i am an american and i wish this guy the best of the world. he is honest, does not lie, says it how it is and we could use a bunch of these types of guys here in the USA.
The sensible German Constitutional Court recently ruled that the "European citizen" is a mythical beast .
Any attempt by our un-elected masters at the Supreme commission to tell us otherwise is illegal under international law ( Article 1,UN Covernant on Political and Social Rights 9.
1. Criticising the EU or it's institutions is Illegal (European Court of Justice ruling,case 274/99).
2.Rioting/ civil ' upheaval ´ during time of war is punishable by death (amendment to the European Charter,article2,passage2c : google Prof.Schachtschneider).
3. Any state not willing to `continually upgrade it's military´will also face punishment.
nonsense. The EU is based on Peace, Freedom and Prosperity; think back to why the ECSC was founded.
Both systems are corrupt, it's not something the EU has a monopoly on. you may disagree, but it needs reform in the shape of a clearer role, which means power needs to be transfered not only to the EUrope but some back to the memberstates.
both will always have their own share of megalomainiacs who are in it for the power or money, but they're upto the electorate to weed out..if they want to
Peace freedom and prosperity? It may have started on the basis of peace, but that has long since been achieve and yet the machine must continue to sustain itself.
We have reached a level of integration which is satisfactory for everyone, but since that would put alot of people out of work (should it be accepted) it is being ignored and now the EU is just a power hungry gravy train.
Of course it needs to continue to sustain itself. If we all withdrew our support then the whole thing would come crashing down and send the entire continent back almost 100 years!
If you're satisfied with the current running condition of the EU as it is now, then you are either the most blindly pro-EU soul i've came in contact with or have little to no clue as to how the whole thing works.
What I do know is that the account don't balance and never have, if they were a company their share price would be worthless than dirt. I also know what people who do highlight such things get transferred to departments that are career killers.
Instead of sorting what is there they just seek more control.
100 years?
Lets not exaggerate:
2009-1945 = 64
You just added a 56% increase, I can see why you like the EU!
those criticisms you chose are really more of a stick to beat all governement's with. No governement would make a good business, ever thats why they use force to aquire funding and Very few people who criticise an administration/ system get away with keeping/ getting a well sort after job. you've fignored all the baggage that comes with it:
Economic turmoil, colapsing of governments in less stable memberstates as ours, the rise of extremism. all these things very much at home in the 1900
No I mean in the sense that they don't know where the money goes. Departments books don't balance. All real governments know where their money goes but the EU has huge gaps in it's books.
Fair enough. Rise of extemism? I'm not sure that would happen any more or less than it is now.
it works just as bad as any other governement, yes i would say more so in certain areas, but these things can be resolved with reform. the only problem is that treaties that are ment to do this are unpopular because they're characterised by europhobes as being yet more proof europe is going to loot our homes and rape our women and should be resisted with every fiber of our being. take the Lisbon treaty that sets out a clear withdrawral process and is still considered devil spwan by most
there has been no real rise in extremism currently and believe me it is miles better than what we'd see from the economic shockwave if the EU was to fall apart. it would very much be the next of year revolutions
The reason why people highlight the EU is because it is particularly bad at ruling its 'books'. It has no idea where money goes in many departments and is essentially a black hole of the money of Germany and the UK.
The Reason why people point that out is because the EU is an easy boogeyman to scare ill informed voters. I would ask you to give an example of a state that does know where every last € goes but i doubt i'd get one.
I like the point of it being a blackhole for Britain and Germany since they have nothing to gain form being within a single market or a body that can potentially mobalise the power of theone of the most powerful and influential continent on the international stage. ¬_¬
First, The EU is not a country. Second, It is upto each individual memberstate to ensure that their respective branch's business is all above board so no, other countries can't manage it; That's why EUrope can't sign off it's books.
You can't have a single market without some form of political union. It's something which mainland Europeans understood years ago and us Brit's only seem to be waking upto.
It is not up to each member state, the member state give a couple of billion pounds (or €) to the EU and then the EU is to manage its own affairs, that is why they have an army of bureaucrats in Brussels.
We have enough political Union and yet they are pushing for more, while at the same time the Lisbon treaty takes emphasis AWAY from the common market. They aren't interested in the market anymore, they want a single state.
No. Each memberstate has the right to negotiate the size of it's input into the EU. If all the HoS decided to reduce funding to the EU then Barroso just has to shrug and work with what he's given. Now about these legions of faceless bureaucrats (23,043) they're only responsible for constructing legislation, NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION. The implementation, the guys who will actually dish out CAP funding to farmers is your local civil servent. And that, my friend, is where the corruption comes in.
Negotiate the size of input? Is that what you call the UK and Germany propping up Spain, Portugal etc?
If the HoC reduced funding then we'd be told we'd have 'reduced input' despite the fact the French don't input another (net) at all.
Some will be responsible for implementation, not on the ground, but the management level... does it make it any better for the UK that we're being screwed by Italian civil servants rather than EU?
No, it's what i call a good investment. It also helps to build and strengthen comradery throughout Europe. I take pride in the fact that some of my tax is goes towards building and maintianing roads in portrugal or being injected into the spanish economy because it's gonna be british banks that spanish entrepreneurs goto and German cars that the portrugeese will be driving down those roads.
Damn the French and their arable land.
would being screwed by a british civil servent feel better?
Comradery? If we need that why don't we join up with people who like us already? Rather than those with a completely different economic outlook and an inate distrust.
...its doesn't look like the Spain or Portuguese are going to be buying any cars any time soon, or the Greece or Icelanders.
Lol, like it has anything to do with their agriculture!
No, British civil servants may not be perfect by any stretch but they aren't anywhere near as corrupt.
so we agree that Corruption is bad regardless of the nationality? good.
So let's say during comic relief you donate £10. after reciving your donation an intermediary channels that to a charity that fund a well for clean drinking water in africa. Now in that charity an aid workers siphoned off that £10 and buys a CD or something with it Does that make the intermediary corrupt?
Assuming that your example is legit and all the lovely people in Brussels behave (which they don't) if the aid worker is a cheat, no I don't want to join my country to that aid worker's charity.
the recession isn't that bad for them (ex iceland who isn't in the EU), the Euro is holding together quite nicely and their going to be heaved out of the recession on the back of Germany. IF i was the germans i would demand they get there houses in order, but if you really want to see someone who is in trouble look closer to home, thank got for that freedom and sovreginty eh?
As for the French agriculture IS the only reason they get a net surplus and before you start on that i'm for CAP reform
What a surprise, the Germans having to bail them out.
Yes, indeed, thank goodness for that freedom, because unlike Greece, which is now enjoying a number of riots and their police having to 'do in' their own citizens, we have own on currency, which means if we get into real trouble we can decrease its value and get out of debt. So yes, thank goodness we didn't join EMU.
Not just the Germans the BeNeLux coutries, Austira, France all the other Euro countires that can will help ease the pain.
Because Riots are unheard of when people get told their going to face tough austerity measures.anyway greek as it is is completely unsustainbale they would have had to face them regardless of Euro membership or not.
BeNeLux? Do you really think they have the economic power to do anything? Lux has the economic buying power of two streets of London.
Nope, if they were not members of the Euro they could have deflated the value of their currency and got out of debt easier, I was told this about 6 months ago by an economist before any of the violence kicked off or it was even in the news.
Friends? If they are our friends who needs enemies? Find one instance in the last 20 years where France has supported our efforts in a conflict. Think of one instance when they helped us economically?
The French are protectionist and far more socialist.
The closest friends to us are Canada, they have the same language, the same economic principles, a more similar culture, hec, they are our decendents.
The only defensive war Britain has fought in the past 20 years and the french where at our side, supplying us with intel and diplomatic backing.
Economically the accepted us into the EEC.
"French are protectionist and far more socialist"
and this is a problem why? we're immune from french protectionism BECAUSE we are in the EU and just to point out if socialism isn't the curse word it was back when the berlin wall was up, we're a pretty socialist society ourselves.
Falklands conflict, do you remember what sank our ships in the Falklands? Exocet missles, give one guess who makes those!
nb, there is a possibility that they did stop supplying them, I'll grant.
This is a problem because we, the US Japan and Germany are all capitalist. Which means we will not be able to agree on economic policy.
We're not immune to French protectionism, they just call it 'protected geographic origin'. Oh and we're not protected from them using state aid either.
Yet they provided us wiht crucial intel, without which we would have lost dozen more.but u know who sold them warships? America. u know who who refused to give us vocal backing? America. but i don't see u getting up in arms about that
the west is CAPITALIST. Protectionism isn't socialist it's a way of nurturing ur own economy without exposing it to outside interference.
First of all I don't necessarily think the US is great, don't get me wrong, they are better than the EU but they are not my first choice. Do you know what ship they sold them? They sold them the only ship that wasn't destroyed in Pearl Harbour, ie a WWII ship. Rust was a bigger threat to our ships than that. Exocet however, I don't even need to comment on.
Developing countries can 'nurture' their economies with protectionism, when the French do it, it is just protecting inefficiency.
Your lack of a military background and knowlegde on Realpolitik is absurdly obvious here. First WW2 ships, especially battleships, where still very much a threat on the seas until the early 90's. A shell from a WW2 era gun could have sunk the invincible with more ease than an Exocet from a mirage. Second who cares? the french sold them Exocets and planes, we sold them bomb and munitions and the americans sold them ships. Welcome to the arms trade.
OK, you have been very polite throughout all this, so I won't be scathing, but in short your first point is so wholly and completely wrong it is funny.
A WWII ship wouldn't even get within 100 miles of a modern ship. It would be sunk years before it even entered firing distance, why do you think that ever single modern ship just has 1 gun on the front, if that? It is because guns are useless now. I cannot emphasise how wrong that statement is.
Lol, very good, although generally the Americans aren't very protectionist anymore. They are towards China, but that is for good reason (China is artificially surpressing the value of its currency in order to protect export prices).
enough political union? What!? Britain is notorious for screaming and crying when it comes to closer intergration, clawing wildly to get any opt out whenever it can.
Britain isn't in Schengen, the Euro + rarely pledged anything substantial to EuroFor. It can't even successfully change to the metric system without screaming bloody murder.
Of course Lisbon was a treaty that focused on the reform of the EU politically, that was the treaties are ment for. the EUP deals with the Common market.
Oh no, we don't want to sell ourselves down the river to a bunch of countries that don't trust us and rejoice in our demise (eg Sarkozy's comments about French economic minister).
We are a sovereign nation and it is the rational think to want to retain that freedom.
PS it is illegal to sell anything using imperial measurements (I know people do, but that is not the law).
Better gtfo of NATO then, I mean if we can't trust the french or the germans to walk about britain without saboutaging the nation how can we trust them to defend us when we are under attack by enemies!?
Britain hasn't been a sovereign nation since 1950.
Pro tip: next time you're out and about take a long hard look at the road signs. Also ask a teacher how many lessons s/he takes to teach his pupils how to convert metric to imperial and if it couldn't be better used teaching them sums.
You're comment is facetious but the US has told us that if we share their intelligence with the French they will stop giving it to us because the French leak like a sieve.
Debatable, either way it doesn't mean it can't be reversed.
Who said I care about imperial? That system is rubbish, the metric system is far superior, that doesn't mean I want to lose my freedom.
The reason why they are 'so petty' is because they can see what is going on. There was an interview with a German politician where when asked why Germany didn't have a referendum on Lisbon she answered "because they would say no".
These are the people who are DEMOCRATICALLY elected to carry out the wishes of the people are there they are deliberately going against their people in full knowledge of what they are doing.
That isn't democracy, that isn't freedom and that isn't what is right.
It's funny that you claim "to see what is going on" but you previous comments indicate a complete lack of understanding on how the EU functions and is made up. This is disease rife within britain, people touting wrong facts and misquoting talkingheads or quoting talkingheads giving wrong facts.
Speaking of democracy i'd like you to name the country in the EU with the biggest Democratic defeict.
You're right, maybe there is another reason why the countries refuse to allow there to be a referendum on a matter of gargantuan constitutional importance. Maybe they just think a democratic mandate from the public whom they are selling on would ruing their popular image.
The simple facts can be understood by anyone:
Europe doesn't trust us;
we don't trust them;
economically their in completely different places to us,
No, not all treaties are of gargantuan constitutional importance, TRIPS is a treaty about how IP rights are handled, do you think that is of constitutional significance? What about Koyto? I think not.
Their good books?
OK, so why are we 'the big losers' to Sarkozy?
Little Englanders, I love how that is meant to be an insult. I love my country, its culture, its freedom, its principles, my heritage... how insulting.
Why there are laws preventing foreign companies buying theirs?
and these treaties don't impeed on our sovereignty? ¬_¬
It's a prahse
Because, and rightly so, Blair didn't get the presidency of the council, it should have wen't to a Eurozone country and von rompouy as an excellent mediator is the right man for the job.
there's nothing wrong to have pride in your country or to love your culture/heritage but a Little Englanders is someone who takes it to the extreme; A blind paranoid nationalist who is quite at home north of the 38th parallel
No we were 'losers' because the French got the economic position and they know they they are more socialist and our economy depends on having a competitive financial sector, theirs doesn't so they don't care if they ruin the financial regulation of the EU, they won't lose out.
Let me put it this way then, if we really have to give up out independence, then I'd rather 'get in bed' with countries that are efficient, similar and actually like us!
Yes they do. Treaties restrict the country from acting in a certain way if that isn't a loss of sovereignty then i don't know what is.
No they won't lose out, But the Germans will, so will the Nordic states, the spanish along with others. so how would that type of policy get past the EP?
so who is it you have in mind? bolted on to the USA as a far flung colony? our voices drowned out by 50 other americans states in congress.The NHS torn apart because it's far too socialist for them? lovely
A loss of sovereignty would be when you give the whole decision making process over to someone else to make and you decide that whatever they say over rules your courts (now technically the supremacy of EU law could still be challenged in UK courts, but some pro-EU would say it couldn't)
Germans? They don't have much of a financial centre either. We're the only ones.
The US is good, but as you've said they're too big and their world view is diff. Canada and Aus, it makes WAY more sense.
sovereignty be it in the form of a defence pact or trade agreement.
Germans don't have a large financial sector in comparison to our own , but it's still pretty big. More than enough to to look after the industries interests.
Canada? she's more intrested in whats going on in N. America. Australia? more concerened with East asia, so pray do tell where does the UK fit into thios
Really? So there is no difference between agreeing to defend Jamaica if it is attacked and giving the power to regulate our foreign policy to Brussels? I think not.
What matters is that the French, our supposed allies were happy to make us the 'losers' and when anything goes wrong they usually blame us.
Where are the three main markets in the world? Europe, N, America and the Pacific rim. Think about it, we'd have access to every major market in the world. It would be perfect.
There are different degrees of losing sovereignty the defense pact with jamaican being far more substantial, since we would still have a significent amount of control in Brussels whereas we are putting our faith in the jamaican govt to act resposibly.
And the roles wouldn't have been reversed if we got the job? come off it. Brown may not have been as boisterous as Sarkozy but you can bet the papers will
we already have access to them, Why would a political union be necessary?
A significant amount of control? If you mean being able to do nothing without a ton of concessions then sure, we retain 'control'. Besides you're only required to do one thing with a pact, where as with the EU we're required to comply with an infinite list of rules.
The papers don't run the country.
You could say the same for the EU. The reason why Union would be good (no Union is necessary) is because it would increase influence and give us united economic policy.
"If you mean being able to do nothing without a ton of concessions then sure"
Learn how the EU works.
You can be required to do numerous things with a Def. pact. so no you're wrong again.
Sure.
You can't say the same about the EU. We already have access to these markets through the commonwealth we wouldn't have a free trade agreement with Europe without the EU.
Erm, no, there are other European Countries such as the Swiss and one of the Nordic countries (I forget which) that have entered into free trade with the EU, even though they are not members, just like we should/could have done.
No you haven't. You've either looked at it, failed to understand and went away furstrated and confused or decided you hate it out of blind nationalism and get what info you from the EUphobic papers.
A number of conditions could be tacked on- trade rights, exemptions, troop numbers, intel sharing, discounts on arms etc.
Sure we're out CAP and CFP, but What many people fail to mention about jumping out of the actual EU and into the EFTA is we fail to retain the ability not only to shape EU legislation but to negotiate Opt outs. If the EU decides that a certain law should be rolled out across all Memberstates AND EFTA members then you accpet or leave. Simple
Who cares if we can't influence trade legislation as long as we aren't bound by it. Besides if we joined with other countries (as already mentioned) we would have our own huge internal market, so we wouldn't have to worry what the EU nations want.
You need to get this shit outta your head right now.
Fly over to the denmark, the netherlands, poland or the baltic states and say this, i dare you.
now you might ask why aren't as committed as the UK and US? because the previous president of the US of A was a collosal idiot and discredited any legitimacy we had to be in afghanistan when he turned down NATO help and invaded Iraq. So now it's become a very unpopular war especially in EUrope including the UK.
Sure the ones you have mentioned can fight, but they don't have the military capacity to fight outside of their dominion. The only people who have the capacity is France and their track record isn't exactly inspirational.
gay tie
ManlnCognito 10 months ago
i am an american and i wish this guy the best of the world. he is honest, does not lie, says it how it is and we could use a bunch of these types of guys here in the USA.
john123wayne 11 months ago
British SUBJECTS!??
What does he think this is, the 1500s??
salemslotofficial 1 year ago
@salemslotofficial No its 2010 and I'm a British Subjec,t Not a European Citizen or British Citizen!
123minder 1 year ago
Should read:
"now you might ask why they aren't as"
The only countries that cannot fight or choose not to fight in Europe are the swiss and the irish.
You really need to do your homework there are 4 European Powers that can project themselves across continents which are UK, France, Italy and Spain.
apart from complete ignorance about the french why do you always pick on france?
Kida000 1 year ago
The sensible German Constitutional Court recently ruled that the "European citizen" is a mythical beast .
Any attempt by our un-elected masters at the Supreme commission to tell us otherwise is illegal under international law ( Article 1,UN Covernant on Political and Social Rights 9.
Say NO to the attempted Lisbon putsch !
Spenner56 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Post Lisbon/Constitution news :
1. Criticising the EU or it's institutions is Illegal (European Court of Justice ruling,case 274/99).
2.Rioting/ civil ' upheaval ´ during time of war is punishable by death (amendment to the European Charter,article2,passage2c : google Prof.Schachtschneider).
3. Any state not willing to `continually upgrade it's military´will also face punishment.
120,000 burocrats can't be wrong.
Just say no (like the French,Dutch & Irish).
Don't VOTE in the EU elections.
Spenner56 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
english are not europeans...they are just another USA state.
koldorika 2 years ago
Now say something valid.
kiminokami 2 years ago
What?
djsherin 2 years ago
I'd rather my country be part of the US than part of a EU superstate.
Even more so I'd rather is remain independant!
perfacetus 2 years ago
i pray to god you're in the minority!
Kida000 2 years ago
I presume you are talking about the first part than the second?
perfacetus 2 years ago
both
Kida000 2 years ago
Why? The EU is corrupt, power hungry and is based on the acquistion of wealth.
The US doesn't need to be power hungry (it is already united) and was founded on freedom.
If the EU absorbs any more power it will be way to unaccountable and it will continue to squander our money and freedom.
perfacetus 2 years ago
nonsense. The EU is based on Peace, Freedom and Prosperity; think back to why the ECSC was founded.
Both systems are corrupt, it's not something the EU has a monopoly on. you may disagree, but it needs reform in the shape of a clearer role, which means power needs to be transfered not only to the EUrope but some back to the memberstates.
both will always have their own share of megalomainiacs who are in it for the power or money, but they're upto the electorate to weed out..if they want to
Kida000 2 years ago
Peace freedom and prosperity? It may have started on the basis of peace, but that has long since been achieve and yet the machine must continue to sustain itself.
We have reached a level of integration which is satisfactory for everyone, but since that would put alot of people out of work (should it be accepted) it is being ignored and now the EU is just a power hungry gravy train.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Of course it needs to continue to sustain itself. If we all withdrew our support then the whole thing would come crashing down and send the entire continent back almost 100 years!
If you're satisfied with the current running condition of the EU as it is now, then you are either the most blindly pro-EU soul i've came in contact with or have little to no clue as to how the whole thing works.
Kida000 2 years ago
What I do know is that the account don't balance and never have, if they were a company their share price would be worthless than dirt. I also know what people who do highlight such things get transferred to departments that are career killers.
Instead of sorting what is there they just seek more control.
100 years?
Lets not exaggerate:
2009-1945 = 64
You just added a 56% increase, I can see why you like the EU!
*forgive me cheap shot I know :P
perfacetus 2 years ago
those criticisms you chose are really more of a stick to beat all governement's with. No governement would make a good business, ever thats why they use force to aquire funding and Very few people who criticise an administration/ system get away with keeping/ getting a well sort after job. you've fignored all the baggage that comes with it:
Economic turmoil, colapsing of governments in less stable memberstates as ours, the rise of extremism. all these things very much at home in the 1900
Kida000 2 years ago
the start of the 1900*
Kida000 2 years ago
No I mean in the sense that they don't know where the money goes. Departments books don't balance. All real governments know where their money goes but the EU has huge gaps in it's books.
Fair enough. Rise of extemism? I'm not sure that would happen any more or less than it is now.
perfacetus 2 years ago
it works just as bad as any other governement, yes i would say more so in certain areas, but these things can be resolved with reform. the only problem is that treaties that are ment to do this are unpopular because they're characterised by europhobes as being yet more proof europe is going to loot our homes and rape our women and should be resisted with every fiber of our being. take the Lisbon treaty that sets out a clear withdrawral process and is still considered devil spwan by most
Kida000 2 years ago
there has been no real rise in extremism currently and believe me it is miles better than what we'd see from the economic shockwave if the EU was to fall apart. it would very much be the next of year revolutions
Kida000 2 years ago
The reason why people highlight the EU is because it is particularly bad at ruling its 'books'. It has no idea where money goes in many departments and is essentially a black hole of the money of Germany and the UK.
perfacetus 2 years ago
The Reason why people point that out is because the EU is an easy boogeyman to scare ill informed voters. I would ask you to give an example of a state that does know where every last € goes but i doubt i'd get one.
I like the point of it being a blackhole for Britain and Germany since they have nothing to gain form being within a single market or a body that can potentially mobalise the power of theone of the most powerful and influential continent on the international stage. ¬_¬
Kida000 2 years ago
A boogey man that doesn't keep its books straight, other countries manage. Germany, the UK they all manage.
I have no problem with the 'single market' but that has nothing to do with my countries sovereignty being usurped.
And as time goes by the single economic market goal is being put on the back burner and instead they want to 'unify' the countries instead.
perfacetus 1 year ago
First, The EU is not a country. Second, It is upto each individual memberstate to ensure that their respective branch's business is all above board so no, other countries can't manage it; That's why EUrope can't sign off it's books.
You can't have a single market without some form of political union. It's something which mainland Europeans understood years ago and us Brit's only seem to be waking upto.
Kida000 1 year ago
It is not up to each member state, the member state give a couple of billion pounds (or €) to the EU and then the EU is to manage its own affairs, that is why they have an army of bureaucrats in Brussels.
We have enough political Union and yet they are pushing for more, while at the same time the Lisbon treaty takes emphasis AWAY from the common market. They aren't interested in the market anymore, they want a single state.
perfacetus 1 year ago
No. Each memberstate has the right to negotiate the size of it's input into the EU. If all the HoS decided to reduce funding to the EU then Barroso just has to shrug and work with what he's given. Now about these legions of faceless bureaucrats (23,043) they're only responsible for constructing legislation, NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION. The implementation, the guys who will actually dish out CAP funding to farmers is your local civil servent. And that, my friend, is where the corruption comes in.
Kida000 1 year ago
Negotiate the size of input? Is that what you call the UK and Germany propping up Spain, Portugal etc?
If the HoC reduced funding then we'd be told we'd have 'reduced input' despite the fact the French don't input another (net) at all.
Some will be responsible for implementation, not on the ground, but the management level... does it make it any better for the UK that we're being screwed by Italian civil servants rather than EU?
perfacetus 1 year ago
No, it's what i call a good investment. It also helps to build and strengthen comradery throughout Europe. I take pride in the fact that some of my tax is goes towards building and maintianing roads in portrugal or being injected into the spanish economy because it's gonna be british banks that spanish entrepreneurs goto and German cars that the portrugeese will be driving down those roads.
Damn the French and their arable land.
would being screwed by a british civil servent feel better?
Kida000 1 year ago
Comradery? If we need that why don't we join up with people who like us already? Rather than those with a completely different economic outlook and an inate distrust.
...its doesn't look like the Spain or Portuguese are going to be buying any cars any time soon, or the Greece or Icelanders.
Lol, like it has anything to do with their agriculture!
No, British civil servants may not be perfect by any stretch but they aren't anywhere near as corrupt.
perfacetus 1 year ago
so we agree that Corruption is bad regardless of the nationality? good.
So let's say during comic relief you donate £10. after reciving your donation an intermediary channels that to a charity that fund a well for clean drinking water in africa. Now in that charity an aid workers siphoned off that £10 and buys a CD or something with it Does that make the intermediary corrupt?
Kida000 1 year ago
Assuming that your example is legit and all the lovely people in Brussels behave (which they don't) if the aid worker is a cheat, no I don't want to join my country to that aid worker's charity.
perfacetus 1 year ago
I'm not say there all pure as virgins, but i'd be suprised if there was more corruption in the commission than there is british civil serivce.
But the thing you have to understand that it is NOT the EU employees that stops it form signing of it's books. it's the memberstate's civil service.
Kida000 1 year ago
the recession isn't that bad for them (ex iceland who isn't in the EU), the Euro is holding together quite nicely and their going to be heaved out of the recession on the back of Germany. IF i was the germans i would demand they get there houses in order, but if you really want to see someone who is in trouble look closer to home, thank got for that freedom and sovreginty eh?
As for the French agriculture IS the only reason they get a net surplus and before you start on that i'm for CAP reform
Kida000 1 year ago
What a surprise, the Germans having to bail them out.
Yes, indeed, thank goodness for that freedom, because unlike Greece, which is now enjoying a number of riots and their police having to 'do in' their own citizens, we have own on currency, which means if we get into real trouble we can decrease its value and get out of debt. So yes, thank goodness we didn't join EMU.
Yep, do you know who isn't? The French.
perfacetus 1 year ago
Not just the Germans the BeNeLux coutries, Austira, France all the other Euro countires that can will help ease the pain.
Because Riots are unheard of when people get told their going to face tough austerity measures.anyway greek as it is is completely unsustainbale they would have had to face them regardless of Euro membership or not.
Kida000 1 year ago
BeNeLux? Do you really think they have the economic power to do anything? Lux has the economic buying power of two streets of London.
Nope, if they were not members of the Euro they could have deflated the value of their currency and got out of debt easier, I was told this about 6 months ago by an economist before any of the violence kicked off or it was even in the news.
perfacetus 1 year ago
Despite what you think the Europeans ARE our closest and friends in both economic and social aspects.
Kida000 1 year ago
Friends? If they are our friends who needs enemies? Find one instance in the last 20 years where France has supported our efforts in a conflict. Think of one instance when they helped us economically?
The French are protectionist and far more socialist.
The closest friends to us are Canada, they have the same language, the same economic principles, a more similar culture, hec, they are our decendents.
perfacetus 1 year ago
Falklands conflict
The only defensive war Britain has fought in the past 20 years and the french where at our side, supplying us with intel and diplomatic backing.
Economically the accepted us into the EEC.
"French are protectionist and far more socialist"
and this is a problem why? we're immune from french protectionism BECAUSE we are in the EU and just to point out if socialism isn't the curse word it was back when the berlin wall was up, we're a pretty socialist society ourselves.
Kida000 1 year ago
Falklands conflict, do you remember what sank our ships in the Falklands? Exocet missles, give one guess who makes those!
nb, there is a possibility that they did stop supplying them, I'll grant.
This is a problem because we, the US Japan and Germany are all capitalist. Which means we will not be able to agree on economic policy.
We're not immune to French protectionism, they just call it 'protected geographic origin'. Oh and we're not protected from them using state aid either.
perfacetus 1 year ago
Yet they provided us wiht crucial intel, without which we would have lost dozen more.but u know who sold them warships? America. u know who who refused to give us vocal backing? America. but i don't see u getting up in arms about that
the west is CAPITALIST. Protectionism isn't socialist it's a way of nurturing ur own economy without exposing it to outside interference.
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
Continued
Germany used to do it, Britain did it to encourage trade with the empire, America Does it now. Japan closed of it's borders for years.
state aid, ffs what do you call bailing out the banks?
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
First of all I don't necessarily think the US is great, don't get me wrong, they are better than the EU but they are not my first choice. Do you know what ship they sold them? They sold them the only ship that wasn't destroyed in Pearl Harbour, ie a WWII ship. Rust was a bigger threat to our ships than that. Exocet however, I don't even need to comment on.
Developing countries can 'nurture' their economies with protectionism, when the French do it, it is just protecting inefficiency.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
Your lack of a military background and knowlegde on Realpolitik is absurdly obvious here. First WW2 ships, especially battleships, where still very much a threat on the seas until the early 90's. A shell from a WW2 era gun could have sunk the invincible with more ease than an Exocet from a mirage. Second who cares? the french sold them Exocets and planes, we sold them bomb and munitions and the americans sold them ships. Welcome to the arms trade.
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
OK, you have been very polite throughout all this, so I won't be scathing, but in short your first point is so wholly and completely wrong it is funny.
A WWII ship wouldn't even get within 100 miles of a modern ship. It would be sunk years before it even entered firing distance, why do you think that ever single modern ship just has 1 gun on the front, if that? It is because guns are useless now. I cannot emphasise how wrong that statement is.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
I think many americans would take offence to be called a "Developing Economy".
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
Lol, very good, although generally the Americans aren't very protectionist anymore. They are towards China, but that is for good reason (China is artificially surpressing the value of its currency in order to protect export prices).
perfacetus 1 year ago
enough political union? What!? Britain is notorious for screaming and crying when it comes to closer intergration, clawing wildly to get any opt out whenever it can.
Britain isn't in Schengen, the Euro + rarely pledged anything substantial to EuroFor. It can't even successfully change to the metric system without screaming bloody murder.
Of course Lisbon was a treaty that focused on the reform of the EU politically, that was the treaties are ment for. the EUP deals with the Common market.
Kida000 1 year ago
Oh no, we don't want to sell ourselves down the river to a bunch of countries that don't trust us and rejoice in our demise (eg Sarkozy's comments about French economic minister).
We are a sovereign nation and it is the rational think to want to retain that freedom.
PS it is illegal to sell anything using imperial measurements (I know people do, but that is not the law).
perfacetus 1 year ago
Better gtfo of NATO then, I mean if we can't trust the french or the germans to walk about britain without saboutaging the nation how can we trust them to defend us when we are under attack by enemies!?
Britain hasn't been a sovereign nation since 1950.
Pro tip: next time you're out and about take a long hard look at the road signs. Also ask a teacher how many lessons s/he takes to teach his pupils how to convert metric to imperial and if it couldn't be better used teaching them sums.
Kida000 1 year ago
You're comment is facetious but the US has told us that if we share their intelligence with the French they will stop giving it to us because the French leak like a sieve.
Debatable, either way it doesn't mean it can't be reversed.
Who said I care about imperial? That system is rubbish, the metric system is far superior, that doesn't mean I want to lose my freedom.
perfacetus 1 year ago
From memory i believe it was we couldn't share US gained intelligence fullstop.
I was using metrification as how pathetic and petty the british can be when it comes to intergration with Europe.
Kida000 1 year ago
The reason why they are 'so petty' is because they can see what is going on. There was an interview with a German politician where when asked why Germany didn't have a referendum on Lisbon she answered "because they would say no".
These are the people who are DEMOCRATICALLY elected to carry out the wishes of the people are there they are deliberately going against their people in full knowledge of what they are doing.
That isn't democracy, that isn't freedom and that isn't what is right.
perfacetus 1 year ago
one womans oppion = fact
It's funny that you claim "to see what is going on" but you previous comments indicate a complete lack of understanding on how the EU functions and is made up. This is disease rife within britain, people touting wrong facts and misquoting talkingheads or quoting talkingheads giving wrong facts.
Speaking of democracy i'd like you to name the country in the EU with the biggest Democratic defeict.
Kida000 1 year ago
You're right, maybe there is another reason why the countries refuse to allow there to be a referendum on a matter of gargantuan constitutional importance. Maybe they just think a democratic mandate from the public whom they are selling on would ruing their popular image.
The simple facts can be understood by anyone:
Europe doesn't trust us;
we don't trust them;
economically their in completely different places to us,
they don't back us up,
they can't/don't fight.
The UK, your point?
perfacetus 1 year ago
Because it's a treaty, All treaties are "of gargantuan constitutional importance" Infact all treaties impead on our sovereignty.
when was the last time we had a referenda on a treaty?
these are you opinion not facts
Europe trusts us less after Blair but we're still in their good books.
Only close minded little Englanders distrust the them.
we are all capatalist countries, you don't know what you are talking about.
thats not true at all, the french are more likely to back us up than the US
Kida000 1 year ago
No, not all treaties are of gargantuan constitutional importance, TRIPS is a treaty about how IP rights are handled, do you think that is of constitutional significance? What about Koyto? I think not.
Their good books?
OK, so why are we 'the big losers' to Sarkozy?
Little Englanders, I love how that is meant to be an insult. I love my country, its culture, its freedom, its principles, my heritage... how insulting.
Why there are laws preventing foreign companies buying theirs?
perfacetus 1 year ago
and these treaties don't impeed on our sovereignty? ¬_¬
It's a prahse
Because, and rightly so, Blair didn't get the presidency of the council, it should have wen't to a Eurozone country and von rompouy as an excellent mediator is the right man for the job.
there's nothing wrong to have pride in your country or to love your culture/heritage but a Little Englanders is someone who takes it to the extreme; A blind paranoid nationalist who is quite at home north of the 38th parallel
Kida000 1 year ago
No, the treaties don't not in the same way.
No we were 'losers' because the French got the economic position and they know they they are more socialist and our economy depends on having a competitive financial sector, theirs doesn't so they don't care if they ruin the financial regulation of the EU, they won't lose out.
Let me put it this way then, if we really have to give up out independence, then I'd rather 'get in bed' with countries that are efficient, similar and actually like us!
perfacetus 1 year ago
Yes they do. Treaties restrict the country from acting in a certain way if that isn't a loss of sovereignty then i don't know what is.
No they won't lose out, But the Germans will, so will the Nordic states, the spanish along with others. so how would that type of policy get past the EP?
so who is it you have in mind? bolted on to the USA as a far flung colony? our voices drowned out by 50 other americans states in congress.The NHS torn apart because it's far too socialist for them? lovely
Kida000 1 year ago
A loss of sovereignty would be when you give the whole decision making process over to someone else to make and you decide that whatever they say over rules your courts (now technically the supremacy of EU law could still be challenged in UK courts, but some pro-EU would say it couldn't)
Germans? They don't have much of a financial centre either. We're the only ones.
The US is good, but as you've said they're too big and their world view is diff. Canada and Aus, it makes WAY more sense.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
Lol no. all treaties are a ceding of
sovereignty be it in the form of a defence pact or trade agreement.
Germans don't have a large financial sector in comparison to our own , but it's still pretty big. More than enough to to look after the industries interests.
Canada? she's more intrested in whats going on in N. America. Australia? more concerened with East asia, so pray do tell where does the UK fit into thios
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
Really? So there is no difference between agreeing to defend Jamaica if it is attacked and giving the power to regulate our foreign policy to Brussels? I think not.
What matters is that the French, our supposed allies were happy to make us the 'losers' and when anything goes wrong they usually blame us.
Where are the three main markets in the world? Europe, N, America and the Pacific rim. Think about it, we'd have access to every major market in the world. It would be perfect.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
There are different degrees of losing sovereignty the defense pact with jamaican being far more substantial, since we would still have a significent amount of control in Brussels whereas we are putting our faith in the jamaican govt to act resposibly.
And the roles wouldn't have been reversed if we got the job? come off it. Brown may not have been as boisterous as Sarkozy but you can bet the papers will
we already have access to them, Why would a political union be necessary?
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
A significant amount of control? If you mean being able to do nothing without a ton of concessions then sure, we retain 'control'. Besides you're only required to do one thing with a pact, where as with the EU we're required to comply with an infinite list of rules.
The papers don't run the country.
You could say the same for the EU. The reason why Union would be good (no Union is necessary) is because it would increase influence and give us united economic policy.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
"If you mean being able to do nothing without a ton of concessions then sure"
Learn how the EU works.
You can be required to do numerous things with a Def. pact. so no you're wrong again.
Sure.
You can't say the same about the EU. We already have access to these markets through the commonwealth we wouldn't have a free trade agreement with Europe without the EU.
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
I have, that is why I don't like it.
What other things can a defence pact require?
Erm, no, there are other European Countries such as the Swiss and one of the Nordic countries (I forget which) that have entered into free trade with the EU, even though they are not members, just like we should/could have done.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
No you haven't. You've either looked at it, failed to understand and went away furstrated and confused or decided you hate it out of blind nationalism and get what info you from the EUphobic papers.
A number of conditions could be tacked on- trade rights, exemptions, troop numbers, intel sharing, discounts on arms etc.
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
Hardly, I don't need blind nationalism, I can read the laws myself.
Maybe tacked on, not necessarily.
perfacetus 1 year ago
@perfacetus
Sure we're out CAP and CFP, but What many people fail to mention about jumping out of the actual EU and into the EFTA is we fail to retain the ability not only to shape EU legislation but to negotiate Opt outs. If the EU decides that a certain law should be rolled out across all Memberstates AND EFTA members then you accpet or leave. Simple
Kida000 1 year ago
@Kida000
Who cares if we can't influence trade legislation as long as we aren't bound by it. Besides if we joined with other countries (as already mentioned) we would have our own huge internal market, so we wouldn't have to worry what the EU nations want.
perfacetus 1 year ago
"they can't/don't fight"
You need to get this shit outta your head right now.
Fly over to the denmark, the netherlands, poland or the baltic states and say this, i dare you.
now you might ask why aren't as committed as the UK and US? because the previous president of the US of A was a collosal idiot and discredited any legitimacy we had to be in afghanistan when he turned down NATO help and invaded Iraq. So now it's become a very unpopular war especially in EUrope including the UK.
Kida000 1 year ago
Get it out of my head? Why?
Sure the ones you have mentioned can fight, but they don't have the military capacity to fight outside of their dominion. The only people who have the capacity is France and their track record isn't exactly inspirational.
I don't understand that sentence:
"now you might ask why aren't as" Who?
perfacetus 1 year ago