 | Home > Off Topic > Cameron's EU Defeat |
 
|
|
|
| Cupboard Member Since: 21 Mar 2014 Location: Suffolk Posts: 2971   
|
Isn't it a good thing that we should be helping our neighbours develop?
I don't see the EU being on paper a loss maker as necessarily a bad thing, so long as that money is going somewhere worthwhile and doing something useful. The question is whether the benefit is great than the cost, and everywhere you look there seems to be inefficiencies, wastage and needless faffing. One that I think sums everything up for me is that the parliament meets three weeks in Brussels, one week in Strasbourg and has offices in Luxembourg. It's patently ridiculous. |
||
28th Jun 2014 9:17pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Cupboard, when you get five minutes, read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...or-us.html If you don't read it all, please read the first three paragraphs. Such spending on someone's 'favourite' is so typical of the EU. Indeed, it was said yesterday that some of the leaders who agreed to Juncker's appointment (after telling Cameron that they would NOT approve his appointment) only voted for him after they were assured that such pet projects would be looked at favourably. What you'll read in that link should be read by everyone, whether or not they want to stay in the EU.
Getting out isn't going to all be jam. There are ways we will suffer from not being in. But overall (in my opinion) we are better off out of it - and letting them get on with it. Now left. |
||
|
29th Jun 2014 7:38am |
|
| Interlet Member Since: 10 Oct 2011 Location: Norwich Posts: 461 
|
The monetary union has become the biggest project in terms of cost and time that the EU has ever embarked upon. It is only natural for the people who created it, and all the half-witted leaders, bureaucrats and technocrats who implemented the Euro to argue that it's a success, as a large part of their lives has been devoted to it.As we know, anyone with a brain, much less an economist knows that it was unlikely to work even if it had been set up in the correct way, and was never going to work based on the actual way it was set up. "It is very difficult to make a man see something that his job requires him not to see." 1998 110 300Tdi White Hard Top |
||
|
29th Jun 2014 5:55pm |
|
| gilarion Member Since: 05 Dec 2013 Location: Wales Posts: 5110  
|
In June 1975 as a young man I voted for yes in the referendum to join the Common Market.
I recall the the conservatives telling us all that to join this market would bring peace and prosperity to Europe, would safeguard jobs and bring prices down, anyone but a fool would not vote yes on such promises and the majority did hence why we are in the EU. However if the voting paper would have been worded, ‘Do you support the principal of a European superstate with many national powers handed over the bureaucrats in Brussels?" I think the result might have been not the same. However now we are in I feel we should remain, why, because if we leave we will have no influence on European policies and legislation saying that I voted for a common market a common trading area and not a political union which it has now become. But be aware that if we do hold a referendum again, that certain politicians will try with words and untruths to sway voters into changing their minds and conforming to the wishes of a central Conservative government. Follow your own judgement, when voting, work out your own opinions on the EU and its benefits or shortfalls , not echoing the wishes of our MPs and government leaders. |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 2:02pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
gilarion, thanks for adding your opinion that we should stay in - it's good to hear another viewpoint. Of course, you know that my opinion is that we should leave. I understand why some would want to stay in, as there are ways which we will suffer for leaving. However, you must surely be aware that Britain will have NO influence over the way the EU will go if we stay in? When Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) starts in 2017 (actually begins in November this year, but is technically unenforceable until 2017) the UK government will be powerless against a concerted European movement. There has even been the suggestion in the past two days that after 2017 the EU could stop us having a referendum! Sorry, gilarion, but I believe it's entirely wrong to think that if we stay in then we can have some sway over legislation and policy. We won't! That's the very reason why Cameron wants to get the referendum before QMV in 2017. He wants to reposition Britain within the EU, and reform the EU as well. Juncker isn't a reformist, he's a federalist - he wants ever more power for the EU. Amazingly, many MEPs have recently seen their electorate vote against the EU (and expressed the voting as a "wake up call") yet their national leaders have agreed Juncker's appointment anyway! It's astounding. The EU will NOT be reformed - they can't even see the absurdity of currency union. But three years isn't enough anyway - more like 15 would be required. But it's too late, we should have called for reform when the Lisbon Treaty was signed. Ireland turned it down, but was 'offered' another vote to make sure they got it right the second time. We're stuffed gilarion. We either leave, or stay in and suffer being ruled over by unelected fools, with policies voted in by majority voting - which we will HAVE to accept. It's this that people don't get, we will be increasingly powerless, and we will continue to be a 'giver' of money until the eventual demise of the EU in the future. Oh, and our rebate will end too. Now left.
|
||
|
30th Jun 2014 2:46pm |
|
| Cupboard Member Since: 21 Mar 2014 Location: Suffolk Posts: 2971
|
Conceptually, a union with the countries around us that enables us to trade and move goods easily between members, a union that allows us to share common (and in many cases boring) policy and laws between us and that supports members that need it is great.
There's no point in the UK doing some research and deciding that X is a good idea, Germany doing some research and deciding X is a good idea, France etc etc and then all implementing it separately because that's a massive waste of time and resources that could be done better centrally once. It is pretty obvious to me that such a union could be hugely beneficial to all concerned. The wealthier countries would put more resources in than the poorer ones, and that would be fine because it's good for everyone to have strong neighbours to trade with. For this reason, I like the EU concept. The problems is that there's so much silliness, and where there's opportunity for sensible joined up thinking it's often squandered. I can drive a minibus in the UK that I can't drive in Europe on my EU driving licence. I can buy an tractor and trailer in Germany, fill it, and as I drive across the EU at the design speed and weight of the tractor and trailer I'm breaking a different set of laws in each country. Why? What's so different about us that we require different road rules and licensing? And how come we have to spend so much time doing meat traceability properly yet something like horse meat (yum) happened? If the EU didn't currently exist and I was asked if I wanted what I initially described above then I'd jump at it and do everything in my very limited power to make it happen. If the EU didn't exist and I was given the option of creating what currently exists then I'd have the complete opposite reaction. |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 5:59pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
I didn't even know that! I thought that we now shared common rules in such cases.
The idea of the EU is great, and I used to support it 100%. What turned me was the French ban on British beef. For those that don't know, the French continued to ban importing it three years after the ban was lifted. At the time, I wrote to my MP asking why France wasn't fined a single franc for doing so. Eventually he got a letter back which he sent on to me. Basically it said that even if the EU did impose a fine against France, there was zero prospect of them paying it. Meanwhile, Britain complied with, and imposed, all the rules. Then when I discovered the amount that we pour into it while the French get their farming subsidies, I became anti-EU. Now I just feel that we desperately need to impose laws and rules that WE decide, as a nation. We cannot control our borders while being a member of the EU, so our population will ever increase. I'm not racist, or xenophobic, but will admit to some bigotry. I don't want to be ruled by people who are nothing like me and my family - and 'Europeans' are nothing like me or my family. Now left. |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 6:46pm |
|
| lambert.the.farmer Member Since: 11 Apr 2012 Location: harrogate Posts: 2006  
|
The workings of the eu.
The Germans make the rules. The British follow the rules. The French ignore the rules. The Italians didn't know there were any rules. And the rest are only here for the gravy train. Rhubarb and custard let fly with their secret weapon. |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 7:15pm |
|
| Interlet Member Since: 10 Oct 2011 Location: Norwich Posts: 461
|
Every argument for remaining in it is false.
1 - Influence within Europe. We have no influence already. All the other countries see us as the awkward tenant. We should be the friendly neighbour. 2. Trade. Trade is a non argument, as the rest of the EU would collapse if the UK did not continue trading with the EU in the same way. A similar trade deal will be made within 48 hours of a UK exit, resulting in little discernible difference between the current state of affairs, and potential state of affairs. 3. Influence around the world. Despite horrendous Defense budget cuts by the Tories, we still have the 4th biggest military budget in the world. We are still a world power. We still have a permanent UN Security Council Seat. London is still one of the great powerful, influential World Cities, seen by many nations, including China as the global Hub of Business. 4. External trade deals. The UK would have made a free trade agreement with the US donkeys years ago, whilst we are still waiting for the EU's bureaucracy to organise the EU-USA deal. 5. Jobs are dependent on being in Europe. Wrong. Despite a handful of large business leaders saying jobs could be lost through EU departure, the vast majority business trading in the UK see the regulation as excessive and doing more harm than good, with the feeling that departure would benefit them more than remaining in. In addition to this, as mentioned in #2, a trade deal with the EU would ultimately remain, negating the need for virtually all these business to move their factories and production out of Britain. Like Conservative Dan Hannan, MEP said in his recent blog, the probable UK redundancies caused by departure are more likely to be in the tens of thousands - and the vast majority of those are for bureaucrats employed by it, for example translating jobs, commissioners, media, and Dan Hannan's own job - British MEPs. You have to ask yourself why UKIP - who have done very well out of having MEPs gain notoriety from EU Parliament speeches, are campaigning for most of the party's biggest players to lose all of their jobs. Why? Because it is the right thing to do, and they know it, and so does Dan Hannan. 1998 110 300Tdi White Hard Top Last edited by Interlet on 30th Jun 2014 9:07pm. Edited 3 times in total |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 9:03pm |
|
| Birdy Member Since: 07 Oct 2011 Location: CĂ´te d'Azur Posts: 865  
|
“three weeks in Brussels, one week in Strasbourg and has offices in Luxembourg. It's patently ridiculous”
Not really… The European Parliament traditionally holds its monthly plenary session in Strasbourg, to where MEPs can fly from all over Europe; its support staff - typists, translators, IT bods, printers, warehousing, security staff etc. - are more centrally placed in Luxembourg which, I agree, does mean a hard core “travelling circus” team has to be displaced for three or four days a month to Strasbourg for the session. I was one of ‘em from 1980 to 1993, it broke my heart when budgetary constraints prevented me from claiming overnights and expenses from Sunday night until the following Saturday morning! The nitty-gritty is thrashed out in Committee meetings and better done in Brussels, where the relevant Commission officials - the bods who will actually draft the legislation and enforce it - can be summoned from over the road and answer any questions your elected representatives might have for them. They’ll then go back to their political party and discuss it with them, taking on board any input from their own national governments. A consensus is reached at Committee stage, visitors to Strasbourg are often surprised and disappointed at how few MEPs are in the Chamber and actually vote on sometimes very important issues but, like I said, it’s all been thrashed out in Committee and the actual vote is a formality. And as for Jean-Claude Juncker, he’s no more - and no less - influential than Sir Bob Kerslake. Who’s he? Well, he’s the unelected Head of the UK Civil Service. Just like the President of the European Commission, he’s in charge of the executive body that carries out a Parliament ‘s instructions. A wiser head than Cameron wouldn’t have fought a battle he was never gonna win, but traded support for Juncker, for a Brit Commissioner with a decent portfolio; now we might be lucky to get a Brit Commissioner in charge of the EU’s toilet paper policy. As it stands, it’s been made very clear to him that we might well find ourselves kicked out of the EU and allowed membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) along with those other world powers, namely Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. I wonder what UKIP, the one-trick-pony (sorry, party), makes of it all? Peter |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 9:04pm |
|
| Interlet Member Since: 10 Oct 2011 Location: Norwich Posts: 461
|
He is far from being comparable to the Head of the Civil Service.
For a start, there is some form of election process to appoint him - unlikely Civil Servants. And he is a raging alcoholic. And I have seen the goings on in committees, it makes for unpleasant viewing, and if VOTING of all things is a formality - where is the Democracy? The EU is still crumbling and falling apart at the seems, because of the shockingly poor way in which it was devised. 1998 110 300Tdi White Hard Top |
||
|
30th Jun 2014 9:13pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
