So who wants to remain in the EU?
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
I call "cobblers" on point 2).
Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and an any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
It's a myth. The reason there has been no war in Europe (ignoring former Soviet controlled countries) is because of NATO and the 10m US military personnel who have been stationed in Europe since 1950. The EU seems more interested in starting a war with Russia, than keeping the peace.Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and an any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
grumbledoak said:
I call "cobblers" on point 2).
Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
As I said on the other thread, it's an unknowable answer, we're never going to be able to see an alternate history or future of what would (have) happened. But all things being equal, I think you'd be hard pushed to say that the EU is making a war between any of its members more likely than if it didn't exist.Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
And as for Crimea/Ukraine/Russia, that is because Russia has become to all intents and purposes a fascist dictatorship and is acting like one as well. The EU is no military threat to Russia. The EU was economically wooing Ukraine and the people there generally preferred the EU to Russia. The Ukrainian gov didn't like this and wanted Russia instead and started shooting their own citizens who disagreed. Citizens then decided to get themselves a new gov who reflect their wants. Russia didn't like this but instead of trying to make the case to the Ukrainian people that Russia was better, they just dropped anonymous special forces into Crimea and effectively stole 10% of the country because it's easier to do that than play by the rules. And then for good measure they decided to invade the next nearest bit of Ukraine to them and forment a civil war. Nice. Blaming the EU for all that is just being an apologist for Russia.
TEKNOPUG said:
Mario149 said:
8) I think the anti democracy argument is not very strong. People seem to confuse not being democratic with not getting the result we want. Firstly, we can remove our commissioner by voting, you just have to vote for a gov here who would replace him if they were in power. Secondly, commissioners only come up with laws, the EU parliament MEPs have to vote them through, and we can all vote for our MEPs. Finally, given that about 1/3 of people can't be added to vote in our GEs, it's a little rich for any of them to complain about lack of democratic accountability.
This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Democratically elected MEPs can only vote on laws proposed by unelected Commissioners. They cannot propose new laws. MEPs can propose changes to current or new legislation but those proposals only become law if the Commissioners agree. Many of the technical decisions of new legislation are decided by unelected civil servants.It's about as democratic as Dad asking the kids whether they want to go to Butlins on holiday, having already booked it...
And while it's great that you and I can have this discussion and debate the finer nuances of it, what proportion of "leavers" do you think actually know how the EU parliament works? I may be pessimistic, but I suspect it's not a large percentage.
I get that people would ideally want a more transparent process, and more directly accountable. I am one of them. But you'd think the way people talk about it that there was some lifetime junta in place who could do exactly what they wanted and no-one had any say whatsoever.
Mario149 said:
grumbledoak said:
I call "cobblers" on point 2).
Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
As I said on the other thread, it's an unknowable answer, we're never going to be able to see an alternate history or future of what would (have) happened. But all things being equal, I think you'd be hard pushed to say that the EU is making a war between any of its members more likely than if it didn't exist.Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
And as for Crimea/Ukraine/Russia, that is because Russia has become to all intents and purposes a fascist dictatorship and is acting like one as well. The EU is no military threat to Russia. The EU was economically wooing Ukraine and the people there generally preferred the EU to Russia. The Ukrainian gov didn't like this and wanted Russia instead and started shooting their own citizens who disagreed. Citizens then decided to get themselves a new gov who reflect their wants. Russia didn't like this but instead of trying to make the case to the Ukrainian people that Russia was better, they just dropped anonymous special forces into Crimea and effectively stole 10% of the country because it's easier to do that than play by the rules. And then for good measure they decided to invade the next nearest bit of Ukraine to them and forment a civil war. Nice. Blaming the EU for all that is just being an apologist for Russia.
You could also draw a parallel with the Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons. Now there is probably a practical aspect in that given where the hard bits are maintained they had little choice, but I'm sure they would rather still have had them to try and deter Russia's little annexation.
What is the parallel? Well I'm sure at the time in the 1990s when Ukraine gave them up, it seemed unlikely they would be needed, and they had a written pact with various parties that their disarmament would leave their borders respected by everyone. Well many are saying that leaving the EU would make little difference to our trade with the EU. How do they know? They don't. Its a risk we just don't need to take.
And as above, what are the real economic benefits of being out of the EU? Its like the SNP s
te Paper all over again - baseless promises or utopia based on rhetoric and bluster - with a smattering of them/us nationalistic bile to stir up resentment.Thats the UKIP line - if it wasn't for "them Euros" we'd be alright. Blame someone else, the nationalist crutch.
SNP and UKIP : joined at birth.
///ajd said:
Mario149 said:
grumbledoak said:
I call "cobblers" on point 2).
Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
As I said on the other thread, it's an unknowable answer, we're never going to be able to see an alternate history or future of what would (have) happened. But all things being equal, I think you'd be hard pushed to say that the EU is making a war between any of its members more likely than if it didn't exist.Even Germany was feeling a bit less bloodthirsty after their last two attempts to rule Europe, half of us have "the bomb", and in any case the EU is largely run by Germany for the benefit of Germany. That is why we haven't had another war. Though the EU has come close to causing one with Russia, and Ukraine is in civil war as a direct result.
And as for Crimea/Ukraine/Russia, that is because Russia has become to all intents and purposes a fascist dictatorship and is acting like one as well. The EU is no military threat to Russia. The EU was economically wooing Ukraine and the people there generally preferred the EU to Russia. The Ukrainian gov didn't like this and wanted Russia instead and started shooting their own citizens who disagreed. Citizens then decided to get themselves a new gov who reflect their wants. Russia didn't like this but instead of trying to make the case to the Ukrainian people that Russia was better, they just dropped anonymous special forces into Crimea and effectively stole 10% of the country because it's easier to do that than play by the rules. And then for good measure they decided to invade the next nearest bit of Ukraine to them and forment a civil war. Nice. Blaming the EU for all that is just being an apologist for Russia.
You could also draw a parallel with the Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons. Now there is probably a practical aspect in that given where the hard bits are maintained they had little choice, but I'm sure they would rather still have had them to try and deter Russia's little annexation.
What is the parallel? Well I'm sure at the time in the 1990s when Ukraine gave them up, it seemed unlikely they would be needed, and they had a written pact with various parties that their disarmament would leave their borders respected by everyone. Well many are saying that leaving the EU would make little difference to our trade with the EU. How do they know? They don't. Its a risk we just don't need to take.
And as above, what are the real economic benefits of being out of the EU? Its like the SNP s
te Paper all over again - baseless promises or utopia based on rhetoric and bluster - with a smattering of them/us nationalistic bile to stir up resentment.Thats the UKIP line - if it wasn't for "them Euros" we'd be alright. Blame someone else, the nationalist crutch.
SNP and UKIP : joined at birth.
Joined at birth?
Like you with a bear?
...with a sore head that's losing the argument. Upsetting is it?
dandarez said:
Joined at birth?
Like you with a bear?
...with a sore head that's losing the argument. Upsetting is it?
Are you upset as a kipper or a nat, or both?
PS Who is losing what argument?
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 6th February 13:56
Mario149 said:
As I said on the other thread, it's an unknowable answer, we're never going to be able to see an alternate history or future of what would (have) happened. But all things being equal, I think you'd be hard pushed to say that the EU is making a war between any of its members more likely than if it didn't exist.
And as for Crimea/Ukraine/Russia, that is because Russia has become to all intents and purposes a fascist dictatorship and is acting like one as well. The EU is no military threat to Russia. The EU was economically wooing Ukraine and the people there generally preferred the EU to Russia. The Ukrainian gov didn't like this and wanted Russia instead and started shooting their own citizens who disagreed. Citizens then decided to get themselves a new gov who reflect their wants. Russia didn't like this but instead of trying to make the case to the Ukrainian people that Russia was better, they just dropped anonymous special forces into Crimea and effectively stole 10% of the country because it's easier to do that than play by the rules. And then for good measure they decided to invade the next nearest bit of Ukraine to them and forment a civil war. Nice. Blaming the EU for all that is just being an apologist for Russia.
+1And as for Crimea/Ukraine/Russia, that is because Russia has become to all intents and purposes a fascist dictatorship and is acting like one as well. The EU is no military threat to Russia. The EU was economically wooing Ukraine and the people there generally preferred the EU to Russia. The Ukrainian gov didn't like this and wanted Russia instead and started shooting their own citizens who disagreed. Citizens then decided to get themselves a new gov who reflect their wants. Russia didn't like this but instead of trying to make the case to the Ukrainian people that Russia was better, they just dropped anonymous special forces into Crimea and effectively stole 10% of the country because it's easier to do that than play by the rules. And then for good measure they decided to invade the next nearest bit of Ukraine to them and forment a civil war. Nice. Blaming the EU for all that is just being an apologist for Russia.
Mario149 said:
Note that I never said that MEPs can create law, I said they have to vote on it and they can vote it down continually until the commissioners come up with something that MEPs approve. To my knowledge there is no time when commissioners can enact a law that MEPs have voted down.
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip recordtangerine_sedge said:
Mario149 said:
Note that I never said that MEPs can create law, I said they have to vote on it and they can vote it down continually until the commissioners come up with something that MEPs approve. To my knowledge there is no time when commissioners can enact a law that MEPs have voted down.
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip recordIt is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
tangerine_sedge said:
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip record
I couldn't give a toss if he never voted,he wants them all sacked which is good enough for me.
///ajd said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Mario149 said:
Note that I never said that MEPs can create law, I said they have to vote on it and they can vote it down continually until the commissioners come up with something that MEPs approve. To my knowledge there is no time when commissioners can enact a law that MEPs have voted down.
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip recordIt is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
Think it through, you might see who the stupid voters really are.
///ajd said:
Its more than a shame, its criminal.
It is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
Are we really stupid enough to want to pay 55 mil a day?It is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
Are we really stupid enough to pay 1.7 Bn when things are going well?
Are we stupid enough to screw over our own fishermen?
Shall I go on?
TEKNOPUG said:
This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Democratically elected MEPs can only vote on laws proposed by unelected Commissioners. They cannot propose new laws. MEPs can propose changes to current or new legislation but those proposals only become law if the Commissioners agree. Many of the technical decisions of new legislation are decided by unelected civil servants.
It's about as democratic as Dad asking the kids whether they want to go to Butlins on holiday, having already booked it...
That's a good point. Has it ever been suggested that the Commissioner's should be *elected* to those positions ? Would it have been worthwhile for Dave to also pursue that route ? The whole structure sounds like it needs a total rethink.It's about as democratic as Dad asking the kids whether they want to go to Butlins on holiday, having already booked it...
Funkycoldribena said:
///ajd said:
Its more than a shame, its criminal.
It is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
Are we really stupid enough to want to pay 55 mil a day?It is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
Are we really stupid enough to pay 1.7 Bn when things are going well?
Are we stupid enough to screw over our own fishermen?
Shall I go on?
They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
///ajd said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Mario149 said:
Note that I never said that MEPs can create law, I said they have to vote on it and they can vote it down continually until the commissioners come up with something that MEPs approve. To my knowledge there is no time when commissioners can enact a law that MEPs have voted down.
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip recordIt is hardly surprising some of Europe look at us with suspicion when we vote for total morons to represent us in Europe.
Why do we do that? Are we really that stupid? Sadly it seems many of us are.
///ajd said:
Is it stupid to vote to put people into the EU who have no interest in making it work, only interested in attacking it and undermining it whilst we do contribute all that money anyway?
They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
They are doing what the people who voted for them want them to do. Its called representative democracy.They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
///ajd said:
Is it stupid to vote to put people into the EU who have no interest in making it work, only interested in attacking it and undermining it whilst we do contribute all that money anyway?
They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
But you see the electorate voted them there. Dont you remember?They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
s2art said:
///ajd said:
Is it stupid to vote to put people into the EU who have no interest in making it work, only interested in attacking it and undermining it whilst we do contribute all that money anyway?
They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
They are doing what the people who voted for them want them to do. Its called representative democracy.They are not even doing the job they were voted to do. If your plumber only did 68% of a job, I suspect you'd be getting angry.
UKIP in EU = totally stupid. No need to go on - just that alone is totally idiotic.
Perhaps you think shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea?
If you want to spite your face I have some suggestions that that too you'd probably think were great.
Many people have voted for UKIP to go and shout at the EU in Brussels and not actually do anything useful to influence that place to do the best thing for the UK and the EU.
Brilliant.
The idea of shouting and whinging sounded so good, the fact its a stupid idea akin to cutting your nose off clearly did not cross the mind of voters whilst hovering over the ballot paper.
I didn't say it wasn't democratic, its just stupid.
Same as the Labour party internally voting for Corbyn. Democratic within the party. But totally stupid.
///ajd said:
Is it stupid to vote to put people into the EU who have no interest in making it work, only interested in attacking it and undermining it whilst we do contribute all that money
It's bloody great.The quicker the whole rotten lot collapses the better.Edited by Funkycoldribena on Saturday 6th February 15:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff