Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

[jereboam]

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.

[aaronjb]

Good lord, between leaving work and now you lot have rambled on for almost another two pages!?  

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Good lord, between leaving work and now you lot have rambled on for almost another two pages!?  

Yes, we like having a good chat on here!

[albitz]

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?

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[Nickbat]

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. 

[albitz]

I entirely agree Nick.

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[aaronjb]

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!"

[Nickbat]

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.

[Banjax]

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 

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[Nickbat]

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 

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.
       

[Sixstring]

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!!