Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Joll, Sep 22, 2009.
Worth reading for any democracy-loving Brits.
Implications of EU Lisbon Treaty/Constitution
Considering The Times is owned by NewsCorp (yes, Mr Rupert Murdoch it is!), the article is short of objective. The Time has always been inclined to the right and let's not forget the agenda is the same as, surprise, The Sun (yes, Mr Rupert Murdoch it is again!).
As a lawyer who have studied the EC and all EU institutions extensively, I feel it is unfortunate that it is so miscontrued. Yes, people should be given a referendum if that is what they want, but when us Brits are presented with basic questions such as "would you still like to enjoy visa-free travel all over Europe?", "do you still appreciate wine and other imports being sold on low price?" and "do you think you should have the right to live and work virtually anywhere in Europe or is buying a house in suny Spain in your sights?" I know what Brits would chose.
My point is that the public does not know enough about what the EU and EC are, and therefore are not ready to be given a chance to vote on a referendum.
joll - love your cock irrespectively, though.
I know it's a serious topic, but I couldn't stifle a snort at the inherent irony.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
No it isn't. Join NAFTA instead! :wink:
Well, those are the kind of questions that were put to the UK in the 1975 referendum - but those things come at a price. Equally pertinent questions such as "Would you like open-ended loss of Sovereignty?" or "Do you realise what ever-closer union entails, and are you in favour of economic and political integration?" were avoided.
Some do know a fair amount of what it entails, and don't like it. It's assumed that if people reject EU initiatives (as in the 2005 referendums) then it's because they don't know enough about them; when sometimes it's just that they don't actually like what's being proposed. The British joined primarily for the single market (which wasn't called that at the time, I don't think?) and for economic reasons - they didn't, however, realise those economic objectives were designed to bring about eventual political union (as has been admitted by Monet, and other EU 'founding fathers').
Some people would prefer a looser arrangement with the EU. Sure, have a trading agreement, which has been beneficial to both sides, but have much more say in our own affairs, and remain separate from the more federal initiatives.
Cheers, dude. :biggrin1:
It used to be called the Common Market, at least when I was growing up.
Lol, not disparaging our (lost) Empire, are you??
How could he be, since he lives in a newly lost one himself?
FWIW I think Britain should stay out of the EU, if only for economic reasons. To be sure the Bank of England did about as good a job at regulation as the Treasury-Fed-FDIC-SEC. The ECB was the best central bank in the world over the last 10 years, but that's not saying much by comparison. The latest divergence in interest rates between Spain, and Germany of 60bps/ or .006%, indicates that all glitters is not gold on those Euro coins. IOW who will rescue Spain from 20% unemployment? I would be leery of this were I an EU member, because if Spain continues to pay even more interest, or defaults on it's debt, it could fall out of the Union, since it's deficit is already 6%, double the prescribed EU limit. Or the rest of the EU could be asked to pay up for Spain, and that seems unlikely given the debt limits and deficits in Italy, Portugal, and Ireland, and the general economic weakness in the stronger members as well.
...and now for the next phase of my diabolical plan :saevil:: the secession of Scotland and its split into South Scotland and North Scotland, each with its own currency and central bank.
Get with the times! The world has changed since Queen Victoria!
The British have freedoms? I thought they voted them all away already?
The vote in the Irish Republic is 2nd October. I guess we will have the result the next day. I think it is all still to play for, but best guess is that the Irish will be bullied into voting yes. The Czech Republic and Poland have still not physically presented their documents to the EU, but presumably will be pressured to do so quickly. It is likely that the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified very soon - certainly before our washed up UK government does the decent thing and calls an election.
David Cameron's keynote conference speech is 8th October. Assuming the Irish have been bullied into a yes vote I think he has to speak on the topic. The Conservative website says that if Lisbon is ratified the Conservatives will not let matters rest there. He can't be silent. I think he has two options:
a) say that an incoming Conservative government will request an opt out. However this would surely be refused by the EU, as the whole logic is that the Lisbon treaty replaces everything else - Lisbon will be the treaty that holds the EU together.
b) say that an incoming Conservative government will hold a referendum on continued membership of the EU.
My thought is that he will go for (b). It will neutralise the UKIP vote (which is a major threat to the Conservatives). The Conservatives will hold together. A referendum forthcoming will concentrate minds in Europe to find a settlement that is right for the UK. We might even get a form of relationship witht he EU we can live with.
Of course there are advantages to EU membership. But ask people if they even know the name of their MEP and almost always the answer is no. Europe as a democracy has already failed. There are arguments from economics and convenience that say we should stay in. But if the UK wants to have self respect as a nation I've come to think we have to leave. For me this is a big change - I used to be very enthusiastic about the EU. Now I want out. I am prepared to be poorer to leave, if that is really what it means. I can feel comfortable with my country, but only disgust at the bureaucratic anti-democratic cheating that is the EU.
In a perfect world the Irish Republic would leave with us. But that is their decision - the UK needs out.
We have something much like what you describe. Transactions in Scotland take place in Pounds Scots. At the moment the Pound Scots is firmly linked with the Pound Sterling, but in terms of the actual banknotes three Scottish Banks issue money (Royal Bank, Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale) which constitute the majority of banknotes circulating in Scotland. English notes are accepted in Scotland; in theory Scottish notes are accepted in England, but smaller shops will refuse them. Northern Ireland has a similar situation (though with four issuing banks). For maximum fun try to spend an Ulster Linen Bank £20 in a small shop in an English village.
This would be an excellent solution. Can Cameron and Obama make it fly? It could be very popular in Britain.
Britain in NAFTA?...and I thought it was only the Americans who sucked at geography! :biggrin1:
Well we are not part of Europe and we are part of the EU - what's the difference?
That's what the anti-european right-wing in Switzerland proposed some time ago. And then american jews wanted money from the Swiss banks and this swiss party was obliged to shut up.
No because Mary Stuart was beheaded.
Don't be ridiculous!