Printable View
OK, the last thread got locked so please behave kiddies. :beam:
My take on it is this.
Forget all the arguments about trade, immigration and all the rest.
Do you want the ability to remove the politicians who make the laws?
If you do, then you should vote to leave.
If you couldn't give a monkeys chuff about the demos, then vote to stay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg
Who did you vote for in the last Euro election? Did you canvas for your MEP candidate?
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You know as well as I do the MEPs are members of a toothless talking shop. The real power is the Commission.
Help us Obiwan Kanobi, you are our only hope. A brexit is the only way we will ever get a nexit, and blow up the EU together.
The real power is the UK Parliament, whose MPs we elect. Most European bodies are practically powerless unless we decide we want to implement whatever it is they're suggesting. There is a powerful movement in the EU that transcends national government, but it's to do with the euro and hence something that doesn't concern us. Nearly everything in the EU that overrides national government we've opted out of. There may well be a good argument within the eurozone for exiting a body that has powers that they can do nothing about, but the UK is free of nearly everything of that sort. For the UK, the EU is not much more than an EEC with some social additions that our national government wants anyway. A Nexit may make philosophical sense on those grounds. Not so much a Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Even if we do exit the EU, we're not big enough to stand alone in global markets. So we're going to have to look elsewhere for a bloc that will support our interests. The closest alternative is the US. The problem with a US-UK economic bloc is that the US is even keener on what we see as the worst parts of globalisation than the EU is. The US, after all, is keen on an absolute free market, while the biggest use of EU money is propping up local economies. Exiting the EU because we don't like their bigger vista only sends us towards an even greater supporter of globalisation.
Consider the Benelux (without Walliona) and Scandinavian countries, an absolute powerhouse. There are ways to get rid of the monster that is the EU, none of said countries need them.
Create that bloc and we'll join you. Don't expect us to make the first steps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't even get to vote on it! :stare:
With all due respect, that's just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The Lisbon treaty changed all that.
As for being too small to exist outside of the EU, ludicrous.
If you value wealth over liberty and freedom, then you deserve to get everything you asked for. Good and hard.
You mean like London with all the CCTV and financial industry? :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
We are hoping you, our referendums aren't binding, only Wilders wants binding referendums and nobody wants to work with him. A brexit would be a great leap, and yes the first step. The dutch were against the EU constitution, they did it anyway. The Dutch were against the treaty with Ukraine, they did it anyway. When our economy grows the EU demands more money, they even take in account illegal money that was made in prostitution and drugs. The EU is just as much dispised here as it is in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Meanwhile http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu...ters-3j3kg3zwj UK get us out pf this, again
please use that referendum to break the back of the EU before it becomes it's true form
Brexit, in all honesty, is a turning point in UK politics. Doesn't matter whether you agree with the EU or not, or what your option is, a serious change will happen in the UK after this referendum regardless of the outcome of the vote. And it will affect every inch and corner of all industries because of all of the trade agreements, exports and legal issues that bind the UK to the EU.
23rd of June - let's see what happens.
Beggars aren't choosers, it isn't going to hurt the UK at all. Everything will remain the same. It only hurts eurocrats.
Yes it will.
On every count you can imagine, regardless if the vote is negative or positive. Economically, socially, legally, anything you can think of. The UK has integrated within the EU since the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1960's and 1970's, and bringing the UK out of legal treaties that have worked for the past 40 years is not exactly the easiest thing.
Yes it is really that simple, all these treaties were already in effect during the EEG, a brexit is only a problem for the EU who loses one of it's most important payers, and eurocrats who become even more ideologically bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
The only problem here is that those treaties will no longer fully apply as they do now - the EU won't give the same concessions and trade rights to the UK after it leaves the EU, if it does.
So after a (hypothetical) Brexit, the UK and the EU economies stand to lose. And lose quite a lot.
Those rights already existed, the UK has nothing to worry about. Like in the Netherlands for the UK the EU is just a very expensive overhead with very little use.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
UK stands to lose a lot in the economy sector, the EU's common market greatly helped the EU economy and the local producers. Restricting at least the ease of access for goods is not exactly the best of situations for either party, and economics is not the only part where changes will be expected, regardless of the vote.
But let's see how it goes first of all - 23rd of June should be a rather important day in the UK.
Europe Union suffers from a duality. It is an organisation of Eueopean Countries on one hand, but there are times where it is a superstate-lite. The commissars that people like to moan about are appointed by each country to represent their interests, and it is these individual countries which attempt to game the system for their benefit. An example of this from the UK is Margret Thatcher and recently David Cameron, who wanted to change the EU to benefit the UK interest more. The issue is, these arguments from Tony Benn and the left euroseptics is mostly that these systems which provide forums for national interest are corrupt and undemocratic. As such, they require a reform of the EU to actually go follow a mandate of its people like a true state.
The issue is, right wing euroseptics whilst they might use some of these arguments from the left, are in no way wanting the solution to the democratic deficient because they are only wanting things to their own national benefit, thus the current system is actually a creation from the right to ensure they can have national country interests instead of bowing to the interests of the European people.
it is the funny things like that which are used as ammunition in this campaign by some people...they use arguments against the EU but the actual solution is the opposite of what they believe and oppose that too, in a oxymoronic position where the solution is to froth at the mouth on issues the EU is not responsible for, yelling leave, because they read it in the Daily Mail (cue ECHR). Funnily enough, Daily Mail is a source of that influence and corruption from private interest that Mr Benn was on about.
I feel it is a wasted effort to be complaining that the right doesnt have the same goals as the left. It being perfectly willing to use thier arguments when it suits them is but par for the course.
The left may wish to fix the EU corruption but the right does not want it to be in the position to be corrupt in the first place. The Eu should be a tool of nations not the other way around.
Both ways around are wrong. Europe be for the European people. Having it any other way IS the corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Europe and the EU arent the same thing. No matter how much Brussles wails otherwise the EU is a tool.
Go Pat Condol http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven...rits.html#more
'Brexit' is worth watching as well
I want his shirt I want to go to Ibiza in two weeks. But he's right. Dear UK get us out of their clutches. I don't want to live in an ultra-undemocratic lobby-paradise even if I would never notice I do in fact do.
That is staged, Soraya is not a Turkish name. Nice cockney accent.
She's not Turkish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I understand "I come from a family of islamic morrocan migrants", and while I'm not sure if she actually says morrocan or mumbles something else, she certainly didn't say she's turkish. You need to work on your observation skills and not make stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As for her destroying Cameron, how?
She has some irrational fear that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon and Cameron destroys that in the end. The rest is her just talking about all the bad things she heard from her uncle's auntie's boyfriend's mate about how bad it is to stay in the EU. Maybe Britain should have kept her out right away because she is muslim and therefore potentially a dangerous murdering criminal anyway?
And why is Cameron an EU defender now? I always got the impression that he'd be happy to leave?
And she is really indignat that the Turks had a brawl in the parliament. The Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments do so from time to time and ...? Should the UK stop any contacts with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
My observation skills are just fine Hussie, you'll see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10773007Quote:
She has some irrational fear that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon and Cameron destroys that in the end.
Because the buttered new potato is aQuote:
And why is Cameron an EU defender now? I always got the impression that he'd be happy to leave?
liarpolitician.
Perhaps because, you know, they're not in Europe and therefore unlikely to be asked to join the EU. Having said that.....if Israel and Australia are in the Eurovision Song Contest.......Quote:
The Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments do so from time to time and ...? Should the UK stop any contacts with them?
Oh noes the likkle dicky birds will all die if we leave!
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/st...34630462509057
The comments below are hilarious.
Dear EU the Dutch people dispisse you a well, we generally hate you. You want too much and cost too much and we don't need you
I think in a way, Brexit is a good thing, as it might actually cause the EU to reform. I don't think the vested self-interest a few politicians have is a good thing, and they are the barriers to the self-determination European people.
It was also clear during David Cameron's circus that he has no interest in actual EU reform.
Just combine the news with your own statement afterwards... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Tell me about it. So far we've had WWIII will break out if we leave, no seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, well, in another thread a British person said the sovereignty of others is not sacred. I'm not sure if WW3 will break out if the EU reconquers Britain, depends on how the US reacts I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's perfectly normal though, to be angry when someone says they don't want to be part of your family anymore.
Watching the Michael Gove Sky Interview.....what a mess.
Gove is not substantiating anything and a lot of what he says is anecdotal or just hot air and the moderator is obviously biased and using US banks as credible sources on British interest? Oh and he's obsessed with lists "Make me a list, name 1, name 11!...", it's all very vague.
What surprises me about Gove is that he says leaving the free trade zone of the EU will be okay for Britain and that the EU is a job-destroying machine, but he also said Britain can then enter trade agreements with the US and China. Because those could never siphon jobs away from Britain? :inquisitive:
He actually seems to be making a case to integrate the EU in politics only and end free trade.
Limit business, integrate politics, poor people will be better off!
You might have misunderstood him. What if he means someone else by "wildlife"?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Now Gove basically says he wants a Chinese Washing machine over a German one but it can't happen unless the UK has a trade deal with China but not with Germany. First of all, why does he not want a British washing machine? How will the Chinese washing machine help British jobs? Is he talking about government jobs for people who test each washing machine for lead paint?
He does have a point about companies abusing tax laws of the EU to avoid paying taxes, but how will a free trade deal with the US not allow US companies to avoid taxes in the UK? How does suggesting a trade deal with the US seem helpful to someone who wants to "take back control" if all trade deals the US enters include private courts where corporations can sue the government? Don't these courts take away control from the people?
Of course Britain can also not enter any trade deals and produce its own washing machines but then you better hope your washing machine won't break until the factories are up...also allows you to save the money to buy them if they were produced by well-paid British workers...
The point being that in every given capitalistic system you will have winners and losers and only delusional people think everybody can be a winner in a competitive economy. If there is no loser, who is paying the winner?
I think the point is that as we are a rich consumer nation if the americans or europeans dont want to sell some goods to us on reasonable terms we can just go to the glut of poor 3rd world nations that will want to take our money. As for the rest, it is expected we'd have hard times, but getting rid of the EU is looking to be worth the hassle. Who knows, maybe the shakeup our leaving causes will be so beneficial that we'd want to come back, but I'm not expecting it.
I was talking about nations and what I actually said was "I do not consider thier soverignty on its own sacred" Considering your third sentance, and the fact that you arent advocating giving countries to every german who doesnt want to be part of the fatherland for the hell of it, I would think you agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Transvaal was part of the British fatherland? Interesting perspective, especially since Britain was always part of the European fatherland...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Buttered New Potato.Quote:
“Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top-10 manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here. Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy. The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.”
Well there were more Britons than boers in it!Quote:
Transvaal was part of the British fatherland? Interesting perspective, especially since Britain was always part of the European fatherland...
Seriously, if you were to live by the maxim that a nations sovereignty is a sacred right then you would have to parcel land off to every fritz, hans and albert that asks for it in the name of any national identity tehy can think of. My understanding is that germany has a lot of former nations that would leave every time there is a dispute if it was that easy.
When it comes to soverignty undiluted by additional humanitarian or representative concerns it reverts to might makes right, how much you are willing to fight to have the flag above your head your colour and how much adversity you are willing to suffer.
Indepenance is genrally a means not an end, not a cause people fight for its own sake.
There were also more Russians than Ukrainians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And more Native Americans than British in America...
And more Palestinians than Jews in Palestine...
As for leaving a sovereign nation, IIRC your argument was that they were afraid to be incorporated/conquered, not that they were already part and wanted to secede. That's a different starting point, isn't it?
The UK is already part of the EU, should the EU force the UK to stay using violent means if necessary because one can't just let anyone leave a union to do their own thing?
If the referendum is close, one can even say that there are a lot of EU citizens in there and we need to make sure they're not oppressed by the nasty British separatist rebels.
I'm voting to stay, but be careful of your accusations. The Brexit boys have some real grievances against the stay campaign, that you're making light of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Aye with friends like the EU, who needs enemies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
There could be worse. We English weren't too happy either when the Scots voted on independence. Similar arguments exist in both cases, and there is certainly no moral superiority for one union whilst favouring exit from the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The referendum represents an abrogation of their responsibility on the part of our elected representatives while the two cases are made with half-truths spun until it is impossible to judge the reality of the claims. People are making up their minds on a crucial issue in an atmosphere of confusion and ignorance in which passion counts for more than fact.
This is no way to run a country.
Yes, which is why we have a representary democracy and not a direct one. Blame the Scots for setting the precident.
I was joking, the british didnt use them it to excuse annexing transvaal, they used them invading the cape colony to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes. Hence why I'm arguing with gilrandir in the other thread over that comparison.Quote:
As for leaving a sovereign nation, IIRC your argument was that they were afraid to be incorporated/conquered, not that they were already part and wanted to secede. That's a different starting point, isn't it?
The EU isnt a nation state (yet) despite its pretentions continued membership is determined as entirely voluntary, if that were to change and you did try to keep people by force, well, I hope you have a lot of force because there will suddenly be a lot more nations trying to leave.Quote:
The UK is already part of the EU, should the EU force the UK to stay using violent means if necessary because one can't just let anyone leave a union to do their own thing?
Maybe when we start denying them voting rights, or start landing troops in normandy... again.Quote:
If the referendum is close, one can even say that there are a lot of EU citizens in there and we need to make sure they're not oppressed by the nasty British separatist rebels.
There's a statue of a bloke on a horse in Montreuil sur Mer, probably better known nowadays as the town where Jean Valjean was mayor, that commemorates when Germany tried to incorporate France into their empire. The Germans took exception to him in 1940 and melted him down, but it was recast after they got kicked back out of France.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Serious question as that expression is rather new to me. Does it mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
a) I'm taking it too lightly and it is a serious issue
or
b) I'm shining a light on something I may not want in the open (and may attract unwanted attention)
???
I can see both interpretations work. :shrug:
The latter is wrong. Ukrainians dominate in any region except Crimea (yellow is for Ukrainians):Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Attachment 18405
Perhaps you meant Russian speakers?
This is the usual way with referenda and running countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Treating such a proposition lightly, as if making fun of. Certain Europeans have rather more rights in the UK than is reasonable (more than UK citizens have in their country). If anyone seriously pushes the argument that you're proposing, then I'd support redressing that issue. And you know what, if that happens, people like yourself would blame the UK for acting to redress the balance, rather than people like yourself for drawing attention to that imbalance in the first place. It's always the case, that people like yourself like putting yourselves on a moral pedestal, whilst never taking responsibility for the consequences of your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Myself thinks that yourself knows a lot more about myself than myself does, but thank yourself for the explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I thought so but just didn't care enough as the point stands either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Or maybe I should say: Not according to RT...
It makes sense. The British already dwarf even powers-that-be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2016/...lande-and.html
Except one of them was bought without taxpayers money. Talk about apples and oranges! :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You are taking it too seriously. It was just a funny picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I'm pretty sure all of them were bought with money from taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
lol, this is painfull, that unelected Juncker is absolutily hammered he can hardly stand, that drunk http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments
Beskar who is telling you that you can reform the EU? Look at the structure of the EU commision unelected politbureau, you can not fire them or vote them out,
Personally this makes you unfit to be moderator, your thought process is not rational hope is a fools virtue, so you have blind faith that for some reason the EU will magically be reformed and there that rationalises a decision to vote in and wait for a so called reform which isn't even a given. ALARM BELLS RINGING!!!!! So you're voting on a whim/a construct of your brain, the EUSSR has brainwashed you much like the belief in the USSR of russian citizens during the cold war.
Lol the day when mass media call the Dalai Lama a bigot! also the EU totalitarianism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCRbZ0cOnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pc00WS6VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRareMjXJog
Now who decide this the EU parliament ? Nope the EU commision again no votes took place pure totalitarianism
LOL at someone arguing for free speech, yet in the same paragraph saying that someone is unfit to be moderator due to his views. Either that's some breathtaking hypocrisy right there, or a total lack of self-awareness. Going by whatever else you've posted, I'd go for the latter. The former requires a certain minimum level of intelligence to attain.
caan you read i said "personally". I am for free speech hence why its my opinion im not the site owner am i? your not for free speech so on one miscontrued opinion of m sentence you will delegitimase everything ive said. I enjoy my limited free speech In britain hence why i'm voting out for many a reason and now not to be subjected to these new directives issued to all social media companies and a mandatory Government ID to access social media. Your foolishness thinks i dont want Beskar having free speech when i'm clearly expressing my opinion that Beskar may be unfit to be moderating our comments. Low IQ? pot calling the kettle black?
Is your native language English?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
Explain to me ho i am impeding Beskars Free speeach?
I think your poor communication skills in the English language is impeding understanding what the heck it is that you're going on about. Hence my enquiry as to whether English is your native language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
I rest case
Whether or not you're for free speech, you're certainly not for comprehensible speeach (sic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
its free speech i can speaka english howver i fish Haha i play with you. English is my first language but i'm being lazy. actually its parkinsons and tourrETEs combined thatadsgf hl'''',gfdhss mdaskw mew SSPEECH THIS WAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y
I am clearly known for my totalitarian censorship of pro-speech. Today, I permanently banned two members, one for writing he could provide plumbing services in Pakistan for a reasonable price, and the other apparently knew of some "hot kinky ladies" in my local area which were apparently waiting for "me".
Jesting aside, hope is necessary in every day living. It is the enthusiasm which makes us get up each morning, and actually try to make something out of life. In a way, you are a believer of hope Lizardo. You come in threads like these, and you attempt to inform us in your special way, hoping we are convinced and swayed by your arguments, trying to make a difference in the world.
Will the EU reform? The fact is, the desire for reform needs political capital. People who are on the gravy train do not want to rock the boat, unless they need to. There are many factors against EU reform, and ultimately, the biggest one is also its biggest critic. Nationalism.
The EU is a construct which is intended to be a partnership between countries towards achieving several important and reaching political and economical goals. It is this construct and framework of unity which can bring about these changes more effectively and more adequately. But the thing is with partnerships, and teams, is that not everyone is equal. This is fundamentally a good thing, as diversity, the adoption of different roles by the partners, can make things work more effective (see Belbin). However, a big hurdle to this co-operation is national interest.
One criticism, as you mentioned yourself, are the EU commision. But what is the commission and who are these evil unelected commissioners.
Who appoints these commissioners?: It is the nations themselves of course. So the UK has a commissioner, so does France, so does Germany... all 28 members in fact.
What do they do?: They represent the national interest of the individual member states within the European Union.
What happens if we get rid of them?: National governments will have a decreased say in how the EU is run.
Why aren't they elected?: They could be, but our governments choose not to.
Why?: Because the government wants increased control of the affairs of the EU. This is part of why Cameron and Merkel meet up for coffee, to discuss their EU ambitions and plans.
Now, as you commented Lizardo. You want countries to leave the evil EU, because of National Interest. Citing the institutions built for National Interest as the reason for leaving. But if you had to stay and increase your National Interest in the EU, you would empower the commissioners.
It is this oxymoronic, paradoxical, self-fulfilling arrangement, where there is a distinct element of people who want to promote national interest within and out the EU.
Want to know what the solution is to this? It is Fragony's favourite cited phrase. "Ever closer union". By becoming closer, the EU would disband and eliminate the commission, then it could give rise to an EU with a democratic mandate and supported by the European people.
Furunculus said it once on here: "I dislike the EU, as it is not democratic. But I do not want to become democratic, as it would then have a democratic mandate which represents us, thus we cannot leave." It is a nationalist leaning rhetoric where the biggest barriers to democratic reform are those who with national interests, and it is the same people who criticise the EU for not reforming, whilst they are the barrier which prevents it.
The European Union needs reform, there is no doubt about it. I can start listing them off. Want to hear a couple?
European-wide minimum wage. Fix the disparity in Europe, bring about fair compensation for peoples work. This would prevent internal migration of people, because either in the West or the East, doing Job A will get you Pay A, instead of the mismatch system.
Increase of Democracy within the EU system, and increased powers for a reformed European Parliament. An elected European President. Because Democratic mandate is important and should not be forgotten.
Increased accountability. Obvious reasons.
Of course, being sensible is a lost art.
We could vote out of the EU, citing NAFTA, when Britain is American's lapdog and will sign the dotted line as soon as we leave anyway, with no discussion or debate. At least the EU challenged the treaty and kept pushing for amendments, which it is why it is taking so long, opposed to being signed in 2012. Thing is, Europe has protected Britain from itself. There is a distinct fear that the supposed "freedom" will led to some very significant disasters in policies.
Side-Note:
This was brought up by someone voting out -
"We are not a proper partnership anyway, if we were, and if we looked out for eachother. We would go in and save Greece, eliminating their loans and help rebuild the country."
Later on -
"I don't care about the other european nations, we won't want to give them any money or bail them out"
So... doomed if you do, doomed if you don't? Rational.
Terrible, who would believe Breitbart, a US conservative news network, on European matters?
The only thing important to them is the US and if they think they can get an advantage through divide and conquer, they would immediately do that, and probably are doing it. I could also cite US laws to show what a restrictive dictatorship it is. I mean you can even get fined for littering there, why don't you have the freedom to poison everyone around you with plastic waste because it seems so harmless to just drop something? Arrests for jaywalking? What happened to your freedom to cross a street in the Breitbart dictatorship?
And since you meantion Britain Lizardo, eh, what? Is Britain turning into a dictatorship even without the help of the EU? It already has zones where protesting is banned, widespread surveillance including a government that stores all of your, and my, internet communication. Explain to me what gives your government the right to store my internet communication when I'm not a citizen of the UK? When did I ever get to vote on that??? These are unelected bureaucrats sniffing around in my personal life and I never got a say or an option to stop this? Again, what democratic process can I use to make this stop? You say it's not opkay if people in Brussels influence your life? Well, is it okay then if people in London influence mine?
Beskar what do you see the need for the EU and what you like to become of the EU?
And also In your eyes if you could reform what would you do?
I personally do not see a need for a political organisation encompassing Europe, each country and it's people have their own agenda, GDP, wealth, working hours (Spain and the Siesta), culture, industry the list goes on. You can not bring about a european wide minimum wage it may well cripple economies and the imports and exports, for instance the Euro currency has decimated spain the cost of living was great in Spain with the peseta now it'ts shot up with the Euro, the Eu can only work with similar countries and industries thats why you've only seen France,Germany,Britain as the powerhouses and the nordic countries and Italy cling on, but with spain portugal and eastern europe its caused a massive brain drain only benefitting the powerhouses as i mentioned. And bullying greece and portugal also spain into submission via the Troika can not justified. ALso making all european nations produce goods of equal or better quality will not benefit the poorer EU nations people.
"We could vote out of the EU, citing NAFTA, when Britain is American's lapdog and will sign the dotted line as soon as we leave anyway, with no discussion or debate. At least the EU challenged the treaty and kept pushing for amendments, which it is why it is taking so long, opposed to being signed in 2012. Thing is, Europe has protected Britain from itself. There is a distinct fear that the supposed "freedom" will led to some very significant disasters in policies."
This not a given this is speculation, Iceland and Switzerland are not America's lapdog, well maybe considering Swiss cooperation with the FIFA scandal, I agree in some respects EU has protected us from awful Trade Deals. but the EU has also prevented us from good ones with emerging economies. EU sanctions of Russia have not been welcomed by the populace. The only mtrade deal in the world that stipulates freedom of movement of people isEUWWRONDGS
Quote:
Jesting aside, hope is necessary in every day living. It is the enthusiasm which makes us get up each morning, and actually try to make something out of life. In a way, you are a believer of hope Lizardo. You come in threads like these, and you attempt to inform us in your special way, hoping we are convinced and swayed by your arguments, trying to make a difference in the world.
Very true lol.
Side-Note:
Quote:
This was brought up by someone voting out -
I now approve Beskar as moderator
Tge eurozone is going to tank beginning with france mark my words
And you think The EU commisison will make all this better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj64KQYS4ro
The EU has a purpose in its concept and theory. In some areas, it does this successfully, in others, it does not. In some areas, it does it dreadfully. The EU does need serious reform, I have never shy-ed from this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
But to answer your questions directly...
The need for greater international cooperation is rather self-explanatory, even if it is purely self-interest. We are living in an increasingly globalised world, and this has accelerated with the dawn of the internet. We have long gone past national boundaries, and on this forum, you see this in action. We have Fragony the loveable dutch guy, you got Husar the germanic comedian, and even the Yorkshire Apache. We are in different countries, yet many of the posters share the same fundamental values, even if they have different views on the solution.
Thing is, there are a great many people who communicate regularly and they come to share in this pan-national identity. In many ways, we are friends and family, the only difference between me and you Lizardo could be I was born on one side of a line and you the other. Yet despite the similarities, we are classified as being supposedly radically different, because of this line some random people decided simply exists.
As you have stated in this thread, you want accountability and democratic representation. I want this as well, and I want you to have it too, and for your comments, it sounds like you want me to have it as well. What is there making us so different when we want to have the same thing? Why does me having democratic representation have to be different to you having democratic representation? Why can we not have both?
Going back to my earlier point, we are living in an increasingly globalised world. We see multinational companies, nations, and NGO's, take advantage of the inequalities between nations in order to exploit them. It could be closing down factories in the US, whilst hiring cheaper labour in India. It could be putting your finances in the Seychelles in order to avoid tax regulation. It could be having your headquarters in Luxembourg, who then sells products to your coffee-shops in Britain "at a loss", in order to avoid paying tax in the UK., arguing the stores there are making a loss, which is "forgiven" by the company. There is also the trillions in transactions going on this second in between the fluctuating currency markets, with the wealth of the world growing increasingly going into the hands of less and less people. There is an economical need and requirement for partnerships to avoid economic exploitation.
As for Trade, the EU streamlined the process significantly. In the past, in order to trade with another EU country, you would have to specifically tailor your product for that market and its regulations. So to trade with everyone within the EU, you would basically have to have 28 separate products and packaging as a minimum. This is a lot of "red tape" and economic wastage. The process was streamlined by having all 28 countries agreeing to the same set of standards, so now products and services can occur across Europe. Now, this is strangely the reverse of the Eurosceptic argument, because you are probably familiar with Brussels apparently telling us how to do these regulations. The thing is, these regulations are done in cooperation, and it produces less red-tape overall, saving companies millions, so when people argue it is the otherway around, you really need to question what they mean. Usually, it is to argue about some trivial thing which would make no noticeable difference.
Obviously, there is the issue of brevity, as I could keep on continuing these arguments, but the bottom line is: We gain more by working together than not doing.
And this is what I want from the EU, where we have a lot of shared culture and values. Better partnership, better cooperation, better tomorrow. This could be further expanded to the Anglosphere.
I briefly covered three of them in my earlier post, and these were mostly broad and general. It would be along those lines.Quote:
And also In your eyes if you could reform what would you do?
But the European-Minimum wage is something that is really needed. It would also "solve" the migrant crisis (within Europe) which people are fearing.
"Have their own agenda" - Why is this a good thing? If i have an agenda of "lets ban Lizardo", clearly you would be unhappy with this agenda. Now, if we had the agenda of "lets work together to improve the Backroom", that is something we could both work upon, together, and not conflicting.Quote:
I personally do not see a need for a political organisation encompassing Europe, each country and it's people have their own agenda, GDP, wealth, working hours, culture, industry the list goes on.
"GDP" - and why is an individual GDP in nations required? What is special about this?
"Working Hours/Wages" - As you see in my earlier comments, I am really opposed to differences in this. People should be able to work as much as they are willing to, but they cannot be contractually obliged to go above a certain amount of hours. This is very important to prevent wage-slave labour, and because the health impact of working too much, especially against your will, is significant. There are reasons concepts such as minimum wage, and maximum contract hours exist, and these are to protect people. Because Husar is in Germany for example, doesn't make it less relevant than it is here. It is one of those 'human' things that is shared between all of us, and there is no reason for these differences to exist.
"Culture" - In Europe, we have a rather open cultural where we all share and influence eachother. These might be traditional styles of dress, or the food we eat. This doesn't need to change in any radical manner, unless a radical change is required. (ie: obviously things such as non-consensual ritualised cannibalism should be banned/changed)
There isn't any "real" reasons against a shared human identity. There are reasons, but these are usually hollow, nonsensical, or different priorities, but they are objections which challenge on a fundamental level against the concepts in themselves.
You significantly edited your post whilst I was replying, so I will briefly address some of your additions...
Regional issue which doesn't change anything. 9-5 working is not enforced by law. People and businesses are free to use what ever hours are suitable for them and their consumers. So there are no objections anywhere to Siestas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
I only object to forcing people to work 60 hour a week, for example. It is really inappropriate and detrimental to their health. If you happen to love your work and want to do 60 hours? Then feel free, I have absolutely no objection to you choosing to do that. The key word here is "choice". I want you, and other people, to have it.
So your own economy being crippled by businesses sacking/unemploying people, to employ people in worse conditions for cheaper costs... is right?Quote:
You can not bring about a european wide minimum wage it may well cripple economies and the imports and exports
Sorry, but capitalising on others inequality and exploiting them is not a moral argument you can use.
The costs can be off-set by subsidising those poorer countries, if there is indeed an economical union. This is part and parcel of an economical union in concept.
My Uncle used to love peseta and the dratma. He said about the good old days where their economies were unable to support the currency, so each year when he went on holiday, he used to be able to buy a lot more goods for his money. being able to afford a lot more luxurious holidays, whilst the common Greek and Spanish were being failed by their states. He dislikes how the Euro has made things a lot more expensive over in these countries, because the workers are getting fairer wages and incomes reflecting European averages.Quote:
for instance the Euro currency has decimated spain the cost of living was great in Spain with the peseta
You're correct, it is. It is a pretty good one at that. Especially with the Tories in government. I really wish to be wrong.Quote:
This not a given, this is speculation.