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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.

So...what you're saying is that my initial impression was right? And that it's irrelevant when discussing what's more democratically accountable to the British electorate? Grand.

The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.

I'm aware of that. But they have they also have the power to pass any proposed legislation, regardless of the will of the EUP. Look it up.

I did, they don't.

Clearly someone should tell them that then, considering it's currently laid out in Article IV-444 of the Constitutional Treaty, and used when setting setting the external tariff (Article 31)and when negotiating trade issues under the Common Commercial Policy.

We clearly aren't going to agree, and could obviously go round and round in circles until the end of time. We are arguing issues of semantics and minutiae now, so I suggest we leave it there.

If you like. But frankly, you made a statement ( "I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable then Brussels.") ) which I've demonstrated factually, logically, and with evidence, to be wrong. There's no semantics, or 'we can both be right' involved on this one, I'm afraid. You can claim the sky is full of flying cheese all you like (that's entirely within your prerogative), but until you can produce the gorgonzola, so to speak, it doesn't mean very much. I take no issue with you voting 'Remain because that's what's best for you economically, and have full respect for that (and indeed, any integrationist/federalist desire anyone might have). But the idea that European institutions are somehow more democratically accountable to the British populace than their own government is a outright falsehood, and demonstrably so.

For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"

I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point. Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.

This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread, the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics. And one you simply refused to let him do that. Its as if you're all so insecure about your reasons for voting out that you MUST have the last word and MUST be proven right. I mean how dare someone else hold a different view from you...quick let's chase him around the thread and MAKE him agree with us.

If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.

Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.

if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

This. This point is raised again and again and really it is a ridiculous argument. It basically boils down to the UK electorate not taking an interest in the european elections and then complaining that they get no say. You do get a say if you vote for effective representation in the european parliament instead of ignoring the european elections and ending up with a load of UKIP MEPs who don't even bother to show up to the EU parliament.

I think Malus and the General are missing a very importsnt point: the more layers between the people and their representatives, the more detached they feel from the decision making process. I know who my MEP is, as I'm actively interested in politics, but even as somebody as engaged as myself still feels disillusioned at times.

I live in a part of Britain where 56 of the 59 MPs are from the SNP, and yet, every amendment they made to last year's Scotland Bill was shot down by MPs from the rest of the UK, and now, because of EVEL, Scottish MPs can't even vote on some bills, because they are deemed to be 'English,' even though they potentially affect the block grant funding for Scotland.

And you call that Democracy?

Then we have the EU and all its institutions, and the UK finds itself sidelined and marginalised on decisions that effect the British people, and again, it makes a mockery of democracy.

I'm as engaged as well as anybody when it comes to taking an interest in these things, but even I feel disillusioned with the democratic process at times.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.

Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.

if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.

I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.

The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think Malus and the General are missing a very importsnt point: the more layers between the people and their representatives, the more detached they feel from the decision making process. I know who my MEP is, as I'm actively interested in politics, but even as somebody as engaged as myself still feels disillusioned at times.

I live in a part of Britain where 56 of the 59 MPs are from the SNP, and yet, every amendment they made to last year's Scotland Bill was shot down by MPs from the rest of the UK, and now, because of EVEL, Scottish MPs can't even vote on some bills, because they are deemed to be 'English,' even though they potentially affect the block grant funding for Scotland.

And you call that Democracy?

Then we have the EU and all its institutions, and the UK finds itself sidelined and marginalised on decisions that effect the British people, and again, it makes a mockery of democracy.

I'm as engaged as well as anybody when it comes to taking an interest in these things, but even I feel disillusioned with the democratic process at times.

On the flip side, only half of Scottish votes went to the SNP and somehow they got 95% of the seats. Which is also extremely undemocratic.

But it is better than the EU.

The law making process is bounced between the European Parliament (MEPs) and the council, which is the heads of each countries government.

Basically, if every soul in Britain felt strongly about a certain topic, at most we would end up with less than 10% of the EP, and only 1/28 of the Council.

It doesn't matter if you personally know your MEP, it doesn't matter if you have Cameron over for lunch every Tuesday and then go drag racing in his wives new Renault Clio, it doesn't matter if everyone in the UK did exactly the same thing, there is almost no connection between the average European and the legislature. That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.

Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have. Not being arsed to vote is not a good enough reason to complain about the unfairness of the system. We get the system we deserve. As has been mentioned, perhaps the fishing quotas would have been better off if Farage did his job instead of deliberately breaking the system so that he'd be proven right and get more votes?

 SirDonlad wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.

Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.

if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.

I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.

The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!

I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.

Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.

Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have. Not being arsed to vote is not a good enough reason to complain about the unfairness of the system. We get the system we deserve. As has been mentioned, perhaps the fishing quotas would have been better off if Farage did his job instead of deliberately breaking the system so that he'd be proven right and get more votes?

Precisely, what makes me laugh the most about UKIP and their MEPs is the fact that they always harp on about the "European gravy train" when they are some of the worst offenders regarding claiming expenses and not doing their actual job.

 General Kroll wrote:


For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"

If that wasn't what you were arguing with your comment? Then your comment was pointless. Saying, 'Well, the EU is more accountable for the people of the EU collectively' has little relevance to a thread to a thread about British voters and their concerns unless you're taking a federalist/integrationist position in which we're better off as part of a larger organisation regardless of our level of democratic accountability. Which would be fine, but if that's the case, why you've spent three pages arguing with me saying I prefer the enhanced democratic accountability the status quo/leave offers the British people is beyond me.

But that wasn't quite how you put it, was it?

I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point.

No, there's little point because it;s chalk and cheese, and not really comparable, as already pointed out. The EUP does not fill the same legislative role as the House of Commons. One can propose, debate and pass legislation, the other can only ultimately debate it.

Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.

It's nothing to do with being blase. It's understanding how the systems work. You are free to believe that the European parliament can propose legislation if you like, but considering you've already said elsewhere that isn't the case, I have no idea why you persist in talking about comparisons between the two. It's like arguing that the Army fulfills a defence role better than the Navy,. Yes both work in the same department (the military), but they fulfill different functions.

This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread,

You can try and play the martyr if you like, but considering that you immediately follow up with:-

the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics.

it kind of ruins the act. I'm not a fanatic. Seriously. Skim back through my posts to the start of this thread. I was undecided until relatively recently. The only thing that tipped me over the edge was reading future plans for further integration by the EU, laid out by the EU themselves, and even then, I'm kind of annoyed by that. I look at both the good and the bad the EU brings to our country. Christ, a good chunk of my employment sector gets it's funding from the EU. I have every reason to support 'Remain'.

But the way you've just tried to paint me as the evil aggressor in your own little internet drama follows on with much of your style of argument so far, where you've ranted repeatedly about the evils of brexiters, how little they understand the system (which you've proven even you don't fully understand over the course of this conversation), and generally hammed it up a bit like an amateur in a Shakespeare play instead of making solid, logical, arguments.

I have no desire to make you agree with me. You can believe what you like.I repeatedly point out where you've said something valid, or where it would be opinion to hold a specific viewpoint. Like indeed, in the first paragraph of this post. But I will continue to challenge factual falsehoods, because this is too important a vote for people to be misled by sloppy inaccurate reasoning. We get enough of that from the press without people like yourself stirring the cauldron for good measure.

For that matter, I've seen several other posts (some by leave, some by remain) which I would have challenged, but I've been too absorbed with debating with you. I only have so many hours a day to type things on the internet!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.

Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have

.

No, our say would remain just as insignificant. We would still have less than 10% of the EUP and 1/28th of the EUC. Which is such a small number that people just can't be bothered. Our views are not perceived to change things one way or another for the British Electorate, so people just don't bother expressing them.

I fully accept that this is part of the functioning of an international organisation, and expecting to control it all would be foolish. But the feeling is generally that if you can't even come close to controlling it, why bother paying any attention to it? Yet the amount of power that has accrued to the EU has left people beginning to feel as if they would like a greater say in any organisation which has such control over their lives (in a legislative capacity). But despite this ever increasing control, the level of control/influence the British electorate has over the European machine remains static (and not particularly large).

Hence the view that our current system, for all of it's flaws, is still of infinitely greater democratic accountability to the British people, and therefore, better (unless one has integrationist/federalist beliefs, which is a-ok).

The UK is told that there cannot be a renegotiation of treaties such as schengen and yet the EU is blatantly changing their own rules when it suits in order to prevent a collapse.

The growth and stability pact limited EU government debt levels to 60% of GDP. The Schengen treaty prevents financial bailouts.

EU treaties specifically prevent EU countries from leaving the single currency.

Italy currently has liabilities totalling 134% of GDP. The ECB is pumping out £80b per month to prop up governments with high levels of debt.
Tied to a single currency Italy has lost 30% of its labour competitiveness to Germany since 1999. A situation that could be resolved if Italy had the Lira and could devalue it.

Greece is being bailed out, even with serious reforms Italys banks are close to insolvent and the situation in Spain and Portugal is probably marginal.

Why should we enter a union which is artificially kept alive even against its publicly stated regulations?

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"

If that wasn't what you were arguing with your comment? Then your comment was pointless. Saying, 'Well, the EU is more accountable for the people of the EU collectively' has little relevance to a thread to a thread about British voters and their concerns unless you're taking a federalist/integrationist position in which we're better off as part of a larger organisation regardless of our level of democratic accountability. Which would be fine, but if that's the case, why you've spent three pages arguing with me saying I prefer the enhanced democratic accountability the status quo/leave offers the British people is beyond me.

But that wasn't quite how you put it, was it?

I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point.

No, there's little point because it;s chalk and cheese, and not really comparable, as already pointed out. The EUP does not fill the same legislative role as the House of Commons. One can propose, debate and pass legislation, the other can only ultimately debate it.

Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.

It's nothing to do with being blase. It's understanding how the systems work. You are free to believe that the European parliament can propose legislation if you like, but considering you've already said elsewhere that isn't the case, I have no idea why you persist in talking about comparisons between the two. It's like arguing that the Army fulfills a defence role better than the Navy,. Yes both work in the same department (the military), but they fulfill different functions.

This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread,

You can try and play the martyr if you like, but considering that you immediately follow up with:-

the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics.

it kind of ruins the act. I'm not a fanatic. Seriously. Skim back through my posts to the start of this thread. I was undecided until relatively recently. The only thing that tipped me over the edge was reading future plans for further integration by the EU, laid out by the EU themselves, and even then, I'm kind of annoyed by that. I look at both the good and the bad the EU brings to our country. Christ, a good chunk of my employment sector gets it's funding from the EU. I have every reason to support 'Remain'.

But the way you've just tried to paint me as the evil aggressor in your own little internet drama follows on with much of your style of argument so far, where you've ranted repeatedly about the evils of brexiters, how little they understand the system (which you've proven even you don't fully understand over the course of this conversation), and generally hammed it up a bit like an amateur in a Shakespeare play instead of making solid, logical, arguments.

I have no desire to make you agree with me. You can believe what you like.I repeatedly point out where you've said something valid, or where it would be opinion to hold a specific viewpoint. Like indeed, in the first paragraph of this post. But I will continue to challenge factual falsehoods, because this is too important a vote for people to be misled by sloppy inaccurate reasoning. We get enough of that from the press without people like yourself stirring the cauldron for good measure.

For that matter, I've seen several other posts (some by leave, some by remain) which I would have challenged, but I've been too absorbed with debating with you. I only have so many hours a day to type things on the internet!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.

Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have

.

No, our say would remain just as insignificant. We would still have less than 10% of the EUP and 1/28th of the EUC. Which is such a small number that people just can't be bothered. Our views are not perceived to change things one way or another for the British Electorate, so people just don't bother expressing them.

I fully accept that this is part of the functioning of an international organisation, and expecting to control it all would be foolish. But the feeling is generally that if you can't even come close to controlling it, why bother paying any attention to it? Yet the amount of power that has accrued to the EU has left people beginning to feel as if they would like a greater say in any organisation which has such control over their lives (in a legislative capacity). But despite this ever increasing control, the level of control/influence the British electorate has over the European machine remains static (and not particularly large).

Hence the view that our current system, for all of it's flaws, is still of infinitely greater democratic accountability to the British people, and therefore, better (unless one has integrationist/federalist beliefs, which is a-ok).

Whatever dude, I politely tried to end the circular debate...you seem intent on trying to force me to continue in it. I call that harassment in my book. You can go on the ignore list

@GeneralKroll

Is it wrong to question the EU and its motives? especially regarding its position to the UK and its activity within the rest of the union?

No to renegotiation of treaties vs provisions of treaties being ignored.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The UK is told that there cannot be a renegotiation of treaties such as schengen and yet the EU is blatantly changing their own rules when it suits in order to prevent a collapse.

The growth and stability pact limited EU government debt levels to 60% of GDP. The Schengen treaty prevents financial bailouts.

EU treaties specifically prevent EU countries from leaving the single currency.

Italy currently has liabilities totalling 134% of GDP. The ECB is pumping out £80b per month to prop up governments with high levels of debt.
Tied to a single currency Italy has lost 30% of its labour competitiveness to Germany since 1999. A situation that could be resolved if Italy had the Lira and could devalue it.

Greece is being bailed out, even with serious reforms Italys banks are close to insolvent and the situation in Spain and Portugal is probably marginal.

Why should we enter a union which is artificially kept alive even against its publicly stated regulations?

People talk a lot about the problems with maintaining the currency, but few talk about the issues surrounding dissolving it (or even just revoking it in a single country). It would seriously shock the European market and currency in several ways, not to mention the issues that permitting the precedent would cause. For example, what would be to stop countries running up vast Euro debts, and then leaving five years later, defaulting and converting to another currency, and taking advantage of the disruption in the market they'd sabotaged? Christ, it would be like the problems they had with the original private banks hundreds of years ago.

The united currency should never have been attempted without some form of budgetary union or control, but they can't admit that now, and nobody will agree to it democratically. So all they can do is try and hurry along the gently gently slowly slowly approach as much as possible (as seen in the five presidents report), and keep pumping cash in to keep it afloat until they reach a point where it isn't a liability anymore. In the face of that, I don't see anyone trying to force us into the Euro any time soon, and frankly, I'm not convinced they would want to even then. There are uses to having a country with a currency as strong as sterling in the Eurozone.

 General Kroll wrote:


Whatever dude, I politely tried to end the circular debate...you seem intent on trying to force me to continue in it. I call that harassment in my book. You can go on the ignore list

General Kroll : *throws ad hominems and runs away*

The only one making circular arguments here is you, General Kroll. You've mocked other people for "always wanting the last word", yet here you are stomping your foot down and saying "no more! I will ignore you".

You've mocked other people for making personal attacks and ad hominem, and yet here you are ignoring his arguments, labelling him a fanatic and accusing him of harassment. This is a public debate on a public forum where everyone including you can express their opinions freely and disagree with opinions. People disagreeing with your opinion is NOT harassment. If you wish to continue expressing your opinions in this thread, people have the right to continue disagreeing with you, whether or not you wish to speak to them.

You should withdraw the accusation of harrassment against Ketara and your remark calling him a "fanatic" and apologise for those personal attacks. Such an accusation might be credible against someone like me who tends to lose their temper, but Ketara is one of the only true moderates in this thread, and the way you've treated him is beyond belief. Of all the people in this thread, and Dakka Dakka in general, he is one of the people you really should not be burning bridges with.

I have this terrible, sinking, depressing feeling that Remain is going to win this. And we'll all come to regret it.

I would bet money that if we vote to remain, Cameron's...for the sake of argument, I'll call them reforms, will be ditched asap. And that'll only be the beginning. They'll demand more money, more control, and if we argue back they'll say 'what are you going to do? Leave? Yeah right'.

I would also bet money that they will make it impossible to leave after this too.

Other European leaders have stated publicly that they'll veto the reforms.

Well, there you go.

 General Kroll wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.

Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.

if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.

I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.

The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!

I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.

Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?

Hoi! i asked you to explain how the MEP made me better represented! aren't you going to answer?
Well, i guess that means i'm NOT better represented by an MEP rather than my local MP.

Fine, but it's the thrust of MY argument and it's decidedly more compelling than your fantasy about how you can freely move, live, work and retire in the EU despite the fact that you cant.
It also highlights the inescapability of the hidden legislation which will be forced upon all member states.
Part of what makes our relationship with the EU currently (what you stated you were judging your vote on) is our exceptions - units and measures, currency, border controls, etc - other EU states have made it clear that they view any exceptions britain has as unacceptable and are working to remove our concessions - this is compounded by the 'groupthink' scenario we will be entering into - If britain decides it wants out after getting involved we have to convince 55% of all member states to agree to let us leave and they wont.

The laws i dislike right now are few because so far we have had the choice to adopt it or not - future policy and whether or not we are able to influence or reject that is my real issue; one which you stated you were not going to be considering when you vote which as others pointed out is incredibly short-sighted.

To answer your question (maybe you'll do me the same courtesy?)

Current laws i dislike....
All road signage and vehicle dial readings have to be in KPH (covered by an exception)
All weights and measures used in trading must be metric (covered by an exception)
All member states must use the euro (covered by an exception)
The schengen 'agreement' (covered by an exception)
Emissions testing for military vehicles. The concept is absurd.
Fishing quota's: woefully under-considered and shows a general callousness by the EU toward britain as well as a lack of consideration for consequences of the decision along with a refusal to address concerns by one nation over the actions of another.
The 'trade union bill' states that if the turnout of an industrial strike ballot was under 50% then the result is void and strike action would be illegal - they have no such concession for themselves. they're above the laws which govern you and i apparently.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm
I could go on but i have a life to attend to.

Upcoming issues I object to...
The upcoming forced integration of our national defence capability. We can look after ourselves and have been doing so for centuries - Fascism washed against our shores in 1945 and was turned back thanks to our technological advancement and the English channel.
The financial instability of the whole arrangement - why wont merkel declare her deal for greece to the IMF until after our referendum? financial shenanigans to cover the disparity created by insisting a weak/failing economy (greece) tries to keep the same valued currency as one which is prospering nicely (germany).
The two faced nature of deals with the EU - EU citizens don't need visas to come here, but we need them to go there; similar with turkeys 'negotiations' over inclusion.
Being locked into being ruled by someone who doesn't even live here. They don't know us, and they won't know our hardships as a result. nothing good can come of this.
There being no way to repeal or challenge laws which have been forced upon us. Mob rule is frustrating in our own politics - mix that with 28 nations all vying over the details makes for no real say at all.
The reduction in my democratic representation while vocal minorities try to claim it is increasing. You can lie to yourself, but don't lie to me.
The generation of a new 'superpower' on russias border. Look whats happened with the missile systems in poland! one side builds up a threat, the other responds.. ad infinitum


If everything was going to stay the same then everything would be sort of manageable, but it's not.
'Remaining' requires adopting every law the EU comes up with without question; that we are to trust them as 'fair' and 'reasonable' - so when i consider the amount of hidden deals they have done (listed by 'DO_I_NOT_LIKE_THAT earlier in the thread) i know there is worse to come. Secret societies have never had the interests of the people at heart.

I'd like to point out that some of the dakkites living in the EU (DaBoss among others) have noted that they would like britain to join and admit that there are a lot of flaws in the EU currently and that they were hoping that britains 'influence' would start to sort things out; but given the politicians we have want to screw everyone so they and their mates can line their pockets at the taxpayers expense that aint going to happen. Which is kinda where the EU overlords (the five presidents) are at right now too. (striving to develop positions of unimpeachability and wealth)

Future War Cultist wrote:I have this terrible, sinking, depressing feeling that Remain is going to win this. And we'll all come to regret it.

I would bet money that if we vote to remain, Cameron's...for the sake of argument, I'll call them reforms, will be ditched asap. And that'll only be the beginning. They'll demand more money, more control, and if we argue back they'll say 'what are you going to do? Leave? Yeah right'.

Of course. But as regards regretting it? Eh. Depends highly on what you believe the place of Britain in the world is. I don't doubt for a minute that the amount of democratic accountability of the poilitical class to the average British voter will decrease as Europe slowly absorbs more power. But by the same measure, being part of a large power bloc is rarely a disadvantage, and has much to be said for it. I suspect we'll just fade away into a region, much as Wales within Britain. And that isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.

Ultimately, the USA's political class has been removed from the average voter for some time now (there's a reason their Presidents run in dynasties) and big corporate money talks far louder there than any real domestic concerns. I suspect we will simply end up becoming something similar as the United States of Europe. (USE). Perhaps we'll be slightly less involved on a political level, but I doubt the USE will be organising the Stazi MK2.

An interesting question will be what it means when the USE finishes it's transition to superpower status, and what that bodes on the international level. Certainly, we would far outstrip the USA in terms of power, and most likely China too. I'm not sure how either of those places would feel about being relegated to second and third in the superpower department.

And Shadow Captain, I appreciate the endorsement. I think it's probably wasted here, but it's always nice to hear that someone appreciates the effort you put in!

 SirDonlad wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.

EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.

And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.

The scale of it all is just too big.

It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.

Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.

I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.

Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.

if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.

I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.

The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!

I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.

Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?

Hoi! i asked you to explain how the MEP made me better represented! aren't you going to answer?
Well, i guess that means i'm NOT better represented by an MEP rather than my local MP.

Fine, but it's the thrust of MY argument and it's decidedly more compelling than your fantasy about how you can freely move, live, work and retire in the EU despite the fact that you cant.
It also highlights the inescapability of the hidden legislation which will be forced upon all member states.
Part of what makes our relationship with the EU currently (what you stated you were judging your vote on) is our exceptions - units and measures, currency, border controls, etc - other EU states have made it clear that they view any exceptions britain has as unacceptable and are working to remove our concessions - this is compounded by the 'groupthink' scenario we will be entering into - If britain decides it wants out after getting involved we have to convince 55% of all member states to agree to let us leave and they wont.

The laws i dislike right now are few because so far we have had the choice to adopt it or not - future policy and whether or not we are able to influence or reject that is my real issue; one which you stated you were not going to be considering when you vote which as others pointed out is incredibly short-sighted.

To answer your question (maybe you'll do me the same courtesy?)

Current laws i dislike....
All road signage and vehicle dial readings have to be in KPH (covered by an exception)
All weights and measures used in trading must be metric (covered by an exception)
All member states must use the euro (covered by an exception)
The schengen 'agreement' (covered by an exception)
Emissions testing for military vehicles. The concept is absurd.
Fishing quota's: woefully under-considered and shows a general callousness by the EU toward britain as well as a lack of consideration for consequences of the decision along with a refusal to address concerns by one nation over the actions of another.
The 'trade union bill' states that if the turnout of an industrial strike ballot was under 50% then the result is void and strike action would be illegal - they have no such concession for themselves. they're above the laws which govern you and i apparently.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm
I could go on but i have a life to attend to.

Upcoming issues I object to...
The upcoming forced integration of our national defence capability. We can look after ourselves and have been doing so for centuries - Fascism washed against our shores in 1945 and was turned back thanks to our technological advancement and the English channel.
The financial instability of the whole arrangement - why wont merkel declare her deal for greece to the IMF until after our referendum? financial shenanigans to cover the disparity created by insisting a weak/failing economy (greece) tries to keep the same valued currency as one which is prospering nicely (germany).
The two faced nature of deals with the EU - EU citizens don't need visas to come here, but we need them to go there; similar with turkeys 'negotiations' over inclusion.
Being locked into being ruled by someone who doesn't even live here. They don't know us, and they won't know our hardships as a result. nothing good can come of this.
There being no way to repeal or challenge laws which have been forced upon us. Mob rule is frustrating in our own politics - mix that with 28 nations all vying over the details makes for no real say at all.
The reduction in my democratic representation while vocal minorities try to claim it is increasing. You can lie to yourself, but don't lie to me.
The generation of a new 'superpower' on russias border. Look whats happened with the missile systems in poland! one side builds up a threat, the other responds.. ad infinitum


If everything was going to stay the same then everything would be sort of manageable, but it's not.
'Remaining' requires adopting every law the EU comes up with without question; that we are to trust them as 'fair' and 'reasonable' - so when i consider the amount of hidden deals they have done (listed by 'DO_I_NOT_LIKE_THAT earlier in the thread) i know there is worse to come. Secret societies have never had the interests of the people at heart.

I'd like to point out that some of the dakkites living in the EU (DaBoss among others) have noted that they would like britain to join and admit that there are a lot of flaws in the EU currently and that they were hoping that britains 'influence' would start to sort things out; but given the politicians we have want to screw everyone so they and their mates can line their pockets at the taxpayers expense that aint going to happen. Which is kinda where the EU overlords (the five presidents) are at right now too. (striving to develop positions of unimpeachability and wealth)

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The only one making circular arguments here is you, General Kroll. You've mocked other people for "always wanting the last word", yet here you are stomping your foot down and saying "no more! I will ignore you".

You've mocked other people for making personal attacks and ad hominem, and yet here you are ignoring his arguments, labelling him a fanatic and accusing him of harassment. This is a public debate on a public forum where everyone including you can express their opinions freely and disagree with opinions. People disagreeing with your opinion is NOT harassment. If you wish to continue expressing your opinions in this thread, people have the right to continue disagreeing with you, whether or not you wish to speak to them.

You should withdraw the accusation of harrassment against Ketara and your remark calling him a "fanatic" and apologise for those personal attacks. Such an accusation might be credible against someone like me who tends to lose their temper, but Ketara is one of the only true moderates in this thread, and the way you've treated him is beyond belief. Of all the people in this thread, and Dakka Dakka in general, he is one of the people you really should not be burning bridges with.

How about you withdraw your personal attacks against me then?

I withdraw NOTHING. I've not ignored anyone's arguments, I've responded with my opinions, and suggested that there isn't anywhere else to go with the discussion. There isn't. In response, I've been harassed by Ketara and had personal insults thrown at me by both him and you. So much for freedom of debate.

People can agree to disagree about things, I recognised that the argument was going to go in circles and I decided to withdraw from it, I've mocked no one. I've merely stated an opinion.

I made an attempt to end the discussion politely. It was rejected. So be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
@GeneralKroll

Is it wrong to question the EU and its motives? especially regarding its position to the UK and its activity within the rest of the union?

No to renegotiation of treaties vs provisions of treaties being ignored.

It's a good thing to question people's motives, I don't know why you assume I think it wouldn't be.

 General Kroll wrote:

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.

It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.


Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.


Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.


The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.

Very well. I apologise for calling you selfish. I do believe its selfish to think only of your own short term economic interests and not the democratic rights of future generations (I believe there may come a time in the next century when we'll be too integrated to secede, and we'll have ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation and therefore lack the power to secede anyway) but I admit it wasn't helpful for this debate.

Now, are you going to apologise for labelling Ketara a fanatic and falsely accusing him of harassing you? He is probably the most polite, reasonable and patient person in this thread. Burning bridges with such a person is very unwise.

I would also suggest looking up the proper definition of harassment. Harassment would be Ketara following you from thread to thread, making repeated personal attacks and constantly bringing up the EU and trying to continue the argument in unrelated threads. It sure as hell is not criticising and disagreeing with your opinion in one single thread. Losing patience with a discussion with someone whose mind you have failed to change is not harassment.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.

It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.


Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.


Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.


The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.

I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.

 General Kroll wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.

It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.


Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.


Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.


The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.

I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.

You don't know that. You're taking the modern day status quo of treaties and our current legal status, and assuming it will always remain so. But the further we integrate, the more sovereignty we relinquish, the more difficult it will be for us to leave. Eventually, if we continue on this path, we won't have the power to secede. This is not hypothetical, its the stated aim of the EU - a federalised super state.

I called you selfish because you refuse to consider a long term perspective, and are only basing your decision on your own economic interests today. This decision will impact on future generations for the next century. Its bigger than us.

 General Kroll wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.

It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.


Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.


Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.


The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.

I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.

That's certainly your prerogative. However, to make a truly informed decision, one has to look at the long view in addition to everything else. If you don't take into account what WILL (not "could") be forced on you years down the road, that's just shortsighted in my humble opinion. By then, it will be too late, because Britain will too integrated to pull out of an federated, European superstate, with a Euro military, with out violence or outside assistance. The powers that be in Brussels will NOT let the British to pull out of the EU in that instance, without taking harsh measures, out of fear that others may get the same idea (like they are going apeshit behind closed doors over Brexit right now) You will just be another province in the new Euro Empire. Your fate won't be your own anymore. Do you want that for your descendants? For your land with centuries of a precious cultural tradition, that spread that tradition and ideas of government over a quarter of the globe?


This is not a crackpot, paranoid conspiracy theory. It's the same sad story of conquered peoples throughout history. Only in this instance, Britain won't be conquered by force of arms, but by lies, false idealism, selfishness, and apathy.

If you are wondering why an American gives a damn about the United Kingdom's future, it's easy to explain. Much of our founding principles and system of government is based on the British tradition. The original 13 colonies were British. A lot of folks in the UK may despise us and our politics. But we are still FAMILY. The British Isles is, for all intents and purposes, the mother country of the United States, even if we misbehaved and started a revolution back in 1775.


It's your right to vote as you see fit, and I respect that. But it's Brexit or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is a historical crossroads for Britain. Will a proto-totalitarian, overbearing entity possibly pull off what the French and Germans couldn't over the last thousand years? Or will Britain retake it's own destiny? And that's just how I see on this side of the pond.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Very well. I apologise for calling you selfish. I do believe its selfish to think only of your own short term economic interests and not the democratic rights of future generations (I believe there may come a time in the next century when we'll be too integrated to secede, and we'll have ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation and therefore lack the power to secede anyway) but I admit it wasn't helpful for this debate.

Now, are you going to apologise for labelling Ketara a fanatic and falsely accusing him of harassing you? He is probably the most polite, reasonable and patient person in this thread. Burning bridges with such a person is very unwise.

I would also suggest looking up the proper definition of harassment. Harassment would be Ketara following you from thread to thread, making repeated personal attacks and constantly bringing up the EU and trying to continue the argument in unrelated threads. It sure as hell is not criticising and disagreeing with your opinion in one single thread. Losing patience with a discussion with someone whose mind you have failed to change is not harassment.

Fair enough, thanks for the apology. I never intended my opinions to come across as selfish, there's plenty of people that benefit from the things I've listed. But sure that's another case where we will have to agree to disagree.

As for Ketara,mi do feel very put upon, since I offered to end the debate he's made repeated posts at me in this thread as well as openly mocked me. In my view that's harassment. If he wants to withdraw those posts, then fine. But I still feel wronged. And let's be clear about this, I'm fine with someone holding a different view on something, there's no problem there, what's annoyed me is the attempt to continue the argument when I clearly have no interest in doing so. I was polite enough to offer to end if, I even wished him an enjoyable bank holiday. That olive branch was rejected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?

I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.

We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.

It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.


Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.


Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.


The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.

I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.

That's certainly your prerogative. However, to make a truly informed decision, one has to look at the long view in addition to everything else. If you don't take into account what WILL (not "could") be forced on you years down the road, that's just shortsighted in my humble opinion. By then, it will be too late, because Britain will too integrated to pull out of an federated, European superstate, with a Euro military, with out violence or outside assistance. The powers that be in Brussels will NOT let the British to pull out of the EU in that instance, without taking harsh measures, out of fear that others may get the same idea (like they are going apeshit behind closed doors over Brexit right now) You will just be another province in the new Euro Empire. Your fate won't be your own anymore. Do you want that for your descendants? For your land with centuries of a precious cultural tradition, that spread that tradition and ideas of government over a quarter of the globe?


This is not a crackpot, paranoid conspiracy theory. It's the same sad story of conquered peoples throughout history. Only in this instance, Britain won't be conquered by force of arms, but by lies, false idealism, selfishness, and apathy.

If you are wondering why an American gives a damn about the United Kingdom's future, it's easy to explain. Much of our founding principles and system of government is based on the British tradition. The original 13 colonies were British. A lot of folks in the UK may despise us and our politics. But we are still FAMILY. The British Isles is, for all intents and purposes, the mother country of the United States, even if we misbehaved and started a revolution back in 1775.


It's your right to vote as you see fit, and I respect that. But it's Brexit or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is a historical crossroads for Britain. Will a proto-totalitarian, overbearing entity possibly pull off what the French and Germans couldn't over the last thousand years? Or will Britain retake it's own destiny? And that's just how I see on this side of the pond.

No offence, but that sounds JUST like crackpot conspiracy theories to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and here's a nice balanced article on the "threat" of an eu army coming along and making us all bend to its will.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-army?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

You are wrong GK. If you no longer wished to participate in a discussion, you could have walked away from the thread. You could have stopped responding to Ketara, and that would have been the end of it.

Instead, you're trying to have the last word, then petulantly demanding that Ketara shut up and stop responding to you. That's not how debates work. If someone wishes to respond to your "final" comment on on issue, they have every right to. Its your decision to walk away and end the discussion, or continue the discussion. You chose to continue it. You did not offer an olive branch, you wanted to end the discussion on your terms.

If you wish to continue participating and expressing your opinion in this thread, Ketara has every right to continue responding to you, whether you wish to speak to him or not.

You don't get to just mic drop, then complain that you're being harassed if the other person picks up his mic.

Your accusation is absurd and false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is Ketara following you around Dakka Dakka, trying to continue the eu debate in completely unrelated threads? That would be harassment. Disagreeing with you in one thread is not.

Its as absurd as me accusing people in the Ukraine thread of harassing me when they disagree with and criticize me because I'm one of perhaps just three people who are sympathetic to Russia's position. Holding a minority opinion and being "ganged up on" for holding an unpopular opinion is not harassment. They don't follow me from thread to thread.

 General Kroll wrote:


No offence, but that sounds JUST like crackpot conspiracy theories to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and here's a nice balanced article on the "threat" of an eu army coming along and making us all bend to its will.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-army?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

That article is disingenuous at best and a distraction. But I would expect that from The Guardian.



1. The leadership of the EU have made it perfectly clear that the end goal is a federalized Europe There is no conspiracy theory here. It's common knowledge and the long-term policy of the European Union.


2. You are the one that's trying to twist it into me spouting off conspiracy theories, and citing horsegak articles to support this.


It doesn't take rocket science for those who know basic geopolitics. But I state it anyway.


If you have a nation-state, you need the means to defend it or project policy. That means a military answerable to the political leadership of said nation-state. Not every national entity has the luxury of not having armed forces like Costa Rica. Even Japan, which supposedly doesn't have a military "on paper", has a defacto military in the JSDF.


Only the blind, overly idealistic, or incredibly stupid would believe that a European Union, existing as a nation-state, would not have it's own armed forces. You seriously think that a federal European Union is going to rely on the seperate militaries of the FORMERLY independent nation-states or NATO for it's defense? You seriously think that a federalized Europe is going to refrain from forming a military, with troublesome members and a potentially hostile Russian Federation on their doorstep? You seriously think that a federalized European super-state is going to continue to rely on the United States to play a part in European defense?


It's not a damned "conspiracy theory", Hoss. It damned plain old common sense.


There will be a Euro army if Europe federalizes into a sovereign political nation-state. Period. And if a member decides to leave the union? You can bet that there will policies in place to prevent that in the interests of "national cohesion".

To think otherwise is whistling in the dark while walking through a graveyard.

Well they already have plans in the "millitary" direction.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/brussels-unveils-controversial-plan-for-eu-border-force/