Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Radman, May 13, 2013.
What do you mean they don't? What about Gibraltar? Another piece of stolen land they posses.
The british islands don't have a connection. They're, well, islands.
There's the tunnel, though, so in a way there is a land based connection.
It's inevitable that the EU will eventually become something like a republic, confederation/confederacy or federation. Personally, I'd rather see one of the first 2 options + a firm list of freedoms that are not to be infringed, rather than seeing a true federation (which I fear is what the EU will ultimately become, although probably not in my lifetime). The EU is quickly becoming a nannystate, so it would be handy to have a list of freedoms that can't be touched (other than the universal human rights, which are not the same as what I mean).
But then we're talking technicalities, of course.
In the shorter term, I think we might see an emergence of a "EU with 2 speeds". A slight schism in the EU itself, allowing some member nations that wish to unite faster than others. A bit like that the BeNeLux already was when the EEC/EC/EU was still taking form.
Jesus on a pogostick!
The EU doesn't force anything like that on any nation. No one 'had' to use the Euro? Every nation that is in the Euro joined voluntarily. Hell, you don't even have to be part of the EU to use the Euro? The Euro itself was a great idea, but it was rolled out slightly too soon and allowed some countries to join that should not have been allowed to join (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc) until they unfucked their economy.
People need to start realize that half the time when politicians say "oh, it's the EU's fault" it usually isn't.
Take the EU motorcycle guidelines from around 2010-2011. Belgium passed laws regarding protective motorcycle gear that were way stricter than the guidelines passed by the EU. Note the word guidelines btw. Those passed guidelines were not even forced onto the member nations.
Yet, when people started to question the Belgian laws that were passed, every politician involved excused it by saying their hand had been forced by the EU. That was total and utter bullshit. The same excuse has been used ad nauseum, and then people wonder why the EU is hated by many?
The EU is far from perfect, but it's far less pushy in its guidelines & laws than what people would lead you to believe...
It's horribly organized & quite undemocratic though.
Apart from the standard "EU is taking all our money to give to foreign people" and "it allows all those foreign people to come over here and take our money" one of the major problems the current coalition government has with the EU is that they can't get rid of the Human Rights act while still being part of the EU.
Oh and the Daily Mail blames the EU for certain shaped sausages or something stupid.
Blaming the EU is common practice.
For a while our politicians tried to push telecommunications data retention even though our constitutional court said that it violated our Grundgesetz.
But the politicians kept on pushing it, saying that we'd face repercussions and lawsuits from the EU because data retention was an EU thing.
They conveniently forgot to announce that there are around 70 lawsuits from the EU against Germany at any given time and that nobody gives a flying fuck about how much data we save. Also, that if an EU guideline violates national law it can be safely ignored.
Tthere is a lawsuit as of now, and should Germany lose it we'd have to pay around 315000€ per day until we comply.
So yeah, the EU does get a little bossy at times. That's not a good thing.
Not that this is a lot of money. Around 1.4€ per capita per year. Still, the principle.
I love that. YEAH WE HATE THE EU BECAUSE IT PREVENTS US FROM ABUSING OUR PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS!!!
uhh, ok, sure....
(any of you seen Richard Littlejohn and his problem with "YUMAN RIGHTS"?)
artificial connection nonetheless
As far as we don't get a new ice age, geographically speaking, those Tommys are not part of Europe. Of course, I am not really serious about that. "Europe", the European Union, is rather some Idea or concept. Might have started with the connections the nations have, but it doesn't stop here, as we have seen.
I mean 50 million years Africa will be Europe too. So who cares?
and that is the core of the problem. As long the EU is this half assed "union" of nations, it will not really be succesfull. Not in the future. Thats my opinion. Not only because they are undemocratic, but because they can not really do more then to give "guidlines". But for a body to really work, it need something where they can actually use power to enforce those decisions. What ever if we like that or not, but thats how nations work. There can be a form of freedom and sovereignty as we see them with federalism. But even here, the core decisions HAVE to come from somewhere. At the moment, the difference between the nations as far as the important matters go, are still way to different. One good example, foreign policy. Europe? It has none. France might have totally different interests compared to Germany, particularly as France has still quite a lot of military instalations all over the world. Similar to Britain.
This will be one of the big challanges of this century. Because if we, as Europeans can not find a consense here, then I fear the European Union might colapse on those questions. But before all that, it has to become more of a real democracy as well. But that goes without a saying.
1975 EEC referendum. 65% turnout with 60% approval. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying the British people were given a chance to show their opinion, and voted for the EEC. Of course, it wasn't the EU back then...[/quote]
You've said it yourself the EEC wasn't the EU it was a common trade market.
The EU is creeping towards federal determination and actively meddles with internal British Policies - immigration being a key issue.
The EU today is nothing like the EEC we joined - that's the real issue.
How is it meddling?
Is it bona fida, honest to goodness meddling, with lawsuits and all that jazz, or just the usual excuses about politicians blaming the EU for their own failures? That's what I wanna know.
As I said, it's actually both. The politicians blame the EU, but the EU actually does some real meddling, too.
Splendid Isolation forever!
Dude, please. Irrelevant comment. Anyway, it was useful to use as a base to dominate the Mediterranean and thus beat the baddies in WWII, I say we've earned it now.
As for UK-specific reasons to leave the EU: at the moment the vogue thing to worry about is an influx of Eastern European immigrants coming and becoming a massive burden on the National Health Service and state schools, at a time when as a nation we are trying to save money on both. Of course every right-wing publication says this will ruin the country, every left-wing one says it will be utterly inconsequential. Presumably the truth is somewhere down the middle, but I'm not well-read enough to judge that. Plus I don't know if there are equivalent situations for other member-states - my knowledge of other countries' health services is pitiful. Is the NHS relatively unique? I have no idea.
The NHS is fairly unique, yes, but it differs mostly in the details rather than the overall concept. Most other systems are in some form insurance-based, but those other nations face essentially the same problem with regards to immigrants. The solution is generally to somehow exclude recent immigrants, though that can be problematic. I would also argue that that is inhumane, and that the whole exclusionary practice of nationally segregated welfare states is morally problematic to begin with -- but you're never going to find political support for that position. Not for a long time, at least.
Of course, there are legitimate arguments to be made that immigration actually supports the welfare state. Immigrants tend to be young (=inexpensive for the welfare state) and they work (=pay taxes), generally for lower pay (=more profits for national companies). The expensive inhabitants are the elderly. Adding more young people helps mitigate the whole aging population issue, which is a significantly bigger threat to the welfare state (and the NHS). Care for the elderly is the biggest cost in almost all well-developed welfare states, and with an aging population the supporting tax base is shrinking.
Of course, then there might be some issues when the now young immigrants start aging eventually, but that should be more gradual. And, really, mitigating that problem for some 40 or more years is a pretty good idea anyway.
It's a shame the youth unemployment rate (ages 15-24) across the eurozone is at a record high.
The cost is greater than the benefits for most countries. If we had a new election here in Sweden i'm sure we would leave EU and i would vote for a EU free Sweden. The idea is good but the way they handle it is shit.
But for UK? I honnestly have no idea. UK is one of the few countries i have close to no political information of Oo.
Edit: Speaking of the currency. I was against the euro from start and the "awesome" politicians in Sweden basicly said that our current currency would drop while the euro would be stronger and stronger.. Our currency is growing stronger and stronger!.. Maybe not so fast but it is far more stable!
The EU has meddled in plenty of UK internal policies - the power has been slowly taken away from our elected governments and is ever so slowly shifting over to Brussels.
Take a look at the way Greece has been treated with its bailout.
My point still stands however, the British public voted to join the EEC not the EU in its current form or where its currently heading (a federal Europe.)
The EU is an Alliance, a pact, an agreement between nations. It's a give and take based on contracts and trust. To get some, you need to give some.
But of course there is the parasitic mindset to consider:
We want access to their market but we don't want foreign companies having access to ours
We want to go and work wherever we please but don't want immigrants ourselves.
We don't want to pay tolls but miss our toll income.
The EU should not meddle in our internal affairs but it should have meddled in the internal affairs of Greece, preventing them going that deep into debt.
The party was fun for quite some time and everyone was glad to join and have a go at the buffet. But now it's over (or there's a lull in it), everyone is worrying about the bills and thinks it's high time to quit the premises.
I heard Cameron blab about leaving the EU and doing bilateral deals much like Switzerland does with the EU. Well, have much fun with that folks. That just means that the discussion taking place now will repeat itself with every single deal the government tries to do with the EU. Does he or the voters really think the EU will sign a deal giving the UK all the benefits of a memberstate without any drawbacks?
That's true, except for Slovakian gypsies immigrating to the UK. Older or young, they're just milking the benefit system. It's organised crime, they're fabricating false birth-documents for imaginary children, granting them to suck up even more money from the benefit system. The same goes for gypsy immigrants from Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and so on, I assume.
Such as? I'm not saying you are wrong, I need examples.
I honestly think there's some of that going on. It's the same deal in every single federation or similar structure; members want to have their cake and eat it too, and damn the rest to a degree.
Now, it doesn't mean every single anti-EU complaint is wrong, but we must keep the above in perspective. People will always shit and moan to get the best of a deal and avoid the bad parts. Well that's not how a federation is supposed to work; it's both give and take.
though the European Union is still far away from a federation. It has, as far as its members goes, not really that much power.
And I guess it will still take quite some time before that will change.