Euro Area

[SoFarSoGood]

That is false. There is no 'forced' immigration. There is some policy surrounding the nature of European citizens, but that in no way shape or form reflects policy of citizens from outside the European Community and the United Kingdom has opt-outs to the Schengen Agreement. Immigration is a sovereign government issue.

Ok so what do you call it when we cannot deport known terrorists and cannot stop anyone from inside the EU entering? To do so is a breach of 'European Law' which takes precedence over any national law. Yet the majority of the British people want less immigration... not forced? Get real...

That is false. There is no 'extra' rights for every minority and 'never' for the natives. Considering the very nature of citizenship, any British Citizen will enjoy far more 'rights' than any non-British citizen.

More wishful thinking.... It's fine for Muslims in Britain to shout about 'hating the west' and call for it's overthrow... They have to be 'protected'. If you get a white person shouting the converse (all Moslems are horrid and should be expelled etc) they get prosecuted. Jacqueline Woodhouse got 21 weeks in jail for an expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. In the same way if two lots of young boys get into a fight and the whites happen to outnumber the coloured people they are likely to found themselves charged with a racialy motivated attack. Should the coloured kids outnumber the white ones, and even if it IS racialy motivated the law will treat it differently. Only natives can be 'racist' in law. What happened to one law for all?

There is only a limit on working hours an employer can force you, which is to benefit of the British citizen to prevent abuse and exploitation of the workers. Even though, this is a mostly sovereign nation matter and British government regulated on this anyway since before the EU even existed. Unless you want this regulation removed which means your employer could up your hours to 60 per week, if you liked it or not, without any legal support at your end, opposed to the current situation where they can not do this and you can choose to do this voluntary.

Ever heard of the European Working Hours Directive? It's a directive mind; ie dreamt up by some unelected bureaucrat. Then there is all the 'unfair dismissal' procedure that you may have to go through if you have to lay someone off because it's not economically viable to keep them on. This makes companies less inclined to hire people in the first place and increases unemployment. The problem is that such mindless 'do-good' socialist dogma is actually a restriction on the very people it seeks to empower. Far from increasing social mobility it actually hinders it.

That is again, false. Only regulation is that Britain can only fish 200 miles off its shore, which was enacted by the UN, and not EU. Even though, there are serious issues of overfishing within the waters which brought about enforced quotas to prevent lifestock going extinct in the Common Fisheries Policy.

So tell me why Spanish boats can take upto 50% of the fish in British waters? You speak about maintaining the fish stocks and if this were the case presumably a moratorium would be imposed to allow all fish stocks to rebuild. However far from this the insanity is that small fish (although already dead) have to be thrown away! As if this is going to replenish fish stocks... Those who the God wish to destroy they first send mad.

In reality Britain lost control over its fish stocks and this insane system is now in place where other European countries can take more fish out of British waters than we can ourselves.

I don't believe you know how the Common Agricultural policy works. For a start, Britain enjoys half the amount of subsidies as France for the sole reason that France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe. Also, the "fields empty" is that farmers all over must keep 7% of their land fallow to allow wildlife to thrive otherwise many species of animals will go extinct as they have no where to live. As for "overpay for their food to keep fields empty", this is completely false, hence the "European Food Mountains and Lakes" where we produce so much food in excess, it simply goes to waste. Also, France and Germanies argriculture are both net Contributors (ie: they give to the system more than they take out, even though they take out the biggest shares), the United Kingdom is not.

So let me get this right... The Common Agricultural Policy (€43.8bn in 2010) doesn't benefit France although 'France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe'? Look we pay extra for our food through the taxes we give for CAP and then we restrict imports of cheaper food. So much for the free market but once again the people who really suffer are the poorer people in Europe who because Europe is anti free trade in (and many other areas) have to pay more for their food and pay more in tax. Yet you seem to support this...

There is always regulation and it always "costs money". It costs more money to depose of waste chemicals safely than just dumping it in the local water supply. Even then, due to the uniformity brought about in the regulation across the countries, it actually costs "far less" than the system where there wasn't policy harmonisation.

Disposing of chemicals and regulation for the safety of such issues does not require 'harmonisation' nor some supranational authority to oversee it. It's all about how much room a chicken must have to live in and how big an apple can be what constitutes a 'sausage' or whether something is 'wine' and not alcoholic fruit juice and hundreds of thousands of more trifling idiocies that add no real value but create an extra cost. These additional costs make our business's less competitive and so decrease employment potential.

I believe that is the British government and not the European Union, even then, we have always voted by-proxy with the government in power. This is the nature of representative governance.

Indeed... many of our politicians are 'traitors' by definition. But you must agree that European Union is anti democratic. Not one member of the Italian Cabinet is elected. What happens if you vote no to an EU Treaty? You keep on voting until you vote yes and then you can never vote again. What happened to the Constitution? Simply got turned into the Lisbon Treaty after people voted no. Of course the greatest threat to democracy is this fiscal union... As Gladstone said in 1891: "The Finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the Country...if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the grants of public money, depend upon it your liberty will be worth very little…”

The bailouts that occurred were systematic free-credit transference to corporate financial cartels on the sovereign states tab. By definition it is not a tax since there was no levy imposed upon the population, even so, I have not disputed this fact in anyway about it not being a form of wealth transference and only suggested that such 'bailouts' should be directed to the population opposed to any corporate interest if they were to occur. So any talk about alternative universes must be a result of critical comprehension failure.

But 'fiscal union' implies unlimited capital transference. You say it's put on a 'tab' but if the the transferals are to be continuous someone has to pay the 'tab'. Also should the debtor prove unable to repay the loan again the 'tab' has to be payed. 'Tabs' don't run forever and in the end it is the taxpayers who pick it either way, either in the debtor or creditor state. But they had this planned from the start... it's what they call a 'beneficial crisis' by which they can say "omg panic!!! We need more powers to deal with this... fiscal union is the only answer!" and thus destroy national democracy.

You actually do know what you wrote has nothing to do with socialism outside this mentioning, right?

If these autocrats - eurocrats were such radically business wise types as you imply why are they crippling European business and free trade in every way imaginable? Why is there is insistence on the 'social agenda' everything done to undermine competitive business in Europe? Let me take one example; the proposed 'transaction tax' (also known as the Tobin tax). This proposes that any deal done on the financial markets will be subject to a small tax. Evidently the City of London would raise the most tax from this but in reality it would just cost more to trade in Europe than elsewhere and the jobs would go... Less investments would be made in Europe and we'd all suffer.

Your brand of socialism, and that of the EU, is that of the Trade Union leader who, believing he is doing best for his members, demands less hours for more pay. This however makes the company decide to close their business in your area and move elsewhere. You have not in fact helped your members... your have put them all out of work.