Harod hears of the birth of the son of God and decides to kill every baby in Bethlehem. So they flee into Egypt to escape his wrath. Only returning when he has died.

And who should run Greece? Well Greece should run Greece. But they need to run it better.

It seems to me we ask properly for piddling little changes to our relationship/rules with the EU and are completely shut down. Yet when Germany decides it can do whatever it likes, say like circumventing all the correct procedure for asylum applications (that being you apply at the first safe country) and just inviting the free passage of hundreds of thousands to cross the continent directly into their country, then that's all ok.

Cameron is accused of discrimination for not freely offering our benefit system to all. Yet how exactly did France manage the Hijab ban? Blatant discrimination yet they just did it anyway and let Europe do nothing in response. If you just barge your way through established rules then you get away with it, ask in advance for changes and exceptions and you get browbeaten down.

Cameron isn't threatening to leave the EU if his demands aren't met. He's stating that we have a referendum and that the people will decide, and that he can't control that outcome. People in Britain only voted for the Common Market, not the expansion that came later. Are Europe so worried about the demo tactic process?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It seems to me we ask properly for piddling little changes to our relationship/rules with the EU and are completely shut down. Yet when Germany decides it can do whatever it likes, say like circumventing all the correct procedure for asylum applications (that being you apply at the first safe country) and just inviting the free passage of hundreds of thousands to cross the continent directly into their country, then that's all ok.

Cameron is accused of discrimination for not freely offering our benefit system to all. Yet how exactly did France manage the Hijab ban? Blatant discrimination yet they just did it anyway and let Europe do nothing in response. If you just barge your way through established rules then you get away with it, ask in advance for changes and exceptions and you get browbeaten down.

Cameron isn't threatening to leave the EU if his demands aren't met. He's stating that we have a referendum and that the people will decide, and that he can't control that outcome. People in Britain only voted for the Common Market, not the expansion that came later. Are Europe so worried about the demo tactic process?

It is quite embarrassing IMO to see a British Prime Minster going around Europe with a begging bowel. I honestly think the rest of Europe isn't taking the possibility of Brexit seriously enough. They think we're bluffing, if I'm being honest.

I'm leaning towards a no vote, myself. The anti-democratic nature of the EU scares me, and closer integration will inevitably be only to the benefit of France and Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
That's fine, honestly. But I would like a federal europe in my lifetime and it would be lovely if you guys would get out of the way.

But will the people of Europe. be asked about this? If the EU's track record is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ketara.

Your posts are too lengthy for me to quote from, and although there is a lot of good, sound points in there, there are also a lot of things straight out of the Daily Mail!

Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

 Da Boss wrote:
Essentially, I do not disagree that Britain leaving is entirely up to the British.

I would be much happier with Britain leaving as is, rather than attempting to use it's threatened exit as a bargaining chip. We've got a lot on our plate here at the moment without this.

So just to clarify, despite all I said above, you still just see our referendum as a 'threat' we're using as a bargaining chip? Because that's really, really not how we see it over here. It's more of a 'We're going to do what we're going to do, but let Cameron do his thing and if the EU happens to respond well (the points decided are immaterial), then that's a point in their favour to consider once we hit the ballot box'. I'm not really sure how else to put it....

If you want out, fine, vote. If you leave, it will screw Ireland over, but whatever. I'd prefer britain out of europe and no longer impacting how things are done to a disruptive britain in europe obstructing what I want to see and pushing for agendas I don't agree with. So on that part, we are in total agreement and I don't argue with the principle of the referendum at all. I am against Europe giving concessions to Britain off the face of it, because these concessions could be hashed out in the normal course of EU politics if the British politicians would engage with the process rather than criticising it.

TBH, there is a slight feeling with regards to what Howard says above, that France/Germany get to trample on all the rule whenever it suits them, and they've not been the only ones to just blatantly ignore the EU over the years on things. The 'due process', I feel, doesn't always work within such an institution where the undue process is often the most effective.

I'm sorry if I've been uncivil in what I've said here. It's an issue that gets my back up, because I'm a pretty pro-Europe person and I've been reading too much of the toxic commentary on Europe in the UK for too long.

That's fine, no offense taken. It was just the broad brush of 'xenophobia' that I took issue with. Beyond that, all is well in the State of Fair Verona, where we lay our scene.

I don't want to do a point by point rebuttal right now (tired) but I will say: I do not entirely believe it is in the interest of Europeans like myself that Britain remains, if it is to remain as a disruptive and obstructive force.

I suspect that this vote will solve it one or way or another. Either we'll leave, or we'll have no excuse to go on being quite so disruptive. If the EU says, 'Ever Closer Union is the deal, take it or leave it', and we vote to stay, then that's more or less that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

@Ketara.

Your posts are too lengthy for me to quote from, and although there is a lot of good, sound points in there, there are also a lot of things straight out of the Daily Mail!

Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

I'd have to read it first old bean. I'm a Times/BBC/Private Eye man myself, with the occasional perusal of the Guardian/Independent/Reuters as far as the media goes.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

@Ketara.

Your posts are too lengthy for me to quote from, and although there is a lot of good, sound points in there, there are also a lot of things straight out of the Daily Mail!

Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

I'd have to read it first old bean. I'm a Times/BBC/Private Eye man myself, with the occasional perusal of the Guardian/Independent/Reuters as far as the media goes.

That's what they all say!

Changing the subject slightly, but who the feth is going to lead the out campaign?

Farage is marmite, and is likely to encourage more people to stay in! The Tories will probably be too busy fighting each other, and big business is likely to be more concerned about its profit margins than democracy.

The media will likely side with the IN campaign just like with the Scottish referendum ( they like their new years honours)

On the plus side, Nick Clegg has signed up for the IN campaign, so that'll benefit those who want out!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

That's no myth, unless I wasted twelve weeks of my law degree on a lie.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That's fine, honestly. But I would like a federal europe in my lifetime and it would be lovely if you guys would get out of the way.

But will the people of Europe. be asked about this? If the EU's track record is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding No.

I don't see why not? I mean, who do you think makes up "the EU" if not the democratically elected governments and MEPs of the countries in the EU?

The EU is actually pretty good about respecting referenda that have happened in the past. There is the myth of Ireland being "forced" to vote twice, but actually they addressed our concerns with treaty changes and we voted on a different treaty which was more favourable to our interests the second time around. That's all part of the process. If the governments of other countries don't give the population the chance to have a say, that's actually an issue for your own political system, not the EU, which requires everything to be hashed out in a democratic fashion by the countries themselves.

Germany taking leadership is bad for this dynamic, but equally, where the hell were France and Britain throughout this rolling crisis? Crappy leadership from them has resulted in Germany bearing the brunt of responsibility for everything that is going on, which is unhealthy. My answer is a federal system rather than the hodgepodge we have right now.

You know that Germany and other countries could have won the votes in the European parliament to force countries to go along with them on several issues including the refugee crisis recently, but it didn't because it felt a majority was not enough and they needed a broader consensus?

The EU gets blamed for a lot of crap that's done by the sovereign governments of it's member states.

In one way, the Brexit referendum is good. Because at least Cameron is allowing you guys a say. I've got to respect him in that regard, he didn't have to risk a referendum but he's doing it, and that's very laudable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


It is quite embarrassing IMO to see a British Prime Minster going around Europe with a begging bowel.

This was an image I really did not want in my head

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU budget actually is minute compared to national budgets, but apart from that, it is true that there is a serious lack of democratic accountability. Many countries are worried about it.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in European Union was worth 18460.60 billion US dollars in 2014.

EU budget for 2014 was 142,690 M Euros = 190,264 M USD.

There own auditing department refuse to sign off on there own sections of budgets. Only happens when you have a serious problem there.

That doesn't make the budget large. When you look at the scale of the whole thing, you are complaining about someone who breaks into your car and pinches a few of your travel sweets from the glove box.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


It is quite embarrassing IMO to see a British Prime Minster going around Europe with a begging bowel.

This was an image I really did not want in my head

Damn auto-correct!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

That's no myth, unless I wasted twelve weeks of my law degree on a lie.

Bloody students!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That's fine, honestly. But I would like a federal europe in my lifetime and it would be lovely if you guys would get out of the way.

But will the people of Europe. be asked about this? If the EU's track record is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding No.

I don't see why not? I mean, who do you think makes up "the EU" if not the democratically elected governments and MEPs of the countries in the EU?

The EU is actually pretty good about respecting referenda that have happened in the past. There is the myth of Ireland being "forced" to vote twice, but actually they addressed our concerns with treaty changes and we voted on a different treaty which was more favourable to our interests the second time around. That's all part of the process. If the governments of other countries don't give the population the chance to have a say, that's actually an issue for your own political system, not the EU, which requires everything to be hashed out in a democratic fashion by the countries themselves.

Germany taking leadership is bad for this dynamic, but equally, where the hell were France and Britain throughout this rolling crisis? Crappy leadership from them has resulted in Germany bearing the brunt of responsibility for everything that is going on, which is unhealthy. My answer is a federal system rather than the hodgepodge we have right now.

You know that Germany and other countries could have won the votes in the European parliament to force countries to go along with them on several issues including the refugee crisis recently, but it didn't because it felt a majority was not enough and they needed a broader consensus?

The EU gets blamed for a lot of crap that's done by the sovereign governments of it's member states.

In one way, the Brexit referendum is good. Because at least Cameron is allowing you guys a say. I've got to respect him in that regard, he didn't have to risk a referendum but he's doing it, and that's very laudable.

Please. The electorate say one thing, and the elected leaders do the opposite.

You know that Germany and other countries could have won the votes in the European parliament to force countries to go along with them on several issues including the refugee crisis recently, but it didn't because it felt a majority was not enough and they needed a broader consensus?

You do know that Germany took it upon themselves to suspend Schengen during the refugee crisis, and warned of consequences if countries such as Hungary, didn't take refugees in?

I missed the bit when the Hungarian people elected Angela Merkel to be their head of state!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
More trouble in the conservative ranks over referendum funding from Tory party donors: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/22/tory-mp-criticises-party-chairman-lord-feldman-pro-eu-fundraising

Dear o dear o dear!

I may be wrong on this, but the conservative party can only use its funds to fund the Tories in local council elections. General Elections, and European Parliament elections, and of course, devolved parliaments in the rest of the UK.

Referendums are strictly neutral (being seen to be above party politics)

Get the popcorn in!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I may be wrong on this, but the conservative party can only use its funds to fund the Tories in local council elections. General Elections, and European Parliament elections, and of course, devolved parliaments in the rest of the UK.

Referendums are strictly neutral (being seen to be above party politics)

Get the popcorn in!

I don't think the AV referendum was very neutral

The Liberal Party's worst feth-up this century, IMO.

If they had explained PR better, and got a better alternative set of questions on the ballot, it could have worked. An awful lot of people are fed up with the current system.

They've gone very quiet about PR since it would have led to UKIP having 80 seats or thereabouts. The SNP especially heavily benefit from FPtP. I'm no great fan of UKIP, but they had about three times the total votes of the SNP but got one seat while SNP got 50+.

Yes, the main parties going to keep PR buried now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They've gone very quiet about PR since it would have led to UKIP having 80 seats or thereabouts. The SNP especially heavily benefit from FPtP. I'm no great fan of UKIP, but they had about three times the total votes of the SNP but got one seat while SNP got 50+.

Yes, the main parties going to keep PR buried now.

But then again, it would also help the Lib Dems and Greens a lot more, too, and reduce the stranglehold the Tories have on England due to the way constituencies are currently set up.

Having a bigger UKIP voice in parliament would be more democratic and the parties should seek to directly address the reasons people vote for UKIP, either by educating them as to why UKIPs position is not good for the country or promising to do something about the issues, rather than just keep them out through an unfair electoral system.

SNP got 50% of the votes in Scotland and 95% of the seats. Conservtives got 36% of the votes in England and Wales, and got over 50% of the seats, thus getting into power. Why would these parties want PR?

I personally dislike UKIP but I admit there is a democratic defecit if they can get 13% of the votes and only 0.02% of the seats.

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's called the Flight into Egypt. Where King Harod hears of the birth of the son of God and decides to kill every baby in Bethlehem. So they flee into Egypt to escape his wrath. Only returning when he has died.

But you claimed "Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader". That isn't the case. Christmas is about the birth of Christ. The mention of King Harold's decreee only appears in Matthew's telling, and after the birth of Christ so the Christmas season is not about the Flight to Egypt. The Flight gets a passing mention at this time of year but to say that "Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader" is wholly incorrect

 welshhoppo wrote:
And who should run Greece? Well Greece should run Greece. But they need to run it better.

Then why not say that instead of "Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves."?
What countries should not run themselves?
Who should run these countries instead?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

You mean European Courts and laws do not impact national laws?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's called the Flight into Egypt. Where King Harod hears of the birth of the son of God and decides to kill every baby in Bethlehem. So they flee into Egypt to escape his wrath. Only returning when he has died.

But you claimed "Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader". That isn't the case. Christmas is about the birth of Christ. The mention of King Harold's decreee only appears in Matthew's telling, and after the birth of Christ so the Christmas season is not about the Flight to Egypt. The Flight gets a passing mention at this time of year but to say that "Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader" is wholly incorrect

 welshhoppo wrote:
And who should run Greece? Well Greece should run Greece. But they need to run it better.

Then why not say that instead of "Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves."?
What countries should not run themselves?
Who should run these countries instead?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Especially with regard to European courts meddling in British laws. Bit of a myth that one.

You mean European Courts and laws do not impact national laws?

Actually it is you who is in the wrong. According to the gospel of Matthew the magi from the east come to King Herod and go "Where is the son of God, we are here to worship him." Herod gets scared and tells them to find him "So he may give his blessing." Whereas he actually wants to kill him to keep himself in power. God warns the magi not to trust Herod, so they don't report back. Herod gets annoyed by this and kills all the children in Bethlehem. But luckily, Mary Joseph and Jesus have already left.

So when you see those lovely Christmas plays and the three wise men bring gifts. They have already seen King Herod and have been warned by God. As soon as they leave, an angel tells the family it is best to leave too. And they do, the same day.


As for the countries, there should be some way of making sure they are talking pure gak when it comes to the economy.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Actually it is you who is in the wrong. According to the gospel of Matthew the magi from the east come to King Herod and go "Where is the son of God, we are here to worship him." Herod gets scared and tells them to find him "So he may give his blessing." Whereas he actually wants to kill him to keep himself in power. God warns the magi not to trust Herod, so they don't report back. Herod gets annoyed by this and kills all the children in Bethlehem. But luckily, Mary Joseph and Jesus have already left.

So when you see those lovely Christmas plays and the three wise men bring gifts. They have already seen King Herod and have been warned by God. As soon as they leave, an angel tells the family it is best to leave too. And they do, the same day.

Which part am I incorrect on? Be specific. I said that the decree came after the birth of Christ. You agreed when you said that Herod did not enact his plot until the Magi did not report back.

Christmas has always been about the birth of Christ. The Flight may be a part of that tale but Christmas is not "about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader"

 welshhoppo wrote:
As for the countries, there should be some way of making sure they are talking pure gak when it comes to the economy.

You still have not answered why you said that "Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves."
So lets hear some details of your plan.
So after the country is caught "talking pure gak" then what?
Who should run these countries instead?
When should this transition to another country running them take place?
How should the transition be achieved?
Why can these countries not run themselves?

Christmas Day is about the birth of Christ, but The Christmas period involves the whole nativity.

And I don't have a plan, I'm not an economist. But the rest of Europe stood around and watched as Greece drove itself into the dirt again and again and did nothing about it. Besides you keep taking my quote out of contest, I was answering back to Da Boss about how a federal Europe could have kept a better eye of Greece, if it existed. So who would help run Greece? Federal Europe would have. And you missed out the second part of what I said. The idea that a country is so ineffective that running its own economy that someone else needs to keep tabs on kind of goes against the whole idea of a sovereign state and what it stands for.

I was mourning the fact that we live in an era where people can't trust the governments any more.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Christmas Day is about the birth of Christ, but The Christmas period involves the whole nativity.

Which as its central theme is the birth of Christ. Not the actions of Herod - contrary to your claim "Christmas is about a middle eastern family fleeing from a tyrannical leader."

 welshhoppo wrote:
And I don't have a plan, I'm not an economist. But the rest of Europe stood around and watched as Greece drove itself into the dirt again and again and did nothing about it. Besides you keep taking my quote out of contest, I was answering back to Da Boss about how a federal Europe could have kept a better eye of Greece, if it existed. So who would help run Greece? Federal Europe would have. And you missed out the second part of what I said. The idea that a country is so ineffective that running its own economy that someone else needs to keep tabs on kind of goes against the whole idea of a sovereign state and what it stands for.

You must have some plan or vision of how it would look when one country is taken over by an outside entity. What does that look like?

For context;
"Well if something positive doesn't happen in the next few years. I think the EU will tear itself apart without the need for any help.

I think Greece is an excellent example about why certain countries should not be allowed to run themselves.

It's a terrible thought to have, each country should be in charge of its own finances, but sometimes someone needs to keep an eye on it."
Your quote was about the running of the country, unless you were being very imprecise with your writing it is not unreasonable to read that as the running of the country - as in all of it, not just the economy.

What should Europe have done then instead of watching "as Greece drove itself into the dirt again and again and did nothing about it"?

 welshhoppo wrote:
I was mourning the fact that we live in an era where people can't trust the governments any more.

So you are mourning that "people can't trust the governments any more", but when asked who should have run Greece your answer was "Federal Europe would have", and your solution is that an outside body instead take over and "run" countries. Your solution to people being unable to trust governments seems to be to hand more power over to other governing bodies.

Greece became a bigger problem because those that want an integrated Europe so much rushed it into the single currency?and tied it to the economies of others. It was clearly a weak link in the chain and when it broke the other countries expected everyone to bail the Euro out. Expansion comes as the cost of security. Why there is still talk of Turkey joining in any fashion I can't understand, as if they're going to suddenly turn around their attitudes towards human rights and equality, and their mixed attitudes towards ISIS.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Greece became a bigger problem because those that want an integrated Europe so much rushed it into the single currency?and tied it to the economies of others. It was clearly a weak link in the chain and when it broke the other countries expected everyone to bail the Euro out. Expansion comes as the cost of security. Why there is still talk of Turkey joining in any fashion I can't understand, as if they're going to suddenly turn around their attitudes towards human rights and equality, and their mixed attitudes towards ISIS.

Turkey no, the idea of Europe is expanding somewhat. outside its area. Eastern Europe is a threat to Russia, there starting to tread on there backyard

Greece? they should never have gone single currency until they could of run a level economy, trade, etc etc but not the full single currency till could prove they could run a steady and stable economy.

Except that isn't my solution. I believe quite strongly in the idea of sovereignty, in that a country and their people should be in charge of what they do. It's why I don't like the EU in its current form, I want it broken up and made into something better, where countries can agree to be in a group and have similar thoughts and ideas, not simply forcing them to play ball because we signed up to something completely different nearly half a century ago. Greece was running itself into the ground and lying to its people, the situation that happened to them earlier this year changed from " we will accept no cuts. Elect me and I guarantee it." To "we are accepting the cuts and I'm leaving, tough luck." Maybe with a federal system, someone could have gone. "Hmm, I think Greece is lying about its financial situation, we'd better have a look". And done something about it before it turned into the mess it became.

If you want to ask someone on what a Federal Europe would look like, wait for someone who wants that to explain it. I'm not fond of the idea, maybe in a few decades when the world has started to cool down again and we can actually get along with our neighbours without having trust issues.

And it might not be the central pillar of Christmas Day itself, but it's damn important when it comes to the christmastide and the celebration of the twelve days of Christmas. Childrenmass is celebrated on the 28th of December. Which is the date when Herod supposed killed all the children in Bethlehem.

What is a country, though?

It's surprising how many countries are quite modern inventions. Italy and Germany were both formed in the late 19th century, for example.

Most of the Balkans and huge chunks of eastern Europe was the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918, then got reformed into various countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, these have since split up into five different modern countries.

Slovakia and the Czech Republic only became separate countries in 1993.

You will no doubt say that if the people want to form a separate nation, then the principle of self-determination means that regard should be paid to those wishes. I would agree with that, and say that the same principle works in reverse, meaning that if people from separate countries want to form a closer international union, that also should be given thought.