Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 09 October 2010, 23:46:15
-
OK, I know that's a rhetorical question but it bears repeating.
The UK Government hopes to bring in a scheme to cut the cost of petrol in some of the country’s remotest communities, it has been announced.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander revealed officials were in talks with Europe over plans to introduce a duty discount of up to 5 pence on a litre of fuel for some rural areas.
http://www.expressandstar.com/money/uk-money/2010/10/09/cheap-fuel-for-remote-communities/
Yep, we need the EU's permission to allow us to cut the duty.
We MUST get out of the EU, for the sake of democracy if nothing else.
>:( >:(
-
did we ever have a vote on this?
-
We voted to join the common market many years ago. We were told it was a vote for free trade between the major European countries. We havent been allowed to vote on any of the things which have happened since then. We are now close to a situation of being a member of the U.S.E. and for quite some time now have been in the situation where EU law supercedes U.K. law.Apparently over 70% of our laws are now made in Brussells. :(
-
OK, I know that's a rhetorical question but it bears repeating.
The UK Government hopes to bring in a scheme to cut the cost of petrol in some of the country’s remotest communities, it has been announced.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander revealed officials were in talks with Europe over plans to introduce a duty discount of up to 5 pence on a litre of fuel for some rural areas.
http://www.expressandstar.com/money/uk-money/2010/10/09/cheap-fuel-for-remote-communities/
Yep, we need the EU's permission to allow us to cut the duty.
We MUST get out of the EU, for the sake of democracy if nothing else.
>:( >:(
;D you are right there Nickbat..
and I hope people here understand that early..
-
Getting out of the EU is the way forward for the UK.
We put more in than all other countries and get the least out of it. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's one reason to vote English Democrat!
-
Not really, the whole of the UK is in the EU, not just England.
Better off voting UKIP. ;)
-
Getting out of the EU is the way forward for the UK.
We put more in than all other countries and get the least out of it. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's one reason to vote English Democrat!
Got up to date figures for that? We certainly weren't back in 2007.. (In fact we ranked 6th by per capita and 2nd overall behind Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#State_by_state_analysis
-
Getting out of the EU is the way forward for the UK.
We put more in than all other countries and get the least out of it. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's one reason to vote English Democrat!
actually Germany, France and Italy all put more in than the UK, although France and Italy get more out :y
and if you look at per capita figures then Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Austria all do worse than us out of the EU :o
You vote for the EDL if you like tho - leaves more room for the left ;D
-
Is this another " Little Englander " thread?... ::) ::) ;)
-
Is this another " Little Englander " thread?... ::) ::) ;)
Sounds like it Optimist :D :D :D ;)
-
Is this another " Little Englander " thread?... ::) ::) ;)
No, it's a thread about democracy. What possible point is there in having elections and then discovering that our MPs do not have the ability to take fiscal decisions for their electorate.
Calling people "Little Englanders" is a cop-out from facing the real issue, which is our dwindling democracy. I would have though that was obvious. ::)
-
altogether now ;)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDWDAMRBeU[/media]
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
funnily enough I don't like the fact that we don't vote for who sits on the euro commision, and therefore can't remove them from power - which is fundamental to democracy surely? :o
-
Surely the answer is clear.. one single unified elected global government, one global economy and one global currency.
Should happen right about the time we abolish hunger, disease, racism, bigotry .. and politicians stop being as bent as a nine bob note.
-
Surely the answer is clear.. one single unified elected global government, one global economy and one global currency.
Should happen right about the time we abolish hunger, disease, racism, bigotry .. and politicians stop being as bent as a nine bob note.
This may be the aim in the esoteric world of the professional administrator Arron.
The thing that prevents that ever happening is the inherent individualism within humanity together with the tendency for some who simply must profit at the cost of others.
As you rightly say, we shouldn't hold our collective breath waiting for it.
-
But I want the utopian future science fiction has always promised me :( *stamps feet*
-
But I want the utopian future science fiction has always promised me :( *stamps feet*
Sorry ..but only dystopia is available for the next few years......it's the cuts ...you see..... ::) ::) ;)
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
funnily enough I don't like the fact that we don't vote for who sits on the euro commision, and therefore can't remove them from power - which is fundamental to democracy surely? :o
Then surely, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic?
-
But I want the utopian future science fiction has always promised me :( *stamps feet*
Sorry ..but only dystopia is available for the next few years......it's the cuts ...you see..... ::) ::) ;)
I'd settle for dystopia too, as long as I can have the last of the V8 Interceptors.
-
But I want the utopian future science fiction has always promised me :( *stamps feet*
stamps feet
In that case A, I'm glad you don't have access to a 'ray' gun - or a phaser - or a zat nicotel. :y :y
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
funnily enough I don't like the fact that we don't vote for who sits on the euro commision, and therefore can't remove them from power - which is fundamental to democracy surely? :o
Then surely, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic?
I've posted this quote before, but always bears repeating:
"If one meets a powerful person...ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."
Tony Benn in a speech to the House of commons, 2001
He's usually right. :y
-
BJ, much as I do not see eye-to-eye with Tony Benn's political views, he is nevertheless one of our finest ever parliamentarians. He is a staunch believer in democracy, as I am. :y
Thus I do not not quite understand how, when I complain bitterly about Westminster's loss of sovereignty to the EU, I am accused of being a "Little Englander".
There is NO democracy within the EU decision-making process and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any criticism of that issue is regarded as nationalistic. Surely anyone, whether on the political right or left, must see how our democracy is being (or, rather, has been) eroded. It is in no one's interest, other than the Commission's unelected bureaucrats. However, since they have the power, they will only seek to enhance it. >:( >:(
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
deinitely and without adoubt yes
-
BJ, much as I do not see eye-to-eye with Tony Benn's political views, he is nevertheless one of our finest ever parliamentarians. He is a staunch believer in democracy, as I am. :y
Thus I do not not quite understand how, when I complain bitterly about Westminster's loss of sovereignty to the EU, I am accused of being a "Little Englander".
There is NO democracy within the EU decision-making process and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any criticism of that issue is regarded as nationalistic. Surely anyone, whether on the political right or left, must see how our democracy is being (or, rather, has been) eroded. It is in no one's interest, other than the Commission's unelected bureaucrats. However, since they have the power, they will only seek to enhance it. >:( >:(
i disagree with you on much Nickbat, but I agree constitutionally, and legally that the EU is undemocratic - and I can't be a little Englander :y
-
You all seem to be confusing the European Commission with the European Parliament.
As far as I am aware, the EC (an oversized, overstaffed, inefficient and corrupt administrative organ) does not actually have the power to make laws. That is the prerogative of the European Parliament, which is a democratically elected legislative authority.
We have the opportunity to elect MEPs at regular intervals, but we don't actually take a lot of interest. The turnout in the UK for EU elections is very low. The results are a joke, as we tend to elect people who are either second rate party hacks, failed British Parliamentary candidates or clowns like Nigel Farage who's sole interest in being in the European Parliament seems to be to insult as many foreigners as possible while working for the downfall of the institution to which he has been elected.
Before you complain about lack of democracy, can you name your European Parliamentary constituency? Or your MEP? Did you even vote?
-
We (UK) elected 72 members to the European Parliament in the 2009 elections.
Total elected membership of the parliament is about 750 or so.
As far as I can see the EU Commission (unelected) civil servants formulates policy through the Council of Ministers which is then presented to the parliament where it is either approved or amended to suit the majority vote.
The parliament seems to be a consultative body with no legislative forming powers of its own.
The fact that legislation is created by an unelected group (Commission) and then passed via the Council of Ministers to a consultative body (Parliament) for implementation or amendment is, to me, inherently undemocratic.
There appears to be no way to influence this decision making process even should all 72 UK representatives decline to be part of it which means, in my view at least, that even by having no representation at all in that parliament we are still bound by legislation coming from the EU body as a whole. (As we effectively gave EU law and political process precedence over our own decision making process (when we signed up in the first place) and are bound by the block vote system that ensures that a majority vote by Ministers can override the objections of any one)
I'm open to correction on my analysis here but I must say - irrespective of some worthwhile legislation being spawned by ‘Europe’ (if shambolically applied and enforced) that the whole deal seems to reek of the dictatorial which, to my mind, falls far from the tree of democracy.
-
My dads army one the war,and also my grandads although he is in a war grave in France.People can slag off and show their contempt of proper values because of them.
-
My dads army one the war,and also my grandads although he is in a war grave in France.People can slag off and show their contempt of proper values because of them.
So ask yourself how and why the situation they became involved in existed.
I am sure you are talking about the Great War and WW2, both of which were a product of Empire building, rampant nationalism, and overall the European countries refusing to bond collectively together in the interests of their peoples.
The European conflicts had gone on for centuries, and at the end of the Great War it was hoped that Europe could come together and avoid such conflicts again; it being the War to end all Wars. But no, due to a very complex system of individual nationalist politics at Versailles in 1919, the hopes of many were dashed, and helped to create the monster that was German National Socialism to again rack Europe, and the World, with War on a massive scale.
It was the dream of the likes of Winston Church that Europe could come together as a united body, settling differences by jaw, jaw, and not war, war. Thank goodness, coupled with the nuclear threat for all, we now have the EU with a European Government, which so far has diffused any possible slide back into nationalism, self interest, and war on a massive scale.
I lost an uncle and grandfather, along with ending up with a damaged second grandfather and father, due to those super destructive events of war, and all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism.
As Thomas Hobbes rightly summed up:
"Hereby it is manifest , that during the time men live without common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE , consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foul weather , lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an an inclination thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actual fighting: but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE."
Hobbes, T. Leviathan pp. 185, 186 Penguin (1651)
Overall a warning from history you could say; May we all work together in the interests of mankind. ;) ;)
-
My dads army one the war,and also my grandads although he is in a war grave in France.People can slag off and show their contempt of proper values because of them.
So ask yourself how and why the situation they became involved in existed.
I am sure you are talking about the Great War and WW2, both of which were a product of Empire building, rampant nationalism, and overall the European countries refusing to bond collectively together in the interests of their peoples.
The European conflicts had gone on for centuries, and at the end of the Great War it was hoped that Europe could come together and avoid such conflicts again; it being the War to end all Wars. But no, due to a very complex system of individual nationalist politics at Versailles in 1919, the hopes of many were dashed, and helped to create the monster that was German National Socialism to again rack Europe, and the World, with War on a massive scale.
It was the dream of the likes of Winston Church that Europe could come together as a united body, settling differences by jaw, jaw, and not war, war. Thank goodness, coupled with the nuclear threat for all, we now have the EU with a European Government, which so far has diffused any possible slide back into nationalism, self interest, and war on a massive scale.
I lost an uncle and grandfather, along with ending up with a damaged second grandfather and father, due to those super destructive events of war, and all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism.
As Thomas Hobbes rightly summed up:
"Hereby it is manifest , that during the time men live without common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE , consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foul weather , lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an an inclination thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actual fighting: but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE."
Hobbes, T. Leviathan pp. 185, 186 Penguin (1651)
Overall a warning from history you could say; May we all work together in the interests of mankind. ;) ;)
Well said Lizzie :y
-
all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom."
Malcom X
-
all I now request is that we have peace at all costs, even at a price of individual nationalism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom."
Malcom X
You wont lose anything if united with other nations determined to achieve a common goal.
I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.
Ask yourself what do you want. A united, peaceful world, were differences can be discussed and compromises reached in one chamber, or a multitude of national parliaments dealing exclusively with self and national interest, with the prevading threat of war always there on the whim of misunderstanding; that will lead to warre, warre; a war to kill millions, if not all mankind? :-/ :-/
-
thanks Lizzie - I really do need to brush up on my mid 17th century essays :y ;)
but surely its not beyond the wit of (european) man to arrange a system of unified countries that is democratic? :o
-
OK, Banjax, but humour aside, answer me this one question:
Would democracy in the UK be better served if our government was able to take decisions on behalf of its electorate without recourse to the EU?
Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ::)
The EU have protected us against the (last) government on a few occasions - when they tried to overstep the mark.
One instance was the lack of prosecution over the BT Phorm internet spying.
-
thanks Lizzie - I really do need to brush up on my mid 17th century essays :y ;)
but surely its not beyond the wit of (european) man to arrange a system of unified countries that is democratic? :o
Thanks BJ! :y :y
Yes I always feel that the 16th and 17th centuries are the most interesting in terms of English national development, that led to the Empire of the following era's.
Indeed, given time and the will of the people a fully democratic European Parliamentary chamber can be created.
As Jereboam rightly pointed out though it requires all European voters to exercise their right at the European ballot box, not sit at home shouting "I don't agree with anything!" ::) ::) ::)
-
I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.
I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.
Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.
-
I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.
I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.
Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.
Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism. ;) ;)
The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination. :'( :'(
-
I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.
I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.
Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.
Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism. ;) ;)
The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination. :'( :'(
All that the EU is doing is likely to lead to civil, rather than national, wars in the future. Different names, same suffering. I simply don't buy all this talk that the EU has prevented war. Maybe it is true in the case of Nato, but not the EU. The fact that no nation vs. nation war has occurred is down to other matters such as the relative prosperity of the West. To say that the EU has prevented wars is totally unprovable. History is littered with the carcasses of huge empires which have collapsed in a bloody fashion.
As for nationalism, it's one of the words that's always bandied about in a perjorative way to ensure that valued aspirations of pride in the freedoms, democracy and values of one's own country cannot be uttered, lest one is tarnished with an undeserved brush.
-
I would also challenge you to use BF's quote whilst walking the cemeteries and battlefields of Belgium and France, whilst reading the huge list of the missing without any know grave, remembering the 16 million + 54 million approx. killed in The Great War and WW2.
I've been.
I've also visited Belsen, and Auschwitz:
Peace at any price is too high a price.
Because if all the nations of the world sit around talking and turning their swords into ploughshares, you can bet that that at least one of them has other plans.
Liebensraum will ALWAYS be a rallying cry.
Then you should understand the absolute determination to avoid that happening again by fully contributing to a European Parliamentary system, and thus reduce the threat of nationalism. ;) ;)
The facts are previous systems failed terribly to avoid war of a magnitude that was almost beyond imagination. :'( :'(
All that the EU is doing is likely to lead to civil, rather than national, wars in the future. Different names, same suffering. I simply don't buy all this talk that the EU has prevented war. Maybe it is true in the case of Nato, but not the EU. The fact that no nation vs. nation war has occurred is down to other matters such as the relative prosperity of the West. To say that the EU has prevented wars is totally unprovable. History is littered with the carcasses of huge empires which have collapsed in a bloody fashion.
As for nationalism, it's one of the words that's always bandied about in a perjorative way to ensure that valued aspirations of pride in the freedoms, democracy and values of one's own country cannot be uttered, lest one is tarnished with an undeserved brush.
You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.
However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.
The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation. All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy. That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.
The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind. That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.
Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny. It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations.
Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards. It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.
The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. ;) ;)
-
You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.
However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.
The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation. All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy. That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.
The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind. That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.
Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny. It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations.
Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards. It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.
The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. ;) ;)
Couldn't disagree more, Lizzie.
The EU is not democratic, in my opinion, and is unlikely to change its ways.
Inded, the EU is an antidote to democratic governments...
...argues President Barroso
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100056661/the-eu-is-an-antidote-to-democratic-governments-argues-president-barroso/
Once again, though, you choose the words "separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda" in a perjorative manner. :(
There is NOTHING wrong with local democracy looking after local people with regard to their needs, aspirations and traditions. :y
Whilst you have a sound knowledge of history, I put it to you that we are in unchartered waters and the events of 1215 - whilst interesting - are of absolutely no relevance to the UK in 2010.
-
Of course the arguments so far still do not address the important question of just who - or what body - exactly, should have the right to generate and implement a nation's political/economic/security policy.
Should it be the duly elected government of the sovereign nation concerned or the inherently undemocratic machinery of the EU conglomerate?
-
Should any body of people stand up and pertain to govern or regulate national policy or make rules to keep anothers country "safe" and peaceful, they run the risk of setting themselves up as a "world police force" and will get critique from ALL sides concerned and therefore not be totally effective in achieving anything??
The EU has already found out this to its cost, surely??
-
You are right Nick in quoting the UN in the context of international peace, and its achievement (so far) of keeping the majority of nations away from each others throats.
However, the worth of the EU cannot be undervalued, as it has been a major factor of keeping the EU nations in line and away from the international 'gun' (and I am not ignoring the Afghan situation!) which has previously been triggered, even under the so called control of the toothless League of Nations.
The prosperity of the West before 1914 was in fact the cause of the Great War, with the ability of the British and French empires able to engage in war against the German nation. All seemed to believe they could afford the human and monetary cost of international war, protecting their perceived imperial interests with no United Nations, League of Nations, or EU to enforce diplomacy. That is the diffence Nick with the contemporary era and then; we have international diplomatic control factors of both the UN and EU.
The cause throughout history of so many domestic, national and international conflicts have been the actual and perceived emotion that the protesting, rioting, people have no representation in a parliament or legislature of any kind. That is why the British people must pro-actively support the EU ensuring we have a say in the diplomatic process via our elected representatives.
Failure to do this will result in disenchantment: a feeling of disfranchisement from their destiny. It is therefore extremely dangerous not to encourage the British people to become fully involved, fully engaged, and democratically supporting, developing and enforcing EU policy for the good of all nations.
Civil War, as you talk of Nick, last took place in Britain due to a monach, Charles I, trying to ride roughshod over Parliament and the democratic rights of the people hard won from 1215 onwards. It is only by collectively working together in the UK Parliament, the EU, and the UN, that we can obtain our rights, defend the rights of others, and secure a long term peace.
The only danger to that is the breaking away of separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda, that can cause conflict and distrust away from the central European arena. ;) ;)
Couldn't disagree more, Lizzie.
The EU is not democratic, in my opinion, and is unlikely to change its ways.
Inded, the EU is an antidote to democratic governments...
...argues President Barroso
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100056661/the-eu-is-an-antidote-to-democratic-governments-argues-president-barroso/
Once again, though, you choose the words "separatist, nationalistic groups, determined on their own self interested politically agenda" in a perjorative manner. :(
There is NOTHING wrong with local democracy looking after local people with regard to their needs, aspirations and traditions. :y
Whilst you have a sound knowledge of history, I put it to you that we are in unchartered waters and the events of 1215 - whilst interesting - are of absolutely no relevance to the UK in 2010.
You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225. This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our contemporary legal system set by precedent.
It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries. However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU. If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally! All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon. Is that what you want Nick?
As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe. To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy. We cannot afford that to happen ever.
Simply, United we stand, Divided we fall!!
-
You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225. This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our contemporary legal system set by precedent.
It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries. However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU. If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally! All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon. Is that what you want Nick?
As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe. To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy. We cannot afford that to happen ever.
No, it ISN'T down to us! That's the whole point! We have a number of MEPs who would dearly like us to retain our sovereignty, but their voices are drowned out. We have just 72 out of 732 MEPs. Can we make a difference? Absolutely not. >:(
And no, we do NOT need a "central government controlling the actions of Europe". Europe is not a state and will never work as one. That's where the federalists get it so wrong. :(
I presume you are a federalist, then, Lizzie?
-
You mentioned the dangers of Civil War, and I answered with a simple picture of what happened last time round, and the strength of the people and their laws, following very much on the Magna Carta of 1215, with it brought fully into the English laws in 1217 and 1225. This was the basis of the future British Constitution, albeit in the form of tens of thousands of legal documents that are the bases of our contemporary legal system set by precedent.
It is all very relevant as it represents our democracy, hard won by the British people over centuries. However, if we fully engage in the democratic process of Europe (it is down to us how effective that is!!) we can bring our legal perspective to not only the British Parliament, but also to the one of the EU. If we sit back and not support the EU we will simply have no say, and become disenchanted with civil unrest a possibility, not only in the UK but Europe generally! All our hard won achievements, legal and physical back to 1215, will be lost in Armageddon. Is that what you want Nick?
As I have stated before, we need a strong and respected central government controlling the actions of Europe. To not have such powers will lead to the Hobbes procephy. We cannot afford that to happen ever.
No, it ISN'T down to us! That's the whole point! We have a number of MEPs who would dearly like us to retain our sovereignty, but their voices are drowned out. We have just 72 out of 732 MEPs. Can we make a difference? Absolutely not. >:(
And no, we do NOT need a "central government controlling the actions of Europe". Europe is not a state and will never work as one. That's where the federalists get it so wrong. :(
I presume you are a federalist, then, Lizzie?
Then Nick let us ALL together change that! When did us British ever turn away from a political challenge (or any other) like that. Stay within the EU and we can change it. Do what you and others are suggesting and you will never have the chance to change the process!
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
-
You two should get a room stop all the bickering lol ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
You two should get a room stop all the bickering lol ;D ;D ;D ;)
We could never get a room big enough!! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
You two should get a room stop all the bickering lol ;D ;D ;D ;)
We could never get a room big enough!! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Is that because you end up killing him then Lizzie lol ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
-
How long is this thread going to go for you two... Ever as it seams ;D ;D ;D
-
You two should get a room stop all the bickering lol ;D ;D ;D ;)
Bickering, Maria?
If the EU decided to impose a 20p/gallon tax rise on petrol, who would you complain to?
There is no one in the UK that would listen and even if they did listen, there would be nothing they could do about it anyway.
It may seem like bickering to you, but I for one, care about who controls our lives. ;)
-
You two should get a room stop all the bickering lol ;D ;D ;D ;)
Bickering, Maria?
If the EU decided to impose a 20p/petrol, who would a gallon tax rise on you complain to?
There is no one in the UK that would listen and even if they did listen, there would be nothing they could do about it anyway.
It may seem like bickering to you, but I for one, care about who controls our lives. ;)
So do i but your like to kids in a play ground, and for the rise for petrol well that dont affect me as i dont drive or have a car so i dont really care but all the rises they put up like the cost of living then yeah i am concerned about and there's no good going on about it is there wont getyou know where
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
No, no, I am talking about a rogue state going the way of past war creators. I am making the point that between the choice of war in a single state EU system and a USE, I will always choose the peaceful option and become a Federalist (as you raised it!). In other words we must avoid war at all costs, the reason why the UN and EU were created in the first place after the failure of the League of Nations! ;) ;)
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
No, no, I am talking about a rogue state going the way of past war creators. I am making the point that between the choice of war in a single state EU system and a USE, I will always choose the peaceful option and become a Federalist (as you raised it!). In other words we must avoid war at all costs, the reason why the UN and EU were created in the first place after the failure of the League of Nations! ;) ;)
Thanks for putting him right Lizzie as someone had too :y ;D
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
No, no, I am talking about a rogue state going the way of past war creators. I am making the point that between the choice of war in a single state EU system and a USE, I will always choose the peaceful option and become a Federalist (as you raised it!). In other words we must avoid war at all costs, the reason why the UN and EU were created in the first place after the failure of the League of Nations! ;) ;)
Thanks for putting him right Lizzie as someone had too :y ;D
I try Maria, I try!! ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;)
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
No, no, I am talking about a rogue state going the way of past war creators. I am making the point that between the choice of war in a single state EU system and a USE, I will always choose the peaceful option and become a Federalist (as you raised it!). In other words we must avoid war at all costs, the reason why the UN and EU were created in the first place after the failure of the League of Nations! ;) ;)
Thanks for putting him right Lizzie as someone had too :y ;D
I try Maria, I try!! ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;)
That's all you can do is try but you know men they are bloody stubborn at times or shall i say all the time and they say we are stubborn they are worse ;D ;D ;D ;D : ::) ::) ::)
-
Stay within the EU and we can change it.
Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it.
The EU is a collection of national states and does need strong government to control the actions of each and everyone. It does not need to be a "State", but it can and should be the collection of European countries it is; that way we can all be strong and defend our interests whilst working for the common good of all people.
Like interfering in our rate of petrol duty? (Original point of thread). ::) ::)
However, if it is ever a choice between a single state and war due to a rogue nation within another system, I am a Federalist!!! The reasons I think I have covered in my first post in this thread, and I hold by them.
So if we get out of the EU, become a Switzerland or Norway and decide our own laws, that makes us a rogue state, does it? :o :o ::)
No, no, I am talking about a rogue state going the way of past war creators. I am making the point that between the choice of war in a single state EU system and a USE, I will always choose the peaceful option and become a Federalist (as you raised it!). In other words we must avoid war at all costs, the reason why the UN and EU were created in the first place after the failure of the League of Nations! ;) ;)
Thanks for putting him right Lizzie as someone had too :y ;D
I try Maria, I try!! ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;)
That's all you can do is try but you know men they are bloody stubborn at times or shall i say all the time and they say we are stubborn they are worse ;D ;D ;D ;D : ::) ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D All sooooo true Maria!! :y :y :y :y
The strange thing is the men of today seem to lack the spine of those of yesterday! I said:
"Stay within the EU and we can change it."
Nick replied: "Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it." What!!!
Did the men at Agincourt say that to Henry V in 1415, or the Barons forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215? Did either Admiral Nelson, or Vice Admiral Collingwood say that as they both approached the lines of the combined French and Spanish fleets on the morning of 21st Oct. 1805? Did the leaders of the Chartists in the 1840s say they couldn't change it? Did Churchill say he couldn't change Asquith's mind in 1908 in introducing social reform at the expense of building two more Dreadnoughts? Did the RAF Fighter pilots of No.11 group say they couldn't do it during 1940? Did Tony Blair give up on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in 1989?
No to all, as English / British men who were strong, and did not use the word "impossible", were determined to change what was!
So together we can change the EU to be what we want. Or have we forgotten how to do such things, and instead run into corners and meekly whisper "NO" to everything?!
If so we have forgotten how to be British!!
::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
-
Well said , I totally agree with you Lizzie :y
-
The strange thing is the men of today seem to lack the spine of those of yesterday! I said:
"Stay within the EU and we can change it."
Nick replied: "Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it." What!!!
Did the men at Agincourt say that to Henry V in 1415, or the Barons forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215? Did either Admiral Nelson, or Vice Admiral Collingwood say that as they both approached the lines of the combined French and Spanish fleets on the morning of 21st Oct. 1805? Did the leaders of the Chartists in the 1840s say they couldn't change it? Did Churchill say he couldn't change Asquith's mind in 1908 in introducing social reform at the expense of building two more Dreadnoughts? Did the RAF Fighter pilots of No.11 group say they couldn't do it during 1940? Did Tony Blair give up on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in 1989?
No to all, as English / British men who were strong, and did not use the word "impossible", were determined to change what was!
So together we can change the EU to be what we want. Or have we forgotten how to do such things, and instead run into corners and meekly whisper "NO" to everything?!
If so we have forgotten how to be British!!
::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
A bizarre argument. You use glowing examples of military bravery to argue that we can change the EU, but then go on to say war must be avoided at all costs. Huh?
We have a situation in which we have no power to challenge the EU successfully (and certainly not the will power with the current bunch in Westminster). Then you have the brazen cheek to suggest that I am not a real man if I dare to suggest that we are up the legislative creek!
Incredible. :o :o
I'm off for a lie-down. ;) :D
-
The strange thing is the men of today seem to lack the spine of those of yesterday! I said:
"Stay within the EU and we can change it."
Nick replied: "Absolute pipe dream. We cannot change it." What!!!
Did the men at Agincourt say that to Henry V in 1415, or the Barons forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215? Did either Admiral Nelson, or Vice Admiral Collingwood say that as they both approached the lines of the combined French and Spanish fleets on the morning of 21st Oct. 1805? Did the leaders of the Chartists in the 1840s say they couldn't change it? Did Churchill say he couldn't change Asquith's mind in 1908 in introducing social reform at the expense of building two more Dreadnoughts? Did the RAF Fighter pilots of No.11 group say they couldn't do it during 1940? Did Tony Blair give up on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in 1989?
No to all, as English / British men who were strong, and did not use the word "impossible", were determined to change what was!
So together we can change the EU to be what we want. Or have we forgotten how to do such things, and instead run into corners and meekly whisper "NO" to everything?!
If so we have forgotten how to be British!!
::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
A bizarre argument. You use glowing examples of military bravery to argue that we can change the EU, but then go on to say war must be avoided at all costs. Huh?
We have a situation in which we have no power to challenge the EU successfully (and certainly not the will power with the current bunch in Westminster). Then you have the brazen cheek to suggest that I am not a real man if I dare to suggest that we are up the legislative creek!
Incredible. :o :o
I'm off for a lie-down. ;) :D
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
Insofar as the 'Europe' as it's presently constituted and the 'Europe' that it perhaps should be - how can we go about changing it?
I don't think that there's any machinery open to the people of the various EU states that allows an expression of dissatisfaction to really amount to much.
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
Insofar as the 'Europe' as it's presently constituted and the 'Europe' that it perhaps should be - how can we go about changing it?
I don't think that there's any machinery open to the people of the various EU states that allows an expression of dissatisfaction to really amount to much.
Get involved, become an party activist, run for election, write letters to the press, to European officials, become a pain in some body's side, jaw, jaw, jaw, and jaw again, whilst getting on TV, Radio, start your own Internet site, place placards on the side of your car, stand in the High Street obtaining signatures to a petition, stand on a soapbox at Speakers Corner, fly banners from aeroplanes, tall buildings and cranes; that is how you change things!!
You cannot bring change by winging and spouting negativity on a car Forum!! That is the blunt truth of it! ::) ::) ;)
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
I did. I voted UKIP at the election, but unless rest of the population stops watching X Factor and starts learning about the loss of democracy, there's not much else I can do. There are many, many people who share my views but while the political classes (LIbDem,Con,Lab) are all on the gravy train and have us in a stranglehold there's literally nothing we can do. At the moment, that is. :(
-
Get involved, become an party activist, run for election, write letters to the press, to European officials, become a pain in some body's side, jaw, jaw, jaw, and jaw again, whilst getting on TV, Radio, start your own Internet site, place placards on the side of your car, stand in the High Street obtaining signatures to a petition, stand on a soapbox at Speakers Corner, fly banners from aeroplanes, tall buildings and cranes; that is how you change things!!
You cannot bring change by winging and spouting negativity on a car Forum!! That is the blunt truth of it! ::) ::) ;)
So, expressing a view that we should leave the EU is "negativity" and we're not supposed to utter such things on a car forum. I see. ::) ::)
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
I did. I voted UKIP at the election, but unless rest of the population stops watching X Factor and starts learning about the loss of democracy, there's not much else I can do. There are many, many people who share my views but while the political classes (LIbDem,Con,Lab) are all on the gravy train and have us in a stranglehold there's literally nothing we can do. At the moment, that is. :(
No doubt there are Nick, and full democratic power to you all! :y :y :y
There is no getting away from the fact that you will all have to form a group who can first lobby your MPs, then create a manifesto of what you want to transpire. You will need a leader who can run for election, and then you can develop your cause from there! You have to break the mould of the Westminster Club if you really believe in your objectives, and go onto Europe with your own representation ;) ;).
-
Get involved, become an party activist, run for election, write letters to the press, to European officials, become a pain in some body's side, jaw, jaw, jaw, and jaw again, whilst getting on TV, Radio, start your own Internet site, place placards on the side of your car, stand in the High Street obtaining signatures to a petition, stand on a soapbox at Speakers Corner, fly banners from aeroplanes, tall buildings and cranes; that is how you change things!!
You cannot bring change by winging and spouting negativity on a car Forum!! That is the blunt truth of it! ::) ::) ;)
So, expressing a view that we should leave the EU is "negativity" and we're not supposed to utter such things on a car forum. I see. ::) ::)
Of course you can Nick! But where is it going to get you all? For most on this Forum Politics is a big switch off, so as I have stated to you before, you have to take your arguments outside of this arena ;)
-
gentlepeeps and ladies.... this is all hugely irrelevant....
none of the people who you think, THINK they're in charge, are in fact in control of diddly squat
everyone knows full well it;s my wife.
runs the entire world from the safety of her management office... and my sofa....
;D
or at least that's what i'm told.... 8-)
-
gentlepeeps and ladies.... this is all hugely irrelevant....
none of the people who you think, THINK they're in charge, are in fact in control of diddly squat
everyone knows full well it;s my wife.
runs the entire world from the safety of her management office... and my sofa....
;D
or at least that's what i'm told.... 8-)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
A women like me! Like it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
ahhh she's not QUITE a woman like you Liz.... she can't drive an omega.... too short to se over the bonnet and reach the pedals at the same time.... ::)
so.... there was some sense in the madness of my marriage :y
(21 years next june)
-
ahhh she's not QUITE a woman like you Liz.... she can't drive an omega.... too short to se over the bonnet and reach the pedals at the same time.... ::)
so.... there was some sense in the madness of my marriage :y
(21 years next june)
Sounds like a great match if you ask me!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) :y
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
Insofar as the 'Europe' as it's presently constituted and the 'Europe' that it perhaps should be - how can we go about changing it?
I don't think that there's any machinery open to the people of the various EU states that allows an expression of dissatisfaction to really amount to much.
Get involved, become an party activist, run for election, write letters to the press, to European officials, become a pain in some body's side, jaw, jaw, jaw, and jaw again, whilst getting on TV, Radio, start your own Internet site, place placards on the side of your car, stand in the High Street obtaining signatures to a petition, stand on a soapbox at Speakers Corner, fly banners from aeroplanes, tall buildings and cranes; that is how you change things!!
You cannot bring change by winging and spouting negativity on a car Forum!! That is the blunt truth of it! ::) ::) ;)
I’m glad to have this forum to discuss these matters as I don’t get much of an opportunity to do so otherwise.
I hope that I'm not whingeing Lizzie, but could taking the measures you suggest not lead to the very unrest you feel that this 'Europe' as we know it has prevented.
The people of the Republic of Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty when they were asked to vote in a referendum on the matter.
Brussels did not accept this and forced another referendum on the people of that country. After fierce lobbying and deal-making the second vote succeeded and the treaty was ratified.
This suggests to me that Brussels will never take no for an answer and that whatever people try to do to change the present arrangements it will end in failure.
The EU is too big, too intertwined in the political fabric of its member nations and too determined on survival to be thwarted by any dissenting movement.
The emotive words you use are stirring, and yes, perhaps if people did get off their arses and moved in unison things would change but we all of us, in the end, are individuals so that likelihood seems to be remote. So, I would contend that, in the present climate, practicality dictates that the status quo will remain.
What I will say is that regarding our membership of the Union, we should either shit or get off the pot as the present arrangement is not working well and is far removed from the original concept of friendly sovereign nations trading with each other for the benefit of all.
It all comes down to whether we consider ourselves to be British or European (in terms of political nationhood) because as I see it, it can't be both.
-
it's had it;'s moments (5 kids for example)
;)
still madly in love with the megalomaniac old bat....
my car choices over the years.... 4 Senators (A and B) 1 Sintra, 2 Omega Elites.. 1 mV6, have precluded her being able to use ANY of them.... yet i've always made a point to insure her..... ::)
-
Yes, I was expecting that Nick! ::) ::) ::)
Those were different days with different ways, when gunboat and hang em from the yard arm diplomacy ruled, before there were international organizations, like the UN and EU, that could stop one country acting in a war like fashion against another. That I think helps to prove my point. We need the EU, otherwise we go back to those days of warre warre, just as Hobbes described! But in the context of the time those men, although committed to war, stood up and achieved the "impossible". Also I described achievements by politicians such as Churchill and Blair who secured advancement of policy as a peaceful group, ignoring political boundaries and jealousies (Churchill especially). They achieved against the odds, changing circumstances to their advantage, never saying it was all "a pipe dream"!!
Stay as a little group and you will not achieve such goals, but together with other human beings, even of different political persuasions, massive advancements against all odds can be made.
I am sorry you took offence at the weak men jibe, but really, to listen to the arguments on here against the EU really reminds me of tiny disenchanted groups in the playground, not men who are ready to meet political challenges head on and creating a system that meets the majority of ALL our needs.
Bluntly, stop whining and winging about it, get off all your backsides, and do something about it as men (and women) did in the past ;) ;) ;) if you want to change the situation!!
Insofar as the 'Europe' as it's presently constituted and the 'Europe' that it perhaps should be - how can we go about changing it?
I don't think that there's any machinery open to the people of the various EU states that allows an expression of dissatisfaction to really amount to much.
Get involved, become an party activist, run for election, write letters to the press, to European officials, become a pain in some body's side, jaw, jaw, jaw, and jaw again, whilst getting on TV, Radio, start your own Internet site, place placards on the side of your car, stand in the High Street obtaining signatures to a petition, stand on a soapbox at Speakers Corner, fly banners from aeroplanes, tall buildings and cranes; that is how you change things!!
You cannot bring change by winging and spouting negativity on a car Forum!! That is the blunt truth of it! ::) ::) ;)
I’m glad to have this forum to discuss these matters as I don’t get much of an opportunity to do so otherwise.
I hope that I'm not whingeing Lizzie, but could taking the measures you suggest not lead to the very unrest you feel that this 'Europe' as we know it has prevented.
The people of the Republic of Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty when they were asked to vote in a referendum on the matter.
Brussels did not accept this and forced another referendum on the people of that country. After fierce lobbying and deal-making the second vote succeeded and the treaty was ratified.
This suggests to me that Brussels will never take no for an answer and that whatever people try to do to change the present arrangements it will end in failure.
The EU is too big, too intertwined in the political fabric of its member nations and too determined on survival to be thwarted by any dissenting movement.
The emotive words you use are stirring, and yes, perhaps if people did get off their arses and moved in unison things would change but we all of us, in the end, are individuals so that likelihood seems to be remote. So, I would contend that, in the present climate, practicality dictates that the status quo will remain.
What I will say is that regarding our membership of the Union, we should either shit or get off the pot as the present arrangement is not working well and is far removed from the original concept of friendly sovereign nations trading with each other for the benefit of all.
It all comes down to whether we consider ourselves to be British or European (in terms of political nationhood) because as I see it, it can't be both.
Then we should get to its centre Zulu by democratic process, and how that develops is down to all citizens. If we cannot motivate the politically disinterested then the progress will be hard and slow, but achieve that motiviation and achieve we will.
Dare I mention that those who take the initiative will achieve great things..............ok up to that point?...............like Hitler starting small with National Socialism in 1923 to change Germany, stripping it of its democracy by 1934, and gaining an absolute stranglehold on its people and cause horrific destruction.
Not so good eh?!! That is because an evil man was determined to gain absolute power over a great country, and it is not an example of a determined peaceful political movement changing what is. But it proves yet again in history that change will take place with will, and out of little acorns greatness can be achieved against the odds.
I am sure the majority of us will always want change; peaceful change, and this can only be achieved when mankind projects itself over the perceived "impossible". As I mentioned before, in history men have ignored that word and secured the nation we have now. We will cease to to be as a nation if we retreat to a corner and whimper it is "all impossible to change". Be determined and strong, placing ourselves at the centre of Europe, and we will achieve our common goals.
The right men and women is what is required now to build on the success of the EU to date, and rid it of its weakenesses. That will take time.
-
...................and before I am accused again of using an example of conflict (Hitler) when against the warre of man, and the need to overcome political "impossibility" peacefully, I will just mention two words of a name................
[size=20]Nelson Mandela
[/color][/size]
No explanation required I think!!
-
We will cease to to be as a nation if we retreat to a corner and whimper it is "all impossible to change". Be determined and strong, placing ourselves at the centre of Europe, and we will achieve our common goals.
The right men and women is what is required now to build on the success of the EU to date, and rid it of its weakenesses. That will take time.
That will never happen lizzie, the EU is nothing more than a piece of the jigsaw to create the global governance they keep going on about, so we would never be players in the EU but slaves to the NWO (new world order), people are waking up to it but very slowly, im surprised as to how many people have never heard of the Bilderbergers who are very much instrumental in the planning of a NWO, to think for one minute that the EU is for our benefit or ever will be is laughable.
-
We will cease to to be as a nation if we retreat to a corner and whimper it is "all impossible to change". Be determined and strong, placing ourselves at the centre of Europe, and we will achieve our common goals.
The right men and women is what is required now to build on the success of the EU to date, and rid it of its weakenesses. That will take time.
That will never happen lizzie, the EU is nothing more than a piece of the jigsaw to create the global governance they keep going on about, so we would never be players in the EU but slaves to the NWO (new world order), people are waking up to it but very slowly, im surprised as to how many people have never heard of the Bilderbergers who are very much instrumental in the planning of a NWO, to think for one minute that the EU is for our benefit or ever will be is laughable.
So Alf, what you are saying is there is no hope for us, ever?
Sorry, it is obviously your opinion, and that of others I know, but I cannot possibly prescribe to that as it is pure defeatism! As I stated before, this is just too much like concentrating on the negativity and not the positives.
Are we starving? Are we at war? Have we free speech?
Have we an elected Government via the democratic process?
Can't we travel freely throughout Europe?
Are the majority of us living in heated homes with the luxuries of life?
Have we not a National Health system that looks after us?
Does European law, coupled to UK law not protect us in the main?
Don't we have the rights afforded by the European Court of Human Rights, backed up by UK Law?
etc, etc, etc. Let's talk up the strengths rather than talk everything down.
-
All that the EU is doing is likely to lead to civil, rather than national, wars in the future. Different names, same suffering. I simply don't buy all this talk that the EU has prevented war. Maybe it is true in the case of Nato, but not the EU. The fact that no nation vs. nation war has occurred is down to other matters such as the relative prosperity of the West. To say that the EU has prevented wars is totally unprovable. History is littered with the carcasses of huge empires which have collapsed in a bloody fashion.
As for nationalism, it's one of the words that's always bandied about in a perjorative way to ensure that valued aspirations of pride in the freedoms, democracy and values of one's own country cannot be uttered, lest one is tarnished with an undeserved brush.
The EU is not, nor can it ever be, any sort of empire. At best, it will be a political federation of independent nations. Failing that, it will be an economic bloc, or trading association. But what it doesn't have is any unified defence force, border controls or currency, which are institutions one would usually associate with a nation. And before it could become an empire, it would need first to be a nation.
No, it ISN'T down to us! That's the whole point! We have a number of MEPs who would dearly like us to retain our sovereignty, but their voices are drowned out. We have just 72 out of 732 MEPs. Can we make a difference? Absolutely not.
The 72 out of 732 MEPs is a complete red herring. The European Parliament works through groupings or parties, and our democratically elected MEPs are associated with these parties via the declared associations of the British parties to which they belong. There has been some discussion about the present alignment of the Conservative party, as the grouping the are associated with includes a number of national parties that have some extreme views.
-
Good lord, between leaving work and now you lot have rambled on for almost another two pages!? :P :D
-
Good lord, between leaving work and now you lot have rambled on for almost another two pages!? :P :D
Yes, we like having a good chat on here! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
It astounds me that people cant see the obvious. The powerbrokers in the EU have every intention of it becoming the U.S.E. it has been heading in that direction step by step for decades.From what I have seen and read they dont even deny it or try to hide the fact.
We should never be determined to stop the possibility of war at any price. Those who fought and died in the world wars did so to protect the national sovereignty and independence of the u.k.
If we should do anything required to stop wars then we should have surrendered to Hitler.
The E.U. can never be made democratic, there are no procedures in place to make it happen and there never will be.
If there was, most of the member states would leave. The only people who currently wish to remain in imo are those in the very poor countries who are having the wealth from the rich countries redistributed to them.
Every time they come up with a new power grab most countries have a referendum. If the EU gets the wrong result they change the wording slightly and make a few more false promises and hold another and another until they wear the electorate down and they get the result they want.
I am not a little Englander - Im not even English.
This country has survived(and mostly flourished) for many centuries as an independent nation - why cant we do so now?
-
Then we should get to its centre Zulu by democratic process, and how that develops is down to all citizens. If we cannot motivate the politically disinterested then the progress will be hard and slow, but achieve that motiviation and achieve we will.
Dare I mention that those who take the initiative will achieve great things..............ok up to that point?...............like Hitler starting small with National Socialism in 1923 to change Germany, stripping it of its democracy by 1934, and gaining an absolute stranglehold on its people and cause horrific destruction.
Not so good eh?!! That is because an evil man was determined to gain absolute power over a great country, and it is not an example of a determined peaceful political movement changing what is. But it proves yet again in history that change will take place with will, and out of little acorns greatness can be achieved against the odds.
I am sure the majority of us will always want change; peaceful change, and this can only be achieved when mankind projects itself over the perceived "impossible". As I mentioned before, in history men have ignored that word and secured the nation we have now. We will cease to to be as a nation if we retreat to a corner and whimper it is "all impossible to change". Be determined and strong, placing ourselves at the centre of Europe, and we will achieve our common goals.
The right men and women is what is required now to build on the success of the EU to date, and rid it of its weakenesses. That will take time.
I certainly agree that not only is change inevitable but it’s necessary for any sort of realistic way forward in the coming century.
What that change is, and how it will be administered, are the two questions which demand serious consideration
I don't see the EU, as it is at the moment, being sufficiently flexible to accommodate this notional change as the Commission and the Council of Ministers seem to have an agenda that reaches beyond the environs of Europe.
I do agree with you that the most productive way to elicit change is from the inside out - but how that would be accomplished within the bureaucracy of the EU insofar as policy is formed essentially by unelected officials to be (mostly) rubber-stamped by the elected parliament?
Can the European Parliament really generate sufficient traction to break this fundamental source of EU ideology?
I think we have already lost our national identity by being part of this hybrid European experiment, so it's time to either dispense with the Westminster Parliament altogether - as it seems to be the equivalent of a county council where European matters are concerned - or reassess or position within the Union. Not necessarily to the degree of withdrawal (if that were possible) but more rather the reestablishment of a strong national parliament, accountable to the electorate, willing to play a role within the Union - on terms that benefit us - oriented towards the original concept of a group of nations trading freely one with the other.
-
I certainly agree that not only is change inevitable but it’s necessary for any sort of realistic way forward in the coming century.
What that change is, and how it will be administered, are the two questions which demand serious consideration
I don't see the EU, as it is at the moment, being sufficiently flexible to accommodate this notional change as the Commission and the Council of Ministers seem to have an agenda that reaches beyond the environs of Europe.
I do agree with you that the most productive way to elicit change is from the inside out - but how that would be accomplished within the bureaucracy of the EU insofar as policy is formed essentially by unelected officials to be (mostly) rubber-stamped by the elected parliament?
Can the European Parliament really generate sufficient traction to break this fundamental source of EU ideology?
I think we have already lost our national identity by being part of this hybrid European experiment, so it's time to either dispense with the Westminster Parliament altogether - as it seems to be the equivalent of a county council where European matters are concerned - or reassess or position within the Union. Not necessarily to the degree of withdrawal (if that were possible) but more rather the reestablishment of a strong national parliament, accountable to the electorate, willing to play a role within the Union - on terms that benefit us - oriented towards the original concept of a group of nations trading freely one with the other.
I think, Zulu, that most "Eurosceptics" would happily accept a return to the the original concept. Indeed, I would go further and say practically all Eurosceptics would agree.
The problem, though, is that the Brussels machine is now so firmly entrenched that there would simply be no option to return to that concept, however desirable. It would not be acceptable to those who enjoy the power.
Therefore, the only way is out. Maybe after that, countries could reform into a looser association.
In the meantime, anyone that claims we can remodel the EU according to our wishes through a democratic process is, I believe, delusional. :(
-
I entirely agree Nick. :y
It would be nice if one of the positives of the financial crisis was the disappearance of the Euro, closely followed by the EU itself. :)
(youve got to have dream) ::)
I think if the German electorate were given a vote on the matter at the moment they would probably want to run a mile from the whole thing. Its costing them a fortune. ;)
-
I think, Zulu, that most "Eurosceptics" would happily accept a return to the the original concept. Indeed, I would go further and say practically all Eurosceptics would agree.
The problem, though, is that the Brussels machine is now so firmly entrenched that there would simply be no option to return to that concept, however desirable. It would not be acceptable to those who enjoy the power.
Therefore, the only way is out. Maybe after that, countries could reform into a looser association.
In the meantime, anyone that claims we can remodel the EU according to our wishes through a democratic process is, I believe, delusional. :(
Yes, I can't really see a solution to this using the present democratic machinery.
As you say the various national systems are now inextricably linked (by design I do believe) to the Brussels machine. That fact, I further believe, will make it all but impossible to extricate this nation from the present set-up.
There remains the possibility the entire EU machine will topple, being top-heavy as it is, although should this happen - how much wreckage would it cause?
Of course if we had a government with balls perhaps we could acquit ourselves with greater effect within the present set-up.
-
You know what a (German) friend of mine says about the EU?
"Well we tried it twice by force and failed, so we thought we'd do it quietly with diplomacy this time, and none of you have noticed yet!"
-
You know what a (German) friend of mine says about the EU?
"Well we tried it twice by force and failed, so we thought we'd do it quietly with diplomacy this time, and none of you have noticed yet!"
Many a true word is spoken in jest. ;)
-
i agree with Nick and others who say that the EU is undemocratic, but surely we all had the chance to vote in a party that wanted us out of Brussels' control and we chose our present government instead - thats democracy as well - in the same way that few of us north of the border voted for the tories, yet look what you lot went and did down south ;D :y
-
You know what a (German) friend of mine says about the EU?
"Well we tried it twice by force and failed, so we thought we'd do it quietly with diplomacy this time, and none of you have noticed yet!"
Many a true word is spoken in jest. ;)
I have always maintained that the Germans were the true brokers behind European power - once National Socialism was tamed should we have thrown our lot in with them?
I'm beginning to think so.
-
i agree with Nick and others who say that the EU is undemocratic, but surely we all had the chance to vote in a party that wanted us out of Brussels' control and we chose our present government instead - thats democracy as well - in the same way that few of us north of the border voted for the tories, yet look what you lot went and did down south ;D :y
The problem, BJ, is that the mainstream parties offer a plethora of promises (most of which they break, incidentally) and the voters tend to pick only one to support. So, in a hypothetical situation, one may offer a referendum on Europe, but no free school milk, whilst the other offers no referendum but free school milk. If the school milk gets the latter elected, it cannot be assumed that the voters did not want the referendum, merely that they were swayed by the milk. Additionally, whilst many discerning voters can/want to examine manifestos there are many more that cannot/can't be bothered. In fact, because the whole concept of the EU and democracy requires a certain level of insight and interest, it is very often ignored by voters in favour of relatively banal domestic policies.
:(
-
There seems to be a really simple answer to this question.............................
ANYBODY BUT US.
funny how everybody in the world has something top say about the UK's shortcomings, but they all want a say in how we are governed!!
-
i agree with Nick and others who say that the EU is undemocratic, but surely we all had the chance to vote in a party that wanted us out of Brussels' control and we chose our present government instead - thats democracy as well - in the same way that few of us north of the border voted for the tories, yet look what you lot went and did down south ;D :y
It is indeed democracy in action and the result isn't always the 'preferred' one.
I always smile when condescending politicians refer to the electorate at polling times as being sophisticated and able to see behind the rhetoric.
I consider this to be balls as I think a fair number of people who voted in the last election did so without understanding many of the issues and were influenced by information overload, apathy or tribalism.
The country certainly got the government it deserved, and that's the cost of many people being more interested in leisure activity, celebrity worship and the desire to acquire money and stature without working for either.
Oohhh - I'm feeling a bit bitchy this morning. :-* :-* :-* :y
-
In just nine days from now, George Osborne will announce a package of public spending cuts more draconian than anything since the Geddes Axe of the 1920s. Yet on Wednesday in the House of Commons, MPs are being invited to approve a budget that involves an increase in expenditure. How can this be; and who is the recipient of such unexpected largesse from the UK taxpayer?
The answer, and it will come as no surprise, is the European Union. MPs are debating a memorandum from the European Commission setting out its arguments for a 5.8 per cent increase in its spending for 2011. This would boost annual spending to around £115 billion – about half the annual public expenditure of a country the size of the Netherlands. Since we are among the contributors to the budget, we pay for it. The UK's net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12. By 2015, it will be around £10.3 billion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8056732/As-we-wield-the-axe-Europe-asks-for-more.html
Will our MPs approve it? Of course they will.
Says it all, really. >:( >:(
-
In just nine days from now, George Osborne will announce a package of public spending cuts more draconian than anything since the Geddes Axe of the 1920s. Yet on Wednesday in the House of Commons, MPs are being invited to approve a budget that involves an increase in expenditure. How can this be; and who is the recipient of such unexpected largesse from the UK taxpayer?
The answer, and it will come as no surprise, is the European Union. MPs are debating a memorandum from the European Commission setting out its arguments for a 5.8 per cent increase in its spending for 2011. This would boost annual spending to around £115 billion – about half the annual public expenditure of a country the size of the Netherlands. Since we are among the contributors to the budget, we pay for it. The UK's net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12. By 2015, it will be around £10.3 billion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8056732/As-we-wield-the-axe-Europe-asks-for-more.html
Will our MPs approve it? Of course they will.
Says it all, really. >:( >:(
I have stated all I want on this subject now, so I will depart giving this thought to all, and may be an answer to our problems Nick.
This post has attracted 19 observations / comments by OOF over 3 days; not bad, but how many contribute from the OOF membership as a whole?
In other words who is interested in these political issues?
You ask the correct question Nick, no matter what our views are on this issue:
"Will our MPs approve it? Of course they will."
Yes, they will because who, or how many, of the general public will care enough to brief their MP on what they want, for the UK, let alone the EU?!
If the OOF is a cross section of society the democracy we know today will be the same tomorrow, and thereafter!
As I mentioned previously, it will take more than a few utterances on the OOF to change anything! ::) ::) ::)
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
The extra money the EU is demanding could pay for over 6,000 doctors, about 15,000 police officers or 22,000 soldiers.
Currently just 34 Conservative MPs have signed an amendment to the Draft EU Budget Bill (which is being debated today) which criticises this increase.
Let's see how the others vote, eh? ::) ::)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/34-conservative-mps-say-the-eu-shouldnt-get-extra-money-at-a-time-of-cuts.html