PDA

View Full Version : Monarchy or Republic



-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 03:18 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WPjZST8SC40/RqTe5q3NvbI/AAAAAAAAH7I/OisS99358qU/s320/250px-UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.pnghttp://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2000/images/Commonwealth_Flag.gif
(Royal Coat of Arms & Commonwealth Flag of which the monarchy rules over (most countries of the Commonwealth)

Our Queen, Queen Elizabeth II has ruled since 1952. Our monarchy is a constitional monarchy and is not elected. The monarch of the day holds the power to dissolve parliament & appoint anyone Prime Minister of the country and Commonwealth nations.

Our monarchy of the United Kingdom came into existance when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into being in 1801, replacing the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. In recent years, mostly the 1990's the monarchy became rather unpopular due to the whole Princess Diana fiasco but in recent years has become more popular than unpopular.

Extra information
Unbiased sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy)
Biased in favour of monarchy: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ (http://www.royal.gov.uk/)
Biased in favour of a republic: http://www.republic.org.uk/ (http://www.republic.org.uk/)

The question is, do you believe we should move onto a Presidential Republic and dissolve the monarchy, or should we keep the monarchy? - This discussion can apply to people from Commonwealth countries aswell, I think it will be interesting to see what people think about the monarchy.

Thread moved by Garion (Assistant Forum Manager): From "Current Affairs" as it is essentially a debate.

Jordy
14-04-2009, 03:57 PM
I've always liked having a Monarchy as it is but the thing with President's is they have ever so much power, far more than our current Prime Minister. I suppose the Monarchy do 'in theory' have a lot of power, they're the top positions in the armed forces and can pick and control a government but until they start using these powers I'll continue to support the Monarchy.

As for the Monarchy controlling the Commonwealth I think that's very unlikely, if the Monarchy started interfereing with countries in the Commonwealth they'd just choose to break-away. I think we'll see the Commonwealth fall in our lifetime (It means very little as it is anyway).

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 04:08 PM
I support the monarchy simply because it has worked and kept our country one of the most stable countries in Europe and the world for hundreds, nearly a thousand years with about 2 major changes in that time, the fall of Harold in 1066 and the rise and fall of Cromwell. I think monarchy should stay and I think the majority of people who don't support it are people who tend to be socialist and believe that it is a case of state/rich/powerful vs the people which is just communist propaganda.

alexxxxx
14-04-2009, 04:19 PM
Monarchy, yes. It's a very important placement. I'd like to think the Monarchy would sack the government if something seriously bad happened within it?

However, how can you support UKIP and Conservatives at the same time? Conservatives support the existance and britain's membership of the EU, whilst UKIP are against it?

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 04:28 PM
Monarchy, yes. It's a very important placement. I'd like to think the Monarchy would sack the government if something seriously bad happened within it?

However, how can you support UKIP and Conservatives at the same time? Conservatives support the existance and britain's membership of the EU, whilst UKIP are against it?

Yes the Queen can dissolve the government if something awful occurs, such as a state of emergency/a power struggle. I can support both, as I know there are many parts of the Conservative Party which would want a full withdrawal from the European Union. Realistically I know UKIP is many years away from potentially gaining power, so therefore as I support most of the Conservative policies, I would like the Conservatives to gain power over Labour.

To support a party you do not have to agree with everything it stands for.

Browney
14-04-2009, 04:32 PM
I support monarchy to keep reminding us of our (sometimes not so) rich past.

Technologic
14-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Constitutional monarchies allow power to be spread out more, in Republics the power often falls upon the president who can pass laws without the consent of the rest of the government...

Constituional monarchy is better 8-)

alexxxxx
14-04-2009, 04:36 PM
all about the EU mate - our economy would be alot worse if we didn't have the EU or common market, though i can understand why people don't like how some laws are being implemented europe-wide.

I'm very pro-eu, but i think it's not democratic enough. What I like about the conservatives is that they're pro-euro reform, but i have issues about other things. Our largest export/import partner is with the EU, if we were to leave, our goods could be put under tariffs and taxes, which means even more jobs lost.

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 04:42 PM
all about the EU mate - our economy would be alot worse if we didn't have the EU or common market, though i can understand why people don't like how some laws are being implemented europe-wide.

I'm very pro-eu, but i think it's not democratic enough. What I like about the conservatives is that they're pro-euro reform, but i have issues about other things. Our largest export/import partner is with the EU, if we were to leave, our goods could be put under tariffs and taxes, which means even more jobs lost.

The orginal purpose of the EU for easier trade relations was good idea. However, now it is biased and has a strong left-wing influence in it, as you said it has become very undemocratic and personally I think it is the biggest waste of money possible.

In a global world nowadays, a trade organisation such as the EU is no longer needed, so our economy wouldn't have all of these restrictions of agriculture and fishing which would mean a stronger economy for our country.

What started off as a post-war trade organisation for a war torn europe has now turned into a unelected, buracratic and biased union which most people would at least like a say on, whether or not they support it.

alexxxxx
14-04-2009, 05:31 PM
The orginal purpose of the EU for easier trade relations was good idea. However, now it is biased and has a strong left-wing influence in it, as you said it has become very undemocratic and personally I think it is the biggest waste of money possible.

In a global world nowadays, a trade organisation such as the EU is no longer needed, so our economy wouldn't have all of these restrictions of agriculture and fishing which would mean a stronger economy for our country.

What started off as a post-war trade organisation for a war torn europe has now turned into a unelected, buracratic and biased union which most people would at least like a say on, whether or not they support it.

I personally believe a free-trade organisation is still required, for example, the united states wish to employ protectionist practices during this economic crisis, the same done here would devastate the whole of Europe and prolong a recession.

It is left-wing because the majority of European nations are left-wing, including this one. Agricultural restrictions are there to protect jobs, so is fishing. Without CAP subsidies, no farmers would be able to earn a living a wage, without fishing quotas, there would soon be no fish left in the sea.

Unelected is just not true, it is elected, the european parliament is a vital part of how the European Union works, and the other house in Brussels is filled with people sent from an elected government in this country. Though it would be nicer if the second house was more democratically appointed, and i believe a president elected by the people would be a good addition (this was actually a clause in the Lisbon Treaty).

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 06:18 PM
I personally believe a free-trade organisation is still required, for example, the united states wish to employ protectionist practices during this economic crisis, the same done here would devastate the whole of Europe and prolong a recession.

It is left-wing because the majority of European nations are left-wing, including this one. Agricultural restrictions are there to protect jobs, so is fishing. Without CAP subsidies, no farmers would be able to earn a living a wage, without fishing quotas, there would soon be no fish left in the sea.

Unelected is just not true, it is elected, the european parliament is a vital part of how the European Union works, and the other house in Brussels is filled with people sent from an elected government in this country. Though it would be nicer if the second house was more democratically appointed, and i believe a president elected by the people would be a good addition (this was actually a clause in the Lisbon Treaty).

Spending your way out of a recession will not work, the Depression was ended with the military build up to World War II. Our country is already in debt and we do not need more of it, because we will be paying it off for many years to come. This country has overbloated itself and needs to cut back on services and so on to avoid a IMF situation like in the 1970's.

Actually i'd contend that, French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor are both Conservatives and the President of the Czech Republic, Klaus, is also a Conservative. Sarkozy and Merkel may be pro-EU but the fact remains they are Conservative in home politics. Most countries always swap between right-wing and left-wing governments and having a EU which is a left-wing organisation is unacceptable to the people of Europe.

All of the socialist failures from this country went to the EU, Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson are two prime examples, and both are two of the most hated politicians in this country.

Agriculture and fishing limits are there to limit how much we can harvest and sell, we could easily provide enough crops in our country to feed ourselves yet we dont because the EU doesn't like it and wants us to buy other nations produce which pushes the price up. The cost of transport and so on for this food which could easily be produced in this country is just such a waste of money it is unbelievable. Just now, news has come in that French fishermen are blocking the ports in protest at EU fishing limits, which goes to show if the people doing the actual work don't agree with this EU red tape then why do we have it.

As for the democracy part, if the EU strives to be democratic why doesn't it use its already strong and powerful influence to force national governments to hold a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty - the answer is simple, because it knows it will lose and when people say no the EU does not like it one bit.

When the Irish voted we had quotes coming from EU officals such as "they voted wrong, they will vote until they get it right." - At the moment I cannot find any quotes but the fact that the treaty is still in motion is a sign that the EU will not accept a NO vote, after all it was agreed that without all members agreeing this treaty then it will not come into force, the only option the EU has now it so force Ireland to vote on it again.

Can I ask, do you support all EU nations having a referendum on whether or not we actually want to be in this new Union that is being formed, because everyone I know is against it totally.

I am a British citzen, not a European citzen; and never will be.

"We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed" - Sir Winston Churchill

The EU needs to learn the message, it is, in the words of Margaret Thatcher; No! No! No!

alexxxxx
14-04-2009, 06:39 PM
Spending your way out of a recession will not work, the Depression was ended with the military build up to World War II. Our country is already in debt and we do not need more of it, because we will be paying it off for many years to come. This country has overbloated itself and needs to cut back on services and so on to avoid a IMF situation like in the 1970's.

Actually i'd contend that, French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor are both Conservatives and the President of the Czech Republic, Klaus, is also a Conservative. Sarkozy and Merkel may be pro-EU but the fact remains they are Conservative in home politics. Most countries always swap between right-wing and left-wing governments and having a EU which is a left-wing organisation is unacceptable to the people of Europe.

All of the socialist failures from this country went to the EU, Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson are two prime examples, and both are two of the most hated politicians in this country.

Agriculture and fishing limits are there to limit how much we can harvest and sell, we could easily provide enough crops in our country to feed ourselves yet we dont because the EU doesn't like it and wants us to buy other nations produce which pushes the price up. The cost of transport and so on for this food which could easily be produced in this country is just such a waste of money it is unbelievable. Just now, news has come in that French fishermen are blocking the ports in protest at EU fishing limits, which goes to show if the people doing the actual work don't agree with this EU red tape then why do we have it.

As for the democracy part, if the EU strives to be democratic why doesn't it use its already strong and powerful influence to force national governments to hold a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty - the answer is simple, because it knows it will lose and when people say no the EU does not like it one bit.

When the Irish voted we had quotes coming from EU officals such as "they voted wrong, they will vote until they get it right." - At the moment I cannot find any quotes but the fact that the treaty is still in motion is a sign that the EU will not accept a NO vote, after all it was agreed that without all members agreeing this treaty then it will not come into force, the only option the EU has now it so force Ireland to vote on it again.

Can I ask, do you support all EU nations having a referendum on whether or not we actually want to be in this new Union that is being formed, because everyone I know is against it totally.

I am a British citzen, not a European citzen; and never will be.

"We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed" - Sir Winston Churchill

The EU needs to learn the message, it is, in the words of Margaret Thatcher; No! No! No!

I'd like to start by saying thankyou for a good response, which is alot better than i've had in the past from some people here.

Spending to get out of the recession won't work, which i agree with, i personally am very worried about the level of borrowing that the government and the public have taken on. But also, at the same time, we have to remember that not everything to do with the world is to do with money, it can be about jobs and communities, which the conservatives seem to care little about. When the conservatives came to power, their economic policy was to lower inflation, and to do this they racked up interest rates, which consequently left MILLIONS AND MILLIONS unemployed. Shutting down coal mines and selling off other government-owned entities made money in the short term, but utterly destroyed people's livelihoods. The decision to let councils sell houses to tennants was a terrible one, meaning there is now a long waiting list for houses, even now with unemployment rising again.

They might be right-wing, but in relation to our parties, they are much more left than we are. Just because you are left or you are right doesn't mean you can't be more extreme.

The EU don't like the fact that the Irish voted no, and i think its disgraceful they are putting it to a vote again. It needs to be worked on AGAIN. The EU intervening to make all governments make them have a refferendum would overstep its line in home politics. It would be overstepping its mark from being a body built between nations to a more USA-style federal goverment.

I, personally, am actually against an EU referrendum (and some parts of the treaty), because it underminds our MPs job. We elect them, so that they can vote for us as they should go to the length to educate themselves and make correct decisions. If there is referrendum on this, should there then be a refferendum on other laws/bills, like drugs, crime and civil law? Also, misinformation by the media from newspapers like The Sun, Daily Mirror and The Express would mislead voters. My Conservative MP argued AGAINST a refferendum in parliament.

Also, Churchill: "A europe united would bring happiness and joy to all 400million inhabitants" (well he said something along those lines).

And too late, you are a European Citizen, ever since the Tories took us into it. Check your passport, it says 'European Union' on it, and translations into every European Language. You have the right to reside and vote in every european country and enjoy similiar rights.

I am however against the Euro because it's a weak currency with some weak economies with it.

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 07:08 PM
I'd like to start by saying thankyou for a good response, which is alot better than i've had in the past from some people here.

Spending to get out of the recession won't work, which i agree with, i personally am very worried about the level of borrowing that the government and the public have taken on. But also, at the same time, we have to remember that not everything to do with the world is to do with money, it can be about jobs and communities, which the conservatives seem to care little about. When the conservatives came to power, their economic policy was to lower inflation, and to do this they racked up interest rates, which consequently left MILLIONS AND MILLIONS unemployed. Shutting down coal mines and selling off other government-owned entities made money in the short term, but utterly destroyed people's livelihoods. The decision to let councils sell houses to tennants was a terrible one, meaning there is now a long waiting list for houses, even now with unemployment rising again.

They might be right-wing, but in relation to our parties, they are much more left than we are. Just because you are left or you are right doesn't mean you can't be more extreme.

The EU don't like the fact that the Irish voted no, and i think its disgraceful they are putting it to a vote again. It needs to be worked on AGAIN. The EU intervening to make all governments make them have a refferendum would overstep its line in home politics. It would be overstepping its mark from being a body built between nations to a more USA-style federal goverment.

I, personally, am actually against an EU referrendum (and some parts of the treaty), because it underminds our MPs job. We elect them, so that they can vote for us as they should go to the length to educate themselves and make correct decisions. If there is referrendum on this, should there then be a refferendum on other laws/bills, like drugs, crime and civil law? Also, misinformation by the media from newspapers like The Sun, Daily Mirror and The Express would mislead voters. My Conservative MP argued AGAINST a refferendum in parliament.

Also, Churchill: "A europe united would bring happiness and joy to all 400million inhabitants" (well he said something along those lines).

And too late, you are a European Citizen, ever since the Tories took us into it. Check your passport, it says 'European Union' on it, and translations into every European Language. You have the right to reside and vote in every european country and enjoy similiar rights.

I am however against the Euro because it's a weak currency with some weak economies with it.

I'm sorry but the Conservatives fixed the economy which was in decline and we had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF. Anyone with any knowledge in the economy would know that the mines were a failing industry kept open only due to the Labour Union-controlled govrnment susbsidising them.

Yes unemployment did rise, but afterwards started to lower as the country grew wealthier thanks to the Thatcher governments reforms which were vital to this country. The mines could not possibly compete with the rising Asian economies and you would be throwing money away to attempt to compete with them.

No the EU would be hailed as a democratic body if it made national governments to hold referendums. I'm sorry but 'too much power over national governments' is a laughable attempt by a pro-EU supporter to use, the EU can overrule some of our courts decisions and can limit our agriculture and fishing, and you then claim they care about national sovereignty?

You and the EU are against a referendum because you know it will lose. Our MP's also have a job to represent the people, and i'm afraid signing away our sovereignty to a union which is more unpopular than popular is not representing us.

The free media are there to sell newspapers, and to sell they often represent what the people think that is why people buy them. Therefore it isn't biased at all, it is free speech. The issue over referendums, well i'm afraid a treaty which signs away sovereignty and basically influences the politics of europe are a issue which deserves a referendum, there is no argument against it.

As for Churchill, he means a united europe in the sense that we respect eachothers sovereignty but we are unified together against evils such as Nazism. I am 'offically' but I mean by my beliefs and in my heart, I will never support a European Union and consider myself British. The Tories did take us into it, and them same tories were the same idiots who brought down the greatest politician I believe this country has ever had, Margaret Thatcher.

I want a europe which is trade based only, not politically based. As for the euro, good on you, a central currency is a very dangerous thing to have.

Jordy
14-04-2009, 07:16 PM
all about the EU mate - our economy would be alot worse if we didn't have the EU or common market, though i can understand why people don't like how some laws are being implemented europe-wide.

I'm very pro-eu, but i think it's not democratic enough. What I like about the conservatives is that they're pro-euro reform, but i have issues about other things. Our largest export/import partner is with the EU, if we were to leave, our goods could be put under tariffs and taxes, which means even more jobs lost.We can enjoy the economic benefits of the EU quite easily like it was meant to be when we joined 'The common market'. Norway (And Iceland) isn't in the EU yet it's part of the European Economic Area (EEA), it allows the easy and free trade to continue with out the other restraints of the EU.

I do agree with Ireland holding a referendum I just find it so ironic that it's people chose not to be part of it, the EU is entirely responsible for what Ireland is today which is one of the highest countries in the world on the Human Development Index, they owe the EU yet they're ignorant enough to go against it but at the same time I'm glad some country did.

alexxxxx
14-04-2009, 09:22 PM
I'm sorry but the Conservatives fixed the economy which was in decline and we had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF. Anyone with any knowledge in the economy would know that the mines were a failing industry kept open only due to the Labour Union-controlled govrnment susbsidising them.

Yes unemployment did rise, but afterwards started to lower as the country grew wealthier thanks to the Thatcher governments reforms which were vital to this country. The mines could not possibly compete with the rising Asian economies and you would be throwing money away to attempt to compete with them.


You have to think about the goals you are attempting to achieve when you build an economic policy. Labour's was employment and the conservatives, inflation. Unemployment rose rapidly and never recovered to the same level as before they took power. Also they were resposible for selling off alot of UK assets. I don't think we'll ever agree on this because I am a socialist and personally think that in some respects that the Thatcher era really screwed up Britain.



No the EU would be hailed as a democratic body if it made national governments to hold referendums. I'm sorry but 'too much power over national governments' is a laughable attempt by a pro-EU supporter to use, the EU can overrule some of our courts decisions and can limit our agriculture and fishing, and you then claim they care about national sovereignty?

Court decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, more to do with the Council of Europe (a different organisation). I am a supporter of the EU, but I think it should respect ways that governments/countries' systems work and shouldn't intervene with national government affairs. This line is needed so the EU remains a structure between states and not above them. Once the EU is in a position to be able to directly rule from the top, without directives needing to be passed in government, we stop being a union and start being a nation - which is not what many people want at all (including myself)



You and the EU are against a referendum because you know it will lose. Our MP's also have a job to represent the people, and i'm afraid signing away our sovereignty to a union which is more unpopular than popular is not representing us.

The average electorate doesn't understand what the EU does and will not read the Treaty either. They are not, in a sense, qualified to make an informed decision. This is why MPs are voted in, to be a representative make-up of the nation to pass laws. THEIR JOB is to read, debate and vote on laws. If a referendum was put in place, serious questions would soon need to be asked about parliamentary reform. Did you know the Lisbon Treaty actually includes a clause detailing how a country can go about ceding from the EU?




The free media are there to sell newspapers, and to sell they often represent what the people think that is why people buy them. Therefore it isn't biased at all, it is free speech. The issue over referendums, well i'm afraid a treaty which signs away sovereignty and basically influences the politics of europe are a issue which deserves a referendum, there is no argument against it.

OK, a democracy requires an informed, interested electorate. If the Daily Mail or The Sun do not write and inform the public in a balanced way (the TV media however is required to do so), people become misinformed when coming to vote and do not have a clear view of what they are voting for. This was proved in the Irish vote where many voters didn't know what they were voting for. As you said, they are there to make money. They could possibly make more money from selling sensationalist twisted truths than facts.



As for Churchill, he means a united europe in the sense that we respect eachothers sovereignty but we are unified together against evils such as Nazism. I am 'offically' but I mean by my beliefs and in my heart, I will never support a European Union and consider myself British. The Tories did take us into it, and them same tories were the same idiots who brought down the greatest politician I believe this country has ever had, Margaret Thatcher.

I want a europe which is trade based only, not politically based. As for the euro, good on you, a central currency is a very dangerous thing to have.

In certain ways, being part of the EU, we keep some sovereignty. The world is becoming a place full of only superpowers, The USA, China, India, Brazil, Japan and the EU. These superpowers will continue to grow and we'll start to lose grip, we'll become a slave nation to either the EU or USA, doing exactly what they say. We might as well try to take in an active part of the EU rather than let our hold on the world slip away. It's not our fault we're not a superpower, we're just reaching saturation point. Don't blind yourself under images of World Wars and the Empire, because those days are gone. Let's not pretend we're larger than we are.

GommeInc
14-04-2009, 09:24 PM
Getting rid of the monarchy would cause way too many problems. Our Royal Family is perhaps the most popular and heard of family in the world. Getting rid of them would make England less appealing (and the rest of the UK, though England has London, where people tend to go to stare at them).

I would like to think that the Monarchy is one of the things keeping Britain interesting, without it, this country would just be some boring old European country with terrible drivers and imbreeding.

Fez
14-04-2009, 10:17 PM
I say just have a dictatorship.

Jordy
14-04-2009, 10:24 PM
I say just have a dictatorship.History would suggest otherwise.

5,5
14-04-2009, 10:56 PM
Constitutional monarchies allow power to be spread out more, in Republics the power often falls upon the president who can pass laws without the consent of the rest of the government...

Constituional monarchy is better 8-)
Seems like none of you know what a presidential democracy is.
The president cannot just pass laws as they please. Because than they could change the whole consitution and become a dictatorship. To prevent this we have checks and balances. What this does is the 3 branches of the government (legislative, judicial, executive) have to all make sure that each of them isnt making too many decisions so that they all have equal power. If the president wants to pass a law, the law must be approved by the supreme court first.

-:Undertaker:-
14-04-2009, 10:57 PM
You have to think about the goals you are attempting to achieve when you build an economic policy. Labour's was employment and the conservatives, inflation. Unemployment rose rapidly and never recovered to the same level as before they took power. Also they were resposible for selling off alot of UK assets. I don't think we'll ever agree on this because I am a socialist and personally think that in some respects that the Thatcher era really screwed up Britain.


Court decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, more to do with the Council of Europe (a different organisation). I am a supporter of the EU, but I think it should respect ways that governments/countries' systems work and shouldn't intervene with national government affairs. This line is needed so the EU remains a structure between states and not above them. Once the EU is in a position to be able to directly rule from the top, without directives needing to be passed in government, we stop being a union and start being a nation - which is not what many people want at all (including myself)


The average electorate doesn't understand what the EU does and will not read the Treaty either. They are not, in a sense, qualified to make an informed decision. This is why MPs are voted in, to be a representative make-up of the nation to pass laws. THEIR JOB is to read, debate and vote on laws. If a referendum was put in place, serious questions would soon need to be asked about parliamentary reform. Did you know the Lisbon Treaty actually includes a clause detailing how a country can go about ceding from the EU?



OK, a democracy requires an informed, interested electorate. If the Daily Mail or The Sun do not write and inform the public in a balanced way (the TV media however is required to do so), people become misinformed when coming to vote and do not have a clear view of what they are voting for. This was proved in the Irish vote where many voters didn't know what they were voting for. As you said, they are there to make money. They could possibly make more money from selling sensationalist twisted truths than facts.



In certain ways, being part of the EU, we keep some sovereignty. The world is becoming a place full of only superpowers, The USA, China, India, Brazil, Japan and the EU. These superpowers will continue to grow and we'll start to lose grip, we'll become a slave nation to either the EU or USA, doing exactly what they say. We might as well try to take in an active part of the EU rather than let our hold on the world slip away. It's not our fault we're not a superpower, we're just reaching saturation point. Don't blind yourself under images of World Wars and the Empire, because those days are gone. Let's not pretend we're larger than we are.


Then you have to look at the vital economic reform she drove through, tough and harsh it was but it bloody worked. Assets like the mines and so forth were never assets, maybe many years ago under the Empire but not in a world where Asian countries can produce the same/more for less and can afford to sell for less. It was not right that people were paying higher and higher taxes just to keep these failing industries open, basic economics.

The EU is already above nations, once a power can order you to stop/do something, your sovereignty is lost. I'm afraid I don't see much of a difference between the EU and the USSR in basic terms, they do not represent the people and the people do not want them.

I'm sorry but claiming the public cannot make the correct choice is a failure of democracy, you may aswell call it dead on the doorstep if you feel that. On the case of MP's reading the treaty, did you know the Minister for Europe had not read the Lisbon Treaty? - If the Minister for Europe has not read the treaty then i'm afraid the argument is lost. To claim we do not understand it is absolute tripe, do every voter in a General Election read the manifesto of the party they vote for? - I think not. In that case you may aswell declare a dictatorship.

Also the treaty can say whatever it likes, because it knows full well that that clause will probably never be used and we don't get a say on it anyway, so what would it matter if it gives us permission to leave?. We the public of Europe want a say and the EU will not give us it because it believes it is always right and knows best.

Basically that is democracy, is the next step in a European superstate to have a equal ratio of EU-supporting newspapers and Non EU-supporting newspapers, but then again that wouldn't suprise me in the slightest. If more people wish to buy right-wing leaning newspapers that is because they are right-wing and do not prefer the EU over the United States our our own British sovereignty, there is no two way about it, if people do not buy pro-EU newspapers as much as anti-EU newspapers then people do not want the EU. If we can't have a vote due to the media, then the same should go for elections, in your point of view. I come back to the same point again, it is because it knows it will lose.

I'm afraid the argument of a pawn of the superpowers is rubbish, no nation can ever take our sovereignty; thanks to our trident defence system which thankfully makes us safe. The only pressing issue in the United Kingdom is energy reliance in the future, and that can easily be solved with a new nuclear power generation of power plants and not having to buy energy from europe which is making them richer and us poorer.

You talk as if the EU is our saviour, you yourself imply its ultimate goal is to become a nation, something the EU denies in public and you denied earlier on. Margaret Thatcher warned on the growing power in the EU and she was right, its ultimate goal is to become a superpower which looks like it is going to be formed without our consent.

That isn't democracy, that tramples on democracy.

Fez
14-04-2009, 11:12 PM
Basically that is democracy, is the next step in a European superstate to have a equal ratio of EU-supporting newspapers and Non EU-supporting newspapers, but then again that wouldn't suprise me in the slightest. If more people wish to buy right-wing leaning newspapers that is because they are right-wing and do not prefer the EU over the United States our our own British sovereignty, there is no two way about it, if people do not buy pro-EU newspapers as much as anti-EU newspapers then people do not want the EU. If we can't have a vote due to the media, then the same should go for elections, in your point of view. I come back to the same point again, it is because it knows it will lose.

I'd just like to point out that newspapers are a dying format, what with the internet and TV becoming just about free and more easy to pick up.

What I would like to say is your rant on the media is totally true. More people in our country cannot be bothered to research what each party or any political power can give them, instead, they'll listen to Jamie Oliver who's in support of Labour because they are encouraging school's healthy meals programs.

That being said, it should be more easier for the public to know what each party to offer and not just get general bias and maybe words that most people won't care to look up, just thrown all over the place. If a newspaper is gonna do a cover on a Labour support, they shouldn't just about say "VOTE LABOUR YOU THICKHEAD", they should outline what the party offers to you and who is in charge.

alexxxxx
15-04-2009, 07:51 AM
Then you have to look at the vital economic reform she drove through, tough and harsh it was but it bloody worked. Assets like the mines and so forth were never assets, maybe many years ago under the Empire but not in a world where Asian countries can produce the same/more for less and can afford to sell for less. It was not right that people were paying higher and higher taxes just to keep these failing industries open, basic economics.

As I said, we won't agree on this, because I value employment, even if it means having high taxes and government spending.



The EU is already above nations, once a power can order you to stop/do something, your sovereignty is lost. I'm afraid I don't see much of a difference between the EU and the USSR in basic terms, they do not represent the people and the people do not want them.

I'm sorry but claiming the public cannot make the correct choice is a failure of democracy, you may aswell call it dead on the doorstep if you feel that. On the case of MP's reading the treaty, did you know the Minister for Europe had not read the Lisbon Treaty? - If the Minister for Europe has not read the treaty then i'm afraid the argument is lost. To claim we do not understand it is absolute tripe, do every voter in a General Election read the manifesto of the party they vote for? - I think not. In that case you may aswell declare a dictatorship.

No, the EU is not above nations, as they currently have the right to cede. Once the EU opens bureaus, runs police organisations, has its own army (which is unfortunately in the making, the latter) and owns land in other states, we will start to see it become a force. I agree that it's pathetic that Labour's Europe Minister didn't bother to read the treaty and they were attacked for that - it is their job to do this.



Also the treaty can say whatever it likes, because it knows full well that that clause will probably never be used and we don't get a say on it anyway, so what would it matter if it gives us permission to leave?. We the public of Europe want a say and the EU will not give us it because it believes it is always right and knows best.

Like I said, the EU is a inter-national organisation. When you say 'they' you mean 'us.' The governement sends commisioners to the European Commision. The government is elected by the people. It's like the house of lords, this isn't democratic, because the political parties appoint people to stand in there.



Basically that is democracy, is the next step in a European superstate to have a equal ratio of EU-supporting newspapers and Non EU-supporting newspapers, but then again that wouldn't suprise me in the slightest. If more people wish to buy right-wing leaning newspapers that is because they are right-wing and do not prefer the EU over the United States our our own British sovereignty, there is no two way about it, if people do not buy pro-EU newspapers as much as anti-EU newspapers then people do not want the EU. If we can't have a vote due to the media, then the same should go for elections, in your point of view. I come back to the same point again, it is because it knows it will lose.

When newspapers start printing untrue, twisted words, an electorate cannot see what is true and what isn't and won't have a clear view on who they are voting for. It is true, it probably would lose in an referendum. And I'm personally against the treaty and it starts to undermind smaller states (like Ireland).


I'm afraid the argument of a pawn of the superpowers is rubbish, no nation can ever take our sovereignty; thanks to our trident defence system which thankfully makes us safe. The only pressing issue in the United Kingdom is energy reliance in the future, and that can easily be solved with a new nuclear power generation of power plants and not having to buy energy from europe which is making them richer and us poorer.

No nation could invade us, that's true. It doesn't mean they couldn't put pressure on us economically to do what they want. The years of conquest are over. Countries like the USA are now building economic empires.



You talk as if the EU is our saviour, you yourself imply its ultimate goal is to become a nation, something the EU denies in public and you denied earlier on. Margaret Thatcher warned on the growing power in the EU and she was right, its ultimate goal is to become a superpower which looks like it is going to be formed without our consent.

A superpower doesn't mean a nation. All US States have the right to cede from the USA, although I think everyone would agree we wouldn't want as centralised europe. It's called a union, a collective movement. If you think that in 30 years time, that in a world dominated by the USA, EU, China, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia that they would give a toss about what we say, you are mistaken. We will be so small in comparison that they would do anything which is against our interests. This whole romaticised view of the UK is old. Most other european states have taken off their tinted nationalistic glasses and started to look and see what the world what it really is.

Stop looking at the past at what we once were and start looking forward. Whether that be with the EU/EEA or go it alone, we've got to make up our mind. We're not as big as a nation as some 'middle englanders' think we are.

-:Undertaker:-
15-04-2009, 10:46 AM
As I said, we won't agree on this, because I value employment, even if it means having high taxes and government spending.


No, the EU is not above nations, as they currently have the right to cede. Once the EU opens bureaus, runs police organisations, has its own army (which is unfortunately in the making, the latter) and owns land in other states, we will start to see it become a force. I agree that it's pathetic that Labour's Europe Minister didn't bother to read the treaty and they were attacked for that - it is their job to do this.


Like I said, the EU is a inter-national organisation. When you say 'they' you mean 'us.' The governement sends commisioners to the European Commision. The government is elected by the people. It's like the house of lords, this isn't democratic, because the political parties appoint people to stand in there.


When newspapers start printing untrue, twisted words, an electorate cannot see what is true and what isn't and won't have a clear view on who they are voting for. It is true, it probably would lose in an referendum. And I'm personally against the treaty and it starts to undermind smaller states (like Ireland).

No nation could invade us, that's true. It doesn't mean they couldn't put pressure on us economically to do what they want. The years of conquest are over. Countries like the USA are now building economic empires.


A superpower doesn't mean a nation. All US States have the right to cede from the USA, although I think everyone would agree we wouldn't want as centralised europe. It's called a union, a collective movement. If you think that in 30 years time, that in a world dominated by the USA, EU, China, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia that they would give a toss about what we say, you are mistaken. We will be so small in comparison that they would do anything which is against our interests. This whole romaticised view of the UK is old. Most other european states have taken off their tinted nationalistic glasses and started to look and see what the world what it really is.

Stop looking at the past at what we once were and start looking forward. Whether that be with the EU/EEA or go it alone, we've got to make up our mind. We're not as big as a nation as some 'middle englanders' think we are.

The high taxes and government spending create false jobs which cannot compete in a world economy, by cutting the 'dead' jobs you create more money to be invested back in to service, or to cutting taxes for business which in turn generates business to come to the United Kingdom.

The EU is above nations already, you only have to look at the way it can fine our country if it wishes, it can also set limits on parts of our economy. That is not democracy, that is a dictatorship and as you said its going to get worse, a EU army, EU embassies - it is total leftie madness!

The Parliament is a cover, the commion and the top of the EU sets the agenda and whether or not it has British in it, the people put in the EU on our behalf are just left-wing losers such as Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson. The parliament needs our opinion in this modern and so called democratic world, and we should be at least asked whether we want it to even exist which the majority don't. The house of lords isn't indeed democratic and perhaps that should be reformed, however the whole point of the house of lords is so that respected people who have done things for this country can block and unpopular/laws against the interests of this country. I'm afraid people in the EU create the agenda whereas the Lords judge the agenda.

The media can create the agenda, but the fact still remains that people like me will hold views to a more right-wing side that we will buy papers like the Daily Mail and i'm afraid reading more papers such as the Guardian will not change our minds one bit.

We are keeping up with this, by shedding off heavy industry which was unable to compete with Asia we have had a boom which was in times better than our european neighbours. We will always have allies such as the United States, if the PROC ever did stop trading with us as a threat it would damage them more as they are the ones who produce more, another point is that our other allies would also apply diplomatic pressue to the PROC to stop them trying to trade with us, many treaties etc all assure our trading fairness between nations.

The United States is totally different, it is a nation which was born together and speaks one language, it was a nation which wanted to be together for the most part. The case if different in europe where we are being denied a vote on whether we want it and secondly we are totally different countries, the EU and other foreign leaders have a hatred of some of Britains politicians and it should not be allowed.

Here is a quote from a French minister when our voted-in PM's government was near collapse, thanks to the EU issue;

After the Rome Council a French official was asked whether it had failed. He answered: "On the contrary, the Council had been an outstanding success, since it had re-established an eleven-to-one situation in the Community and destabilised Thatcher at home".

That is absolutly pathetic and shows their true agenda, they like politicians like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown because not only having socialist histories themselves, they will do almost anything the EU commands, whereas Thatcher wouldn't. The EU do not like being told NO. The fact a superpower isn't a nation well the EU is well on its way, when the Lisbon Treaty is rammed through it will give the EU its own political identity, we only had to see their true agenda with the old treaty, a anthem, emblem, theme and motto? - i'm sorry but if that isn't a sign of a federal state like the USSR then I don't know what is.

The illusion is often created that our United Kingdom is going to sink in a 'new world' but the fact remains it won't. We are for the most part independant and still a formidable force. A nuclear deterrent, a strong economy for our size and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council assure our power. Granted we are still not independant enough especially the fact that we have to buy our energy from France and buy the materials needed from places such as the Russian Federation, but that can be solved with the introduction of nuclear power on a large scale. We are a great power, but not a superpower.

We are looking forward and the future of this country is generally agreed by the largely conservative-leaning public. We want to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a independant state. We do not want to be the European Union.

Alkaz
15-04-2009, 04:11 PM
If it is dissolved what would happen to things like the Queens bench division. A whole stage of the court division will be missing and important decisions normally made by the QBD would be left to the president which I wouldnt like to see.

alexxxxx
15-04-2009, 11:08 PM
The high taxes and government spending create false jobs which cannot compete in a world economy, by cutting the 'dead' jobs you create more money to be invested back in to service, or to cutting taxes for business which in turn generates business to come to the United Kingdom.

The EU is above nations already, you only have to look at the way it can fine our country if it wishes, it can also set limits on parts of our economy. That is not democracy, that is a dictatorship and as you said its going to get worse, a EU army, EU embassies - it is total leftie madness!

You sounded like you had a good argument there, until you said 'leftie-madness.' It's not above nations because every nation has the right to cede. Once that right is lost, a nation loses it's soveriegnty. It's called 'pooling sovereignty' not 'giving it away.'

And to your economics theory, it's true, it could provide 'dead jobs' and it could produce an inefficient government, but like benefits, at the end of the day, these wages are getting spent somewhere. Increasing benefits can be argued that it increases aggregate demand. Also, it's better to have people in work setting good examples to everyone than people out of work.



The Parliament is a cover, the commion and the top of the EU sets the agenda and whether or not it has British in it, the people put in the EU on our behalf are just left-wing losers such as Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson. The parliament needs our opinion in this modern and so called democratic world, and we should be at least asked whether we want it to even exist which the majority don't. The house of lords isn't indeed democratic and perhaps that should be reformed, however the whole point of the house of lords is so that respected people who have done things for this country can block and unpopular/laws against the interests of this country. I'm afraid people in the EU create the agenda whereas the Lords judge the agenda.

Again, left-wing losers, another right-winger who isn't prepared to look through other people's eyes. Soon you will be calling them NuLierbore, liek the rest of some of the right-wing ******s. Yes, the commision is the most important part of the EU and I think this needs reforming, but at the end of the day, it is democratically elected in as governments simply send representatives. Some people can't see through the nationalistic glasses they wear and cannot see the problems created by an isolated united kingdom.



The media can create the agenda, but the fact still remains that people like me will hold views to a more right-wing side that we will buy papers like the Daily Mail and i'm afraid reading more papers such as the Guardian will not change our minds one bit.

Please don't tell me you read the Daily Mail. It's a rag. Even Cameron reads the Guardian. Daily Mail is a libelous newspaper that publishes mostly opinion and not factual news. The Guardian on the other hand, I feel is more balanced factually, but has quite left-wing commentors. It divides it up more. At least read the telegraph or times if you are right-wing.



We are keeping up with this, by shedding off heavy industry which was unable to compete with Asia we have had a boom which was in times better than our european neighbours. We will always have allies such as the United States, if the PROC ever did stop trading with us as a threat it would damage them more as they are the ones who produce more, another point is that our other allies would also apply diplomatic pressue to the PROC to stop them trying to trade with us, many treaties etc all assure our trading fairness between nations.

Where are the allies? Oh wait, they're in Europe and the USA. Treaties? Oh these free trade treaties are part of the EU/EEA. There's no guarantee that we would get free trade with other nations if we aren't part of a trading bloc. They'd easily put up taxes on imported goods, lowering demand of our goods even more, destroying our economy. You seem to think that other nations don't want to protect themselves. Why do you think the EU put up limits for imported chinese clothes, it's because they are trying to protect their own businesses. What makes you think they'd be any different to us, with our exports like food/fish/fianances/cars/arms/trains/planes.



The United States is totally different, it is a nation which was born together and speaks one language, it was a nation which wanted to be together for the most part. The case if different in europe where we are being denied a vote on whether we want it and secondly we are totally different countries, the EU and other foreign leaders have a hatred of some of Britains politicians and it should not be allowed.

Uh-uh, when the United States was first being formed, there was and is still no official language. It's a union of ex-british and other countries' foreign territories. Lousianna for example, spoke mostly French before it was annexed. The same for other south westerly US states. Of course some people don't agree with each other, I think some 'hatred,' as you call it, comes from some arrogance that some brits have.


After the Rome Council a French official was asked whether it had failed. He answered: "On the contrary, the Council had been an outstanding success, since it had re-established an eleven-to-one situation in the Community and destabilised Thatcher at home".

That is absolutly pathetic and shows their true agenda, they like politicians like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown because not only having socialist histories themselves, they will do almost anything the EU commands, whereas Thatcher wouldn't. The EU do not like being told NO. The fact a superpower isn't a nation well the EU is well on its way, when the Lisbon Treaty is rammed through it will give the EU its own political identity, we only had to see their true agenda with the old treaty, a anthem, emblem, theme and motto? - i'm sorry but if that isn't a sign of a federal state like the USSR then I don't know what is.

Labour is a socialist group and is part of an international socialist group. If you know so much why are you 'accusing' them of being socialist. Much of the EU is left-wing, so is this country in comparison with the USA, so I'm not suprised they disliked our right-wing government. You are again treating the EU as something above states. Why do you think the EU Constitution failed to pass? It was because all nations (including the Netherlands and France, two nations who are in the very heart of european politics) didn't agree that the constitution was right for them. The Lisbon treaty won't pass in every nation, i assure you. It will fail again in Ireland. It hasn't been ratified here yet either. The EU is already a political identity. Do you not see the EU flags that are shown in some places, where European Money was used to build/fund social things.

Don't you think that it is a bit odd how it took Europe to tell our government to stop taking DNA and storing it of youngsters. Don't you think it's ironic that European Commision are investigating BT of there privacy breaches with 'Phorm.'


The illusion is often created that our United Kingdom is going to sink in a 'new world' but the fact remains it won't. We are for the most part independant and still a formidable force. A nuclear deterrent, a strong economy for our size and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council assure our power. Granted we are still not independant enough especially the fact that we have to buy our energy from France and buy the materials needed from places such as the Russian Federation, but that can be solved with the introduction of nuclear power on a large scale. We are a great power, but not a superpower.

Mate, noone gives a toss about invading each other anymore. Nuclear Detrrents are needed in some cases against rogue states. It's not our job to police the world. We'd have a much better health system, education system and the like if we didn't have to pay for all this. The nordic states are often seen as some of the greatest places in the world for people to live, even with a particularly small army and regular sized economy. Good Economy =/= Good, Happy people. At the moment we stand in a good position with the 6th or 7th largest economy, with good influence, but even now, the whole of the EU are sanctioning Iran collectively, which is more effective than alone. These new nuclear power stations will be built by EDF I think. Who will provide us with expensive power, so the French can subsidise their own. This is the problem with privatising, everything becomes more expensive, because all everyone cares about is making money and not providing people with a decent service at manageable rates.



We are looking forward and the future of this country is generally agreed by the largely conservative-leaning public. We want to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a independant state. We do not want to be the European Union.
Well, you'll find that I don't think we'll be leaving anytime soon, especially in an economic crisis like this.

-:Undertaker:-
15-04-2009, 11:47 PM
You sounded like you had a good argument there, until you said 'leftie-madness.' It's not above nations because every nation has the right to cede. Once that right is lost, a nation loses it's soveriegnty. It's called 'pooling sovereignty' not 'giving it away.'

And to your economics theory, it's true, it could provide 'dead jobs' and it could produce an inefficient government, but like benefits, at the end of the day, these wages are getting spent somewhere. Increasing benefits can be argued that it increases aggregate demand. Also, it's better to have people in work setting good examples to everyone than people out of work.


Again, left-wing losers, another right-winger who isn't prepared to look through other people's eyes. Soon you will be calling them NuLierbore, liek the rest of some of the right-wing ******s. Yes, the commision is the most important part of the EU and I think this needs reforming, but at the end of the day, it is democratically elected in as governments simply send representatives. Some people can't see through the nationalistic glasses they wear and cannot see the problems created by an isolated united kingdom.


Please don't tell me you read the Daily Mail. It's a rag. Even Cameron reads the Guardian. Daily Mail is a libelous newspaper that publishes mostly opinion and not factual news. The Guardian on the other hand, I feel is more balanced factually, but has quite left-wing commentors. It divides it up more. At least read the telegraph or times if you are right-wing.


Where are the allies? Oh wait, they're in Europe and the USA. Treaties? Oh these free trade treaties are part of the EU/EEA. There's no guarantee that we would get free trade with other nations if we aren't part of a trading bloc. They'd easily put up taxes on imported goods, lowering demand of our goods even more, destroying our economy. You seem to think that other nations don't want to protect themselves. Why do you think the EU put up limits for imported chinese clothes, it's because they are trying to protect their own businesses. What makes you think they'd be any different to us, with our exports like food/fish/fianances/cars/arms/trains/planes.


Uh-uh, when the United States was first being formed, there was and is still no official language. It's a union of ex-british and other countries' foreign territories. Lousianna for example, spoke mostly French before it was annexed. The same for other south westerly US states. Of course some people don't agree with each other, I think some 'hatred,' as you call it, comes from some arrogance that some brits have.

Labour is a socialist group and is part of an international socialist group. If you know so much why are you 'accusing' them of being socialist. Much of the EU is left-wing, so is this country in comparison with the USA, so I'm not suprised they disliked our right-wing government. You are again treating the EU as something above states. Why do you think the EU Constitution failed to pass? It was because all nations (including the Netherlands and France, two nations who are in the very heart of european politics) didn't agree that the constitution was right for them. The Lisbon treaty won't pass in every nation, i assure you. It will fail again in Ireland. It hasn't been ratified here yet either. The EU is already a political identity. Do you not see the EU flags that are shown in some places, where European Money was used to build/fund social things.

Don't you think that it is a bit odd how it took Europe to tell our government to stop taking DNA and storing it of youngsters. Don't you think it's ironic that European Commision are investigating BT of there privacy breaches with 'Phorm.'

Mate, noone gives a toss about invading each other anymore. Nuclear Detrrents are needed in some cases against rogue states. It's not our job to police the world. We'd have a much better health system, education system and the like if we didn't have to pay for all this. The nordic states are often seen as some of the greatest places in the world for people to live, even with a particularly small army and regular sized economy. Good Economy =/= Good, Happy people. At the moment we stand in a good position with the 6th or 7th largest economy, with good influence, but even now, the whole of the EU are sanctioning Iran collectively, which is more effective than alone. These new nuclear power stations will be built by EDF I think. Who will provide us with expensive power, so the French can subsidise their own. This is the problem with privatising, everything becomes more expensive, because all everyone cares about is making money and not providing people with a decent service at manageable rates.


Well, you'll find that I don't think we'll be leaving anytime soon, especially in an economic crisis like this.

The EU knows nations will not cede from the Union because those in power are constantly in its grip, exactly why it did not approve of the Thatcher government. We do not want to dissolve or 'pool' our sovereignty, that is exaxtly why a referendum must be held.

At the same time though you are losing money and that is why it is not sustainable and doesn't work. I am proud of our industrial past, very proud; but at the same time I believe what she did was right and has reformed this country.

It may be democratically elected by our government, many of whom will recieve nice jobs in the EU when they retire from UK politics. The EU is supposed to be for the people of europe, well how about before it starts muttering how its democratically elected, it actually lets us elect whether or not we want it. If the Republic of Ireland had voted yes, do we think they'd be put to another vote? - no, we know they wouldn't.

Their are no problems caused by a 'isolated' United Kingdom, the EU started as a trading group and has now become a political union which is unacceptable. Thatcher warned of it in the last days of her premiership and she was laughed at by the Labour/Liberal Democrat side and how right she was. It is unbelievable that our MP's get elected to sign away their powers to a faceless and biased organisation which doesn't even like us that much.

Regardless of what I read, I will read the Daily Mail because I agree with the majority of its views, that is why certain papers are more popular than others. The Guardian on the other hand, well all I can say is I don't want to be reading about how I have 10 years left to live due to the global warming theory. Mr Cameron can read whatever he likes, i'm not as much of a fan of him as I was of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, although I think he would make a better Prime Minister than the idiot we have now.

You make it seem like everyone is out there to get us, it is total nonsense. The commonwealth is friendly with us and I think we should focus on it a lot more, countries such as France which are in NATO would nevr stop buying from us otherwise they would suffer economic sanctions from other NATO allies such as the United States. There is no threat, the EU say this because they want a centralised command economy like the Soviet Union, which didn't work.

Yes, as I said for the most part and not the whole part the United States wanted to be one country. We however do not want to be part of the European Union and why can't you and other supporters of it accept this?

The EU is not an offical political identity at the moment from what I have read, it is a series of treaties. Once this treaty is passed (and they will manage to ram it through) it will become a 'state' of its own. The French and Netherlands haven't been given a referendum this time and I wonder why? - oh yes!, because they know it will fail yet again. The Irish only held the referendum because they legally have to. The EU may 'fund' these things, but it is funding it with the money we gave it. What is the point in handing the EU, lets say 10 billion, the EU spends 3 billion here, and then spends the rest in other places; i'm sorry but that isn't being 'nice', thats daylight robbery.

We pay more to the EU than we recieve from them, so how do you work out that health care would be more efficent, that in economic terms does not make sense. As for the privatising point, no it doesn't, because we'd just be paying higher taxes for these services otherwise, the only difference is that at least when not run by central government they can make a profit and that people who do not use them services don't have to suffer higher taxes. It is called being independant. The NHS is another example of why everything had to be privatised, the NHS is a monolithic time bomb which is constantly bombarded with regulations and targets from central government. This is where the difference in socialist and capitalist economics comes in, compare the economy of the west to the east in the Cold War.

The EU sanctioning Iran?, that is the whole point of the United Nations which is a non-biased organisation. This is yet another example of the EU being too big for its own shoes. People care about making money because with a profit it means lower taxes, people spend more money across a wide spectrum and it creates more jobs. It is simple economics and is only proven with the demise of the Soviet economy and the incredible money making machine that is the United States and the western world. As Margaret Thatcher once said to a socialist "would you rather the poor be poorer?".

The EU cannot and has not helped us one bit in this economic crisis, and it will and cannot solve this. Infact, its been more of a hinderence than a help. The money wasted on the EU could of done so much in this country, after all it is our money. I think you'll notice it is not the EU but the United States and organisations like the G20 which have any hope of solving this crisis. The EU, like always, is attempting to be everybodys friend so national governments can report back to their public and say "hey look, the EU is solving the recession." - if only they could say the EU has asked for every country to have a vote on whether they even want to be part of it.

We will leave one day, when people start seeing what a biased and waste of money it is (most already do), and then hopefully a government with some balls will come in and take us out.

Whether you support the EU or not, you need to understand people do not want it and you cannot use the excuse such as biased newspapers, in that case we wouldn't have general elections at all.

alexxxxx
16-04-2009, 09:25 AM
The EU knows nations will not cede from the Union because those in power are constantly in its grip, exactly why it did not approve of the Thatcher government. We do not want to dissolve or 'pool' our sovereignty, that is exaxtly why a referendum must be held.

Constantly in grip = too many good reasons to be a member.



At the same time though you are losing money and that is why it is not sustainable and doesn't work. I am proud of our industrial past, very proud; but at the same time I believe what she did was right and has reformed this country.

I disagree.



It may be democratically elected by our government, many of whom will recieve nice jobs in the EU when they retire from UK politics. The EU is supposed to be for the people of europe, well how about before it starts muttering how its democratically elected, it actually lets us elect whether or not we want it. If the Republic of Ireland had voted yes, do we think they'd be put to another vote? - no, we know they wouldn't.

If everyone doesn't want to be in it and feel SO strongly about it, they'd vote for UKIP or *shudder* BNP.



Their are no problems caused by a 'isolated' United Kingdom, the EU started as a trading group and has now become a political union which is unacceptable. Thatcher warned of it in the last days of her premiership and she was laughed at by the Labour/Liberal Democrat side and how right she was. It is unbelievable that our MP's get elected to sign away their powers to a faceless and biased organisation which doesn't even like us that much.

There is a problem with an isolated UK. Trade, trade, trade, trade, trade and more trade like i've told you before. It's not all about people not wanting to trade with us, it's the fact that if countries or unions turn protectionist (which the EU are with the CAP, and the USA), our goods will turn so expensive! If the european economy grows faster than ours, the euro and dollar could be in higher demand than our pound, devalueing it (which is good for exports, but pretty poor for imports).


Regardless of what I read, I will read the Daily Mail because I agree with the majority of its views, that is why certain papers are more popular than others. The Guardian on the other hand, well all I can say is I don't want to be reading about how I have 10 years left to live due to the global warming theory. Mr Cameron can read whatever he likes, i'm not as much of a fan of him as I was of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, although I think he would make a better Prime Minister than the idiot we have now.

Great. You shouldn't read 'because it agrees with my views' you should read it 'because it informs me of what is happening in my own country and around the world so I can begin to understand the problems my nation faces and who could be best to lead us.'



You make it seem like everyone is out there to get us, it is total nonsense. The commonwealth is friendly with us and I think we should focus on it a lot more, countries such as France which are in NATO would nevr stop buying from us otherwise they would suffer economic sanctions from other NATO allies such as the United States. There is no threat, the EU say this because they want a centralised command economy like the Soviet Union, which didn't work.

Noone is 'out to get us.' I think you thought the opposite with the french minister in your other post. I'm saying everyone is looking out for themselves. The french were under alot of pressure because they were applying proctionist measures in their car industry and Japan and the EU put alot of pressure on the USA for a 'buy american' clause in a recent economy bail-out bill. Protectionism is the worst thing for our economy right now.



Yes, as I said for the most part and not the whole part the United States wanted to be one country. We however do not want to be part of the European Union and why can't you and other supporters of it accept this?

For the most part, yes, most people do want to be part of the United States, I was just pointing out you were wrong how they built from a common language. How I see it is that if we leave the EU for the EEA (like Iceland or Denmark), we lose a large part of our voice in europe. I personally believe that we'd be willing to be more of a part of the EU if the tories didn't screw us up by overvalueing our currency on the ERM and then boosting our interest rates 5% in 3 hours to attempt to keep us on it.



The EU is not an offical political identity at the moment from what I have read, it is a series of treaties. Once this treaty is passed (and they will manage to ram it through) it will become a 'state' of its own. The French and Netherlands haven't been given a referendum this time and I wonder why? - oh yes!, because they know it will fail yet again. The Irish only held the referendum because they legally have to. The EU may 'fund' these things, but it is funding it with the money we gave it. What is the point in handing the EU, lets say 10 billion, the EU spends 3 billion here, and then spends the rest in other places; i'm sorry but that isn't being 'nice', thats daylight robbery.

We pay more to the EU than we recieve from them, so how do you work out that health care would be more efficent, that in economic terms does not make sense. As for the privatising point, no it doesn't, because we'd just be paying higher taxes for these services otherwise, the only difference is that at least when not run by central government they can make a profit and that people who do not use them services don't have to suffer higher taxes. It is called being independant. The NHS is another example of why everything had to be privatised, the NHS is a monolithic time bomb which is constantly bombarded with regulations and targets from central government. This is where the difference in socialist and capitalist economics comes in, compare the economy of the west to the east in the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate (we get the majority of what we don't recieve back) - I also believe that if you privatise the NHS, the tories would lose SO MUCH SUPPORT it's untrue. Would you like to live in the USA where they let people DIE because they don't have the money to pay for insurance. It's sickening.



The EU sanctioning Iran?, that is the whole point of the United Nations which is a non-biased organisation. This is yet another example of the EU being too big for its own shoes. People care about making money because with a profit it means lower taxes, people spend more money across a wide spectrum and it creates more jobs. It is simple economics and is only proven with the demise of the Soviet economy and the incredible money making machine that is the United States and the western world. As Margaret Thatcher once said to a socialist "would you rather the poor be poorer?".

The UN won't do anything. They sit there and make some decisions but at the end of the day the permanant members on the security council have to all agree, something that russia doesn't always like doing. Socialism doesn't have to be Communism or far left at all. France has a very good economy, a more productive economy and is more left wing than us. There unions pressure for so much in France, they fight for what they need, they strike, which is more than can be said in this country. Better standard of living, better economy and slightly more left-wing as a whole.


The EU cannot and has not helped us one bit in this economic crisis, and it will and cannot solve this. Infact, its been more of a hinderence than a help. The money wasted on the EU could of done so much in this country, after all it is our money. I think you'll notice it is not the EU but the United States and organisations like the G20 which have any hope of solving this crisis. The EU, like always, is attempting to be everybodys friend so national governments can report back to their public and say "hey look, the EU is solving the recession." - if only they could say the EU has asked for every country to have a vote on whether they even want to be part of it.

EU Rebate... again. The G20 is a joke because they are at the end of the day attempting to look out for themselves. If the free market wasn't available, I expect our largest trading partners would have jumped at 'trying to look after their own.'



We will leave one day, when people start seeing what a biased and waste of money it is (most already do), and then hopefully a government with some balls will come in and take us out.

Whether you support the EU or not, you need to understand people do not want it and you cannot use the excuse such as biased newspapers, in that case we wouldn't have general elections at all.
The tories won't leave the EU. My excuse isn't biased newspapers but a distorted view on the treaty itself. I understand the EU is unpopular.

This is my last post because frankly I'm never going to change your tory-tory opinion on the world and you're never going to change me.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2009, 01:39 PM
Constantly in grip = too many good reasons to be a member.


I disagree.


If everyone doesn't want to be in it and feel SO strongly about it, they'd vote for UKIP or *shudder* BNP.


There is a problem with an isolated UK. Trade, trade, trade, trade, trade and more trade like i've told you before. It's not all about people not wanting to trade with us, it's the fact that if countries or unions turn protectionist (which the EU are with the CAP, and the USA), our goods will turn so expensive! If the european economy grows faster than ours, the euro and dollar could be in higher demand than our pound, devalueing it (which is good for exports, but pretty poor for imports).

Great. You shouldn't read 'because it agrees with my views' you should read it 'because it informs me of what is happening in my own country and around the world so I can begin to understand the problems my nation faces and who could be best to lead us.'


Noone is 'out to get us.' I think you thought the opposite with the french minister in your other post. I'm saying everyone is looking out for themselves. The french were under alot of pressure because they were applying proctionist measures in their car industry and Japan and the EU put alot of pressure on the USA for a 'buy american' clause in a recent economy bail-out bill. Protectionism is the worst thing for our economy right now.


For the most part, yes, most people do want to be part of the United States, I was just pointing out you were wrong how they built from a common language. How I see it is that if we leave the EU for the EEA (like Iceland or Denmark), we lose a large part of our voice in europe. I personally believe that we'd be willing to be more of a part of the EU if the tories didn't screw us up by overvalueing our currency on the ERM and then boosting our interest rates 5% in 3 hours to attempt to keep us on it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate (we get the majority of what we don't recieve back) - I also believe that if you privatise the NHS, the tories would lose SO MUCH SUPPORT it's untrue. Would you like to live in the USA where they let people DIE because they don't have the money to pay for insurance. It's sickening.


The UN won't do anything. They sit there and make some decisions but at the end of the day the permanant members on the security council have to all agree, something that russia doesn't always like doing. Socialism doesn't have to be Communism or far left at all. France has a very good economy, a more productive economy and is more left wing than us. There unions pressure for so much in France, they fight for what they need, they strike, which is more than can be said in this country. Better standard of living, better economy and slightly more left-wing as a whole.

EU Rebate... again. The G20 is a joke because they are at the end of the day attempting to look out for themselves. If the free market wasn't available, I expect our largest trading partners would have jumped at 'trying to look after their own.'


The tories won't leave the EU. My excuse isn't biased newspapers but a distorted view on the treaty itself. I understand the EU is unpopular.

This is my last post because frankly I'm never going to change your tory-tory opinion on the world and you're never going to change me.

Too many good reasons? - ask the general public then if you think signing away sovereignty and paying them to rule us is a good reason. As I said before, our politicians are in the grip of the EU and the ones who don't support the EU usually get thrown out of the party/put to the back benches, and yes sadly and annoyingly its on the tory side aswell.

You may disagree but economics do not.

Thanks to our voting system UKIP do not get a voice, even though they recieve many votes. Our voting system is designed to keep smaller parties out and the bigger parties in. Believe you me, UKIP will continue to grow and the EU will become a issue. We need someone who will not sign away our sovereignty away the moment they are elected in our parliament.

That is rubbish, its proven that we pay much more for our food than it is worth and that other countries pay. Thanks to limits on our fishing and our farming, not to mention the pathetic rule that means we throw away vegtables like for instance, a carrot which is slightly bent. What a waste and what a disgrace. The french fisherman are protesting against the EU, so if you support the EU it is nothing to be proud of.

No I read it because it tells the truth about what a power grabbing union this is, what does the Guardian tell me? - how i'm going to die in 10 years from global warming, no thanks thats not my cup of tea. Again, Margaret Thatcher said years ago and warned about how the EU was becoming a superstate, her claims were dismissed by Labour, Liberal Democrats and the EU itself; now look at it, a motto, emblem and anthem? - what planet are these eurocrats on!

We are hated by europe why don't you get this, if Britain doesn't do what it is told by the EU then the EU hates it, as with Thatcher. Anyone who stands up to it is considered a nail in the thumb and the sooner they are got rid of, the better from the EU point of view. Please don't lecture me on how the tories supposedly ruined our economy, because that is utter rubbish. Our pound sterling has remained a strong currency since the 1980's and certainly wouldn't of been a strong currency throughout them years if Labour had continued on with post war decline and strikes, my dad remembers rubbish piling up on the streets, it was an absolute disgrace and a blot on this countrys history.

Oh yes, the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher who the EU hate. Now we see how glad they were when she was gone, and how they made Tony Blair sign away much of the rebate when he gained office - that is democratic now isn't it of them!

As for the NHS I didn't say it was privatised, I think it shouldn't be run like a central command economy as it is now. However non-essential services like rail, and so forth are not a use to everyone, so why should we pay for something we do not use. The NHS needs to be managed better, as healthcare is essential to everyone.

The UN is called democracy, something socialism hates. Members with different views coming together and discussing issues is what is needed in a world democracy. France is totally different from this country, and I wouldn't say France love socialism, their economy is very capitalist and their social politics swap from socialist to conservative often, at the moment it is conservative.

The EU rebate?, i'm sorry but I don't think giving the EU a certain amount and recieving less back is any good at all? - where do you get this view from its astonishing?, thats like charging yourself on your own money!

The G20 has more chance again, of finding a solution. If you agree the EU is unpopular then why will you not agree to a referendum, or just let it die like it should of as soon as it started meddling in places it shouldn't. It is our sovereignty, our country and not europes. The people of europe do not want it - but I suppose that is where socialism hits the rocks, because it never will understand what the people want, it will only ever work for its own selfish needs and now it is forming a union which we are throwing more and more of our sovereignty away into.

If the EU was giving us billions in extra money (which its not, we are actually paying them) to change our laws/economics, then I still wouldn't agree with it. We vote in our parliament for our rules and that is why we fought two world wars not to be controlled by europe, now we're willingly signing it over.

alexxxxx
16-04-2009, 03:50 PM
Too many good reasons? - ask the general public then if you think signing away sovereignty and paying them to rule us is a good reason. As I said before, our politicians are in the grip of the EU and the ones who don't support the EU usually get thrown out of the party/put to the back benches, and yes sadly and annoyingly its on the tory side aswell.

The 'general public' go on holidays in the EU, visa free. The 'general public' move abroad and work abroad with no restrictions, the 'general public' work for multi-national firms or farms that export abroad with no restrictions, the 'general public' consume goods and food that are monitored heavily and need to pass health checks (E-numbers for example), the 'general public' are protected from this governments incompitance by the EU, the 'general public' import goods cheaper from foreign countires, the 'general public' get polish plumbers to fit their new bathrooms, the 'general public' benefit from the EU Social Fund on projects that are refused government funding, the 'general public' can take back as much wine and **** from europe as they can consume, the 'general public' can use other EU embassies abroad if the british one is shut, the 'general public' can study abroad in programs at university with ease. The whole lot of Liverpool has been retransformed with EU money, a place which some people could argue that the national government forgot for example.



Thanks to our voting system UKIP do not get a voice, even though they recieve many votes. Our voting system is designed to keep smaller parties out and the bigger parties in. Believe you me, UKIP will continue to grow and the EU will become a issue. We need someone who will not sign away our sovereignty away the moment they are elected in our parliament.


They obviously aren't a big enough party yet then are they.



That is rubbish, its proven that we pay much more for our food than it is worth and that other countries pay. Thanks to limits on our fishing and our farming, not to mention the pathetic rule that means we throw away vegtables like for instance, a carrot which is slightly bent. What a waste and what a disgrace. The french fisherman are protesting against the EU, so if you support the EU it is nothing to be proud of.

It is true, we pay more, but what i meant was that our goods going abroad will cost more if we are not in the EU.



No I read it because it tells the truth about what a power grabbing union this is, what does the Guardian tell me? - how i'm going to die in 10 years from global warming, no thanks thats not my cup of tea. Again, Margaret Thatcher said years ago and warned about how the EU was becoming a superstate, her claims were dismissed by Labour, Liberal Democrats and the EU itself; now look at it, a motto, emblem and anthem? - what planet are these eurocrats on!

The motto, emblem and anthem have since been removed from the treaty.



We are hated by europe why don't you get this, if Britain doesn't do what it is told by the EU then the EU hates it, as with Thatcher. Anyone who stands up to it is considered a nail in the thumb and the sooner they are got rid of, the better from the EU point of view. Please don't lecture me on how the tories supposedly ruined our economy, because that is utter rubbish. Our pound sterling has remained a strong currency since the 1980's and certainly wouldn't of been a strong currency throughout them years if Labour had continued on with post war decline and strikes, my dad remembers rubbish piling up on the streets, it was an absolute disgrace and a blot on this countrys history.

The french dislike the germans, the french dislike the spanish, we like the dutch, we like the nordic states, we dislike the... oh whatever. My parents are conservative, my area has been a conservative stronghold for over 20 years. But many towns and villages near where I live are desperately poor, Derby isn't the richest place, neither is nottingham, these, sheffield and other more northern cities have felt social decline since industries and coal mines have been driven out.



Oh yes, the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher who the EU hate. Now we see how glad they were when she was gone, and how they made Tony Blair sign away much of the rebate when he gained office - that is democratic now isn't it of them!

As for the NHS I didn't say it was privatised, I think it shouldn't be run like a central command economy as it is now. However non-essential services like rail, and so forth are not a use to everyone, so why should we pay for something we do not use. The NHS needs to be managed better, as healthcare is essential to everyone.

Rail, buses, dentists, power, water, gas and telephone should all be publically owned so foreign owners don't come in and just rip us off. Which is what has happened.



The UN is called democracy, something socialism hates. Members with different views coming together and discussing issues is what is needed in a world democracy. France is totally different from this country, and I wouldn't say France love socialism, their economy is very capitalist and their social politics swap from socialist to conservative often, at the moment it is conservative.

UN is not a democracy as the main people can veto resolutions. Therefore it isn't a democracy. France is much more left wing in it's people.



The EU rebate?, i'm sorry but I don't think giving the EU a certain amount and recieving less back is any good at all? - where do you get this view from its astonishing?, thats like charging yourself on your own money!

You could see it as the cost of letting British people/companies compete on a european level.



The G20 has more chance again, of finding a solution. If you agree the EU is unpopular then why will you not agree to a referendum, or just let it die like it should of as soon as it started meddling in places it shouldn't. It is our sovereignty, our country and not europes. The people of europe do not want it - but I suppose that is where socialism hits the rocks, because it never will understand what the people want, it will only ever work for its own selfish needs and now it is forming a union which we are throwing more and more of our sovereignty away into.

If the EU was giving us billions in extra money (which its not, we are actually paying them) to change our laws/economics, then I still wouldn't agree with it. We vote in our parliament for our rules and that is why we fought two world wars not to be controlled by europe, now we're willingly signing it over.
The G20 is a joke. It's just a time where everyone can come together, have a bit of a drink and a dance, show off to the TV cameras that they are internationally co-operating. The global stimulous plan was not mostly new money, but money that already been pledged.

I hate this whole 'we fought the war to keep them out' stuff. The 'what would our war heroes think now.' You know what i think, I think they'd be glad that we aren't fighting each other anymore and we are united in what we do. Maybe they don't agree with how much sovereignty we pool, but I don;t think they'd be against any sort of council of europe. Because what we were really fighting was German Facism, not 'Europe.' We were fighting for our freedom, which is what the German's lost in voting for the Nazis. I think we will get a referendum (or it won't pass in the house of commons), the Lisbon Treaty, which is slightly different (albeit very similiar) to the constitution.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2009, 05:19 PM
The 'general public' go on holidays in the EU, visa free. The 'general public' move abroad and work abroad with no restrictions, the 'general public' work for multi-national firms or farms that export abroad with no restrictions, the 'general public' consume goods and food that are monitored heavily and need to pass health checks (E-numbers for example), the 'general public' are protected from this governments incompitance by the EU, the 'general public' import goods cheaper from foreign countires, the 'general public' get polish plumbers to fit their new bathrooms, the 'general public' benefit from the EU Social Fund on projects that are refused government funding, the 'general public' can take back as much wine and **** from europe as they can consume, the 'general public' can use other EU embassies abroad if the british one is shut, the 'general public' can study abroad in programs at university with ease. The whole lot of Liverpool has been retransformed with EU money, a place which some people could argue that the national government forgot for example.



They obviously aren't a big enough party yet then are they.


It is true, we pay more, but what i meant was that our goods going abroad will cost more if we are not in the EU.


The motto, emblem and anthem have since been removed from the treaty.


The french dislike the germans, the french dislike the spanish, we like the dutch, we like the nordic states, we dislike the... oh whatever. My parents are conservative, my area has been a conservative stronghold for over 20 years. But many towns and villages near where I live are desperately poor, Derby isn't the richest place, neither is nottingham, these, sheffield and other more northern cities have felt social decline since industries and coal mines have been driven out.


Rail, buses, dentists, power, water, gas and telephone should all be publically owned so foreign owners don't come in and just rip us off. Which is what has happened.


UN is not a democracy as the main people can veto resolutions. Therefore it isn't a democracy. France is much more left wing in it's people.


You could see it as the cost of letting British people/companies compete on a european level.


The G20 is a joke. It's just a time where everyone can come together, have a bit of a drink and a dance, show off to the TV cameras that they are internationally co-operating. The global stimulous plan was not mostly new money, but money that already been pledged.

I hate this whole 'we fought the war to keep them out' stuff. The 'what would our war heroes think now.' You know what i think, I think they'd be glad that we aren't fighting each other anymore and we are united in what we do. Maybe they don't agree with how much sovereignty we pool, but I don;t think they'd be against any sort of council of europe. Because what we were really fighting was German Facism, not 'Europe.' We were fighting for our freedom, which is what the German's lost in voting for the Nazis. I think we will get a referendum (or it won't pass in the house of commons), the Lisbon Treaty, which is slightly different (albeit very similiar) to the constitution.

The general public could travel to europe regardless of the EU, what pathetic excuse for signing away sovereignty. If the general public felt this way they would support the EU, and no doubt we would of been asked if we wanted the Libson Treaty if the public were in support; why?, because they would only hold a referendum if they were sure of a victory. As for Liverpool please don't lecture me about my own city, I know what happend in Liverpool and its this; after the toxteth riots Michael Heseltine visited the city and many new modern buildings were built in that period, which saw Liverpool beginning to transform. As for recent money that has gone into the city, it has not been EU money it has come from central government. Even if it had come from the EU, we could of had even more money if the government hadn't given it to the EU in the first place, again your acting as if the EU is giving us money, it is taking our money, taxing it and giving us some of it back.

No they aren't, thanks to us not having proportional representation and the fact that the main parties want to keep the EU off the agenda because it is an embaraessment to them all.

Then basically the economic side of the EU is also worthless, in a global world like now none of this will matter anymore, and that is precisely why the EU is changing from an economic union to a political union. It has absolutly no value or place in our country, it costs us billions, takes away our right to govern ourselves and is a biased organisation which refuses to accept conflicting opinions with its own, and will not take no for an answer.

They have been removed from the treaty, but will no doubt be side-slipped in the new EU once the Lisbon Treaty is in place. The original treaty showed us their eventual aim, so since it got rejected they had no choice but to water it down, their motive for it is still there and they will not rest until they achieve their eventual aim.

No it is true, I have even proven it with a french officals' opinion on the Thatcher government which clearly indictated their delight in our voted in Prime Minister toppling from power as a result of the EU. How can you say areas such as Sheffield and so on have suffered?, the country has got richer and city centres in places like Sheffield have been transformed from post-war industrial wrecks to growing financial cities. Would you rather the poor be poorer?

You will never ever have both rich and poor on the same level and nor is that right, but you can have both groups better off as is what happend thanks to the Thatcher government. The thing socialism cannot grasp is that wealth creates investment which in turn creates jobs. Foreign ownership is not ideal, but i'm afraid paying higher taxes for services a lot of our parents do not use is not fair and is not right either, if a small section of the public use the trains, why should the all of the public have to pay for them services even when they are not using them? - they shouldn't, it is that simple. When you have services that are run by the government not only do they require the same amount to run, they do not have the motivation or will to make a profit, because they will always have public money to support them so it wouldn't matter at all if they didn't make a profit. Then you have the unions who constantly strike and kept on striking in order to influence the government even though most of the workers didn't want to strike, and of course the Labour government of the day eventually gave in because it had to, whereas a private company can only put wages up so much. The trouble in the 1980's was the unions and militants who could not stand losing their grip on power and were fully fledged militant communists/socialists who hated the thought of people working for themselves. Arthur Scargill, what a disgrace and complete idiot, but a still remembered as a beacon to socialists.

I'm sorry but the French voted in Nicholas Sarkozy, a conservative over a socialist. Therefore that argument is now defunct, social politics in a country change all the time regardless, economic politics don't and France has been a predominently capitalist economy for a long time. The French take pride in independance and working for your own means, thats precisely why they send the immigrants over here because they will not dare stand for sloppy immigration policies like we sadly do from our pathetic government.

The UN in a democracy, and if thats not a democracy then i'm afraid the EU is undescribable. No EU supporter can claim the UN is not a democratic body when the EU denies its people the right to vote on whether it should even exist.

The soldiers would like a united europe, but not a nation of europe, which is what Sir Winston Churchill also wanted. I'm afraid we can be a united europe without signing away our sovereignty and pouring money into the EU, just like we are allies with the United States. I don't see the United States demand we hand over sovereignty and money to them to be their ally. Therefore that argument is also defunct, you do not have to be in a union to have allies/security; but of course you will not agree as that is another excuse for us to surrender power by using the means to scare the public.

I doubt we will recieve a referendum (not if Labour can help it), and if we do, it will lose; which is excellent. The first step must be to stop the EU in its tracks, the second must be to eradicate it.

alexxxxx
16-04-2009, 11:16 PM
The general public could travel to europe regardless of the EU, what pathetic excuse for signing away sovereignty. If the general public felt this way they would support the EU, and no doubt we would of been asked if we wanted the Libson Treaty if the public were in support; why?, because they would only hold a referendum if they were sure of a victory. As for Liverpool please don't lecture me about my own city, I know what happend in Liverpool and its this; after the toxteth riots Michael Heseltine visited the city and many new modern buildings were built in that period, which saw Liverpool beginning to transform. As for recent money that has gone into the city, it has not been EU money it has come from central government. Even if it had come from the EU, we could of had even more money if the government hadn't given it to the EU in the first place, again your acting as if the EU is giving us money, it is taking our money, taxing it and giving us some of it back.

No, the top simply isn't true. You can't just 'go' and work in Russia, you can;t just 'go' and work in the USA, you can't just 'go' and work in Japan. You need Visas, permissions. You can't just 'go' and sell your products in China, you can't just 'go' and sell your products in New Zealand. There are barriers. I know alot of people who have gone to study abroad, moved abroad and work abroad - all thanks to free movement of people and goods.

Don't talk about things you don't know. Liverpool was a beneficiary of ALOT of EU funding as it was an 'Objective 1' city as it was one of the most deprived areas of europe. It's recieved hundreds of millions of pounds. There's no guarantee the government would have given you the money anyway. Maybe they would spend it in the south, where all the money is spent.



No they aren't, thanks to us not having proportional representation and the fact that the main parties want to keep the EU off the agenda because it is an embaraessment to them all.

If everyone cared so much about us not being in the EU, they'd vote UKIP in general elections. End of story. It's seen as something to complain about. Which is what this country is good at, all talk and no action.



Then basically the economic side of the EU is also worthless, in a global world like now none of this will matter anymore, and that is precisely why the EU is changing from an economic union to a political union. It has absolutly no value or place in our country, it costs us billions, takes away our right to govern ourselves and is a biased organisation which refuses to accept conflicting opinions with its own, and will not take no for an answer.

You keep talking about this 'global world' but can you please explain to me what you mean by this and how this affects trade. It costs us a couple of billion a year, a number that dwarfs the amount spent on bailouts of banks and the benefits that UK businesses gain. You know when you look on the road and you see a lorry registered from spain, the netherlands, belgium, germany etc, think about why it's here. It's because the EU/EEA free trade treaties allowed it. When you see them at dover, full to the brim with UK goods/food, think about why these goods are being purchased abroad, because of these treaties again. If the world is so 'globalised' as you say it is, why are we shelling out so much for our food? It's because we enforce a minimum price on our food, a protectionist thing to do. It's because we can't compete on price with people growing food in africa or in asia. So we enforce a minimum price. The world isn't a free-market or as much as a free market as you think it is.



They have been removed from the treaty, but will no doubt be side-slipped in the new EU once the Lisbon Treaty is in place. The original treaty showed us their eventual aim, so since it got rejected they had no choice but to water it down, their motive for it is still there and they will not rest until they achieve their eventual aim.

So it hasn't happened. And won't happen in the forceable future. It faced opposition. It failed. It will fail again.



No it is true, I have even proven it with a french officals' opinion on the Thatcher government which clearly indictated their delight in our voted in Prime Minister toppling from power as a result of the EU. How can you say areas such as Sheffield and so on have suffered?, the country has got richer and city centres in places like Sheffield have been transformed from post-war industrial wrecks to growing financial cities. Would you rather the poor be poorer?

No, I'd prefer the poor have jobs and that the governments who cut off the coal mines and industries kept their promises about new jobs to those areas.



You will never ever have both rich and poor on the same level and nor is that right, but you can have both groups better off as is what happend thanks to the Thatcher government. The thing socialism cannot grasp is that wealth creates investment which in turn creates jobs. Foreign ownership is not ideal, but i'm afraid paying higher taxes for services a lot of our parents do not use is not fair and is not right either, if a small section of the public use the trains, why should the all of the public have to pay for them services even when they are not using them? - they shouldn't, it is that simple. When you have services that are run by the government not only do they require the same amount to run, they do not have the motivation or will to make a profit, because they will always have public money to support them so it wouldn't matter at all if they didn't make a profit. Then you have the unions who constantly strike and kept on striking in order to influence the government even though most of the workers didn't want to strike, and of course the Labour government of the day eventually gave in because it had to, whereas a private company can only put wages up so much. The trouble in the 1980's was the unions and militants who could not stand losing their grip on power and were fully fledged militant communists/socialists who hated the thought of people working for themselves. Arthur Scargill, what a disgrace and complete idiot, but a still remembered as a beacon to socialists.

I think you'll find alot of people use the train, alot of people use buses, alot of people use electricity, alot of people use the internet and alot of people talk on their telephones. Why is it that these have to be sold off cheaply so that we get screwed over. I'm very left wing, I just think everyone should have the same opportunities and there is no barriers for anyone whatsoever. If someone wants to go to university, the idea of money shouldn't have to put them off. If someone wants to work further away and can't afford a car, why should they have to pay an extortionate amount of money to the faceless train companies. The companies can work in cartels and bribe regulators, but the government is answerable to us. We can vote them out, we can change it. But for the trains, if i want to go to london to see something, if i want to make a full day of it, leaving early, it's going to cost me a hell of alot of money. And there will still be plenty of spaces on that train. If i want to go to birmingham a journey that would only take, at maximum, an hour in the car, I haev to use the train which would take me the best part of 2 hours because there has been little investment. Where has the investment been recently? Oh, the south east. Like normal.



I'm sorry but the French voted in Nicholas Sarkozy, a conservative over a socialist. Therefore that argument is now defunct, social politics in a country change all the time regardless, economic politics don't and France has been a predominently capitalist economy for a long time. The French take pride in independance and working for your own means, thats precisely why they send the immigrants over here because they will not dare stand for sloppy immigration policies like we sadly do from our pathetic government.

Are you on about illegal immigrants? or immigrants. When I last checked, there were alot of immigrants in france, around 10% of the population, more than here, you don't even check your facts. I'm sure the pakistanis who can't speak french, but immigrate here to fill our doctor posts don't knock on their door to let them in first. The reasons for our docotr shortage is because of the expense of university. Even the Scots have got this right by demolishing fees.



The UN in a democracy, and if thats not a democracy then i'm afraid the EU is undescribable. No EU supporter can claim the UN is not a democratic body when the EU denies its people the right to vote on whether it should even exist.

I don't think we got a vote on the UN if it exists. And I don't think we even got a vote who sits in the 'parliament' there so to speak either. It's probably less democratic than the EU.



The soldiers would like a united europe, but not a nation of europe, which is what Sir Winston Churchill also wanted. I'm afraid we can be a united europe without signing away our sovereignty and pouring money into the EU, just like we are allies with the United States. I don't see the United States demand we hand over sovereignty and money to them to be their ally. Therefore that argument is also defunct, you do not have to be in a union to have allies/security; but of course you will not agree as that is another excuse for us to surrender power by using the means to scare the public.

The USA tell us what to do and we follow. We have a one-sided treaty with them concerning criminals. We have to send them the people who are wanted in the USA, but they don't have to send ours. Do you want more things like this? They have air bases in our country, but i'm pretty damn sure we wouldn't be allowed one in their country. There are no foreign air bases in the USA. And also, noone is going to attack us. Why do you keep on bringing up this whole 'ally' thing like we're sstill part of the triple-entente fighting in the war or some rubbish. All we do is attack a few guys in middle east to boost the USAs influence. I don't see Iceland having an army and they've not been attacked/invaded yet.



I doubt we will recieve a referendum (not if Labour can help it), and if we do, it will lose; which is excellent. The first step must be to stop the EU in its tracks, the second must be to eradicate it.
[/QUOTE]
You want to destroy the EU before or after we've left. Sounds like warmongering.

*yawn* going to bed.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2009, 11:51 PM
No, the top simply isn't true. You can't just 'go' and work in Russia, you can;t just 'go' and work in the USA, you can't just 'go' and work in Japan. You need Visas, permissions. You can't just 'go' and sell your products in China, you can't just 'go' and sell your products in New Zealand. There are barriers. I know alot of people who have gone to study abroad, moved abroad and work abroad - all thanks to free movement of people and goods.

Don't talk about things you don't know. Liverpool was a beneficiary of ALOT of EU funding as it was an 'Objective 1' city as it was one of the most deprived areas of europe. It's recieved hundreds of millions of pounds. There's no guarantee the government would have given you the money anyway. Maybe they would spend it in the south, where all the money is spent.


If everyone cared so much about us not being in the EU, they'd vote UKIP in general elections. End of story. It's seen as something to complain about. Which is what this country is good at, all talk and no action.


You keep talking about this 'global world' but can you please explain to me what you mean by this and how this affects trade. It costs us a couple of billion a year, a number that dwarfs the amount spent on bailouts of banks and the benefits that UK businesses gain. You know when you look on the road and you see a lorry registered from spain, the netherlands, belgium, germany etc, think about why it's here. It's because the EU/EEA free trade treaties allowed it. When you see them at dover, full to the brim with UK goods/food, think about why these goods are being purchased abroad, because of these treaties again. If the world is so 'globalised' as you say it is, why are we shelling out so much for our food? It's because we enforce a minimum price on our food, a protectionist thing to do. It's because we can't compete on price with people growing food in africa or in asia. So we enforce a minimum price. The world isn't a free-market or as much as a free market as you think it is.


So it hasn't happened. And won't happen in the forceable future. It faced opposition. It failed. It will fail again.


No, I'd prefer the poor have jobs and that the governments who cut off the coal mines and industries kept their promises about new jobs to those areas.


I think you'll find alot of people use the train, alot of people use buses, alot of people use electricity, alot of people use the internet and alot of people talk on their telephones. Why is it that these have to be sold off cheaply so that we get screwed over. I'm very left wing, I just think everyone should have the same opportunities and there is no barriers for anyone whatsoever. If someone wants to go to university, the idea of money shouldn't have to put them off. If someone wants to work further away and can't afford a car, why should they have to pay an extortionate amount of money to the faceless train companies. The companies can work in cartels and bribe regulators, but the government is answerable to us. We can vote them out, we can change it. But for the trains, if i want to go to london to see something, if i want to make a full day of it, leaving early, it's going to cost me a hell of alot of money. And there will still be plenty of spaces on that train. If i want to go to birmingham a journey that would only take, at maximum, an hour in the car, I haev to use the train which would take me the best part of 2 hours because there has been little investment. Where has the investment been recently? Oh, the south east. Like normal.


Are you on about illegal immigrants? or immigrants. When I last checked, there were alot of immigrants in france, around 10% of the population, more than here, you don't even check your facts. I'm sure the pakistanis who can't speak french, but immigrate here to fill our doctor posts don't knock on their door to let them in first. The reasons for our docotr shortage is because of the expense of university. Even the Scots have got this right by demolishing fees.


I don't think we got a vote on the UN if it exists. And I don't think we even got a vote who sits in the 'parliament' there so to speak either. It's probably less democratic than the EU.


The USA tell us what to do and we follow. We have a one-sided treaty with them concerning criminals. We have to send them the people who are wanted in the USA, but they don't have to send ours. Do you want more things like this? They have air bases in our country, but i'm pretty damn sure we wouldn't be allowed one in their country. There are no foreign air bases in the USA. And also, noone is going to attack us. Why do you keep on bringing up this whole 'ally' thing like we're sstill part of the triple-entente fighting in the war or some rubbish. All we do is attack a few guys in middle east to boost the USAs influence. I don't see Iceland having an army and they've not been attacked/invaded yet.



You want to destroy the EU before or after we've left. Sounds like warmongering.

*yawn* going to bed.[/QUOTE]


Barriers are good, and why? - because they stop terrorists and people we do not want coming into this country, its called security something that has disappeared in this country. I don't know about my own city?, you have dismissed my argument about Michael Heseltine (and you can see from the many 1980's buildings in Liverpool how much money was pumped into the city), you have also ignored my argument about how the money the EU 'gives' us is ours in the first place, except when we have it returned we have less given back. It is utter madness and if you want to bleat on about how generous they have been then be my guest, the fact remains that is our money they are giving back to us; with a signifigant portion missing.

This country will start turning to those parties believe you me, the problem is that with the current system we have in place it is very unfair on smaller parties. This country is different and independant, we do things our way and europe do it their way - another reason why we dont belong together.

Hang on, how do Switzerland, Ukraine, Norway and others cope without this wonderful EU? - well firstly they are involved particially in the treaties and have chosen not to have their sovereignty stamped upon. Many countries in the world have excellent trade and dont have to pay higher prices for their food like we have to, and guess what?; they aren't part of the EU. The EU has no excuse to be expanding into any other areas than trade.

It is not the governments job to set up and create worthless jobs which will cost the country money and make the whole of the country suffer. Your very unfair, i'm afraid the majority of this country who pay taxes do not want to go travelling to London/hardly use these services, so i'll ak again, why should my mum and dad pay tax for a service which they personally do not use but other people do. You pay for yourself, its called independance and its how you get on in the world rather than expecting the state to do everything. You can vote a government in and out if your industry is nationalised, it still doesn't stop high taxes and a service which is uneconomical.

Illegal immigration of course, and we only have to look at the French riots which occured not long ago which shows signs of racial problems already arising. I do not want the same in the United Kingdom and neither does anyone else.

Actually, I think your missing the crucial difference between the UN and the EU. Where the UN was generally agreed to be set up to avoid future world wars and use diplomatic means, it also doesnt command us to hand over sovereignty and has no desire of becoming a fully-fledged nation.

It was you who brought up a united europe to stop occurances like world war two happening again. The United States co-operates with us a lot and is the most powerful military force in NATO, therefore I do not mind at all them having a military base in this country. Iceland is a NATO country anyway so it is guranteed security by all of NATO in return for co-operation and bases. I would salute the US flag anyday over the EU flag. I don't agree with how politics between the United Kingdom and United States have gone over the past 15 or so years, but that can be changed. I would never ever support any EU army in any war and I refuse to recognize any EU army, or nation. It breaches my rights and the 'constitutional' values of the United Kingdom as a sovereign state.

Too right I want the EU to fail/collapse as soon as possible, as do the people of europe. Central command economys and multi-national unions do not work. I'd turn the war scare claim around, it is not me who warns we need a united europe to avert an event like world war two - it is the EU using false and ludicrous claims like that to scare people into the union.

Janeisntpleased
17-04-2009, 01:38 AM
there is actually no point to the current monarchy, it's all a formality.
the queen has no real powers because if she refused to pass a law or whatever it would just cause outrage which would put her position in jeopardy and ultimately lead to us getting rid of her anyway.

Blinger1
17-04-2009, 02:17 AM
I don't really mind if we are in a monarchy or not. I just want those two young kids (prince will and harry?) to become kings, now!!

Having a king that goes out and enjoys life would be sweet, or a king that goes to war.. WOO!!

Although as soon as king status is given to them, thats the end of their party days etc..

Caution
17-04-2009, 06:37 AM
I don't really mind if we are in a monarchy or not. I just want those two young kids (prince will and harry?) to become kings, now!!

Having a king that goes out and enjoys life would be sweet, or a king that goes to war.. WOO!!

Although as soon as king status is given to them, thats the end of their party days etc..
yeah and dressing up as nazi's and such.:rolleyes:

alexxxxx
17-04-2009, 09:38 AM
Barriers are good, and why? - because they stop terrorists and people we do not want coming into this country, its called security something that has disappeared in this country. I don't know about my own city?, you have dismissed my argument about Michael Heseltine (and you can see from the many 1980's buildings in Liverpool how much money was pumped into the city), you have also ignored my argument about how the money the EU 'gives' us is ours in the first place, except when we have it returned we have less given back. It is utter madness and if you want to bleat on about how generous they have been then be my guest, the fact remains that is our money they are giving back to us; with a signifigant portion missing.

Barriers to trade. Not barriers to people. Terrorism is such a stupid argument. The threat of terrorism is much largley reported and is an excuse for the governement to remove our civil liberties, something the EC is actually investigating. They've ruled our massive databases are illegal and the terrorism acts are being misused.


This country will start turning to those parties believe you me, the problem is that with the current system we have in place it is very unfair on smaller parties. This country is different and independant, we do things our way and europe do it their way - another reason why we dont belong together.

OK. But they haven't got there yet.



Hang on, how do Switzerland, Ukraine, Norway and others cope without this wonderful EU? - well firstly they are involved particially in the treaties and have chosen not to have their sovereignty stamped upon. Many countries in the world have excellent trade and dont have to pay higher prices for their food like we have to, and guess what?; they aren't part of the EU. The EU has no excuse to be expanding into any other areas than trade.

Our country gets ripped off, all the time, I don't understand why I'll admit, but other EU countries enjoy cheaper prices on alot of goods. We're just known as 'treasure island' by multinational firms. Switzerland are actually quite integrated. They are part of the Schengen area which means there aren't even passport checks on borders. Norway is a part of the EEA, which means they take the free trade and movement of people, but lose other benefits.



It is not the governments job to set up and create worthless jobs which will cost the country money and make the whole of the country suffer. Your very unfair, i'm afraid the majority of this country who pay taxes do not want to go travelling to London/hardly use these services, so i'll ak again, why should my mum and dad pay tax for a service which they personally do not use but other people do. You pay for yourself, its called independance and its how you get on in the world rather than expecting the state to do everything. You can vote a government in and out if your industry is nationalised, it still doesn't stop high taxes and a service which is uneconomical.

Privatisation doesn't work. What happens is that a goverment should, ideally, run it at break even, either investing profits used back into in the system or used to lower prices, lower prices means people can spend more money on other products, creating jobs and economic growth. Government contracts can be given to private firms, which creates jobs etc, economic growth etc, etc. Whilst in the other way, your way, we pay higher electricity costs to EDF so that the profits can subsidise the french. Or we pay extortiante prices on water that loses millions of litres a day in the system, due to poor maintenence and the profits are just taken abroad. Do you use electricity or do you have a wind-up computer?



Illegal immigration of course, and we only have to look at the French riots which occured not long ago which shows signs of racial problems already arising. I do not want the same in the United Kingdom and neither does anyone else.

We already had our riots in leeds and bradford. But apart from the BNP, most people are generally fairly tolerant of immigrants. The illegal immigrants come here because often they can speak a degree of english (the french-africans I imagine stay in france) and because of our history and our image of being very capitalist they feel that our country can offer them the chance of coming out of poverty.



Actually, I think your missing the crucial difference between the UN and the EU. Where the UN was generally agreed to be set up to avoid future world wars and use diplomatic means, it also doesnt command us to hand over sovereignty and has no desire of becoming a fully-fledged nation.

Yeah, that's correct, however, your arguments about saying 'we never voted to be in the EU' is the same as the UN and how it's also democratic. It's no more democratic, we just hold more power. The UN is unpopular in the USA because they feel they are bigger than it.



It was you who brought up a united europe to stop occurances like world war two happening again. The United States co-operates with us a lot and is the most powerful military force in NATO, therefore I do not mind at all them having a military base in this country. Iceland is a NATO country anyway so it is guranteed security by all of NATO in return for co-operation and bases. I would salute the US flag anyday over the EU flag. I don't agree with how politics between the United Kingdom and United States have gone over the past 15 or so years, but that can be changed. I would never ever support any EU army in any war and I refuse to recognize any EU army, or nation. It breaches my rights and the 'constitutional' values of the United Kingdom as a sovereign state.

That's pathetic that you'd 'salute the flag.' The USA's cooperation is just them telling us what to do. We are becoming unpopular because of our strong ties with the USA. The USA only care about themselves and is, in my eyes, corrupt. The USA want the EU to send all data on people visiting the US before they get there, but they won't do it the other way round. They are arrogant and have us round their little finger.



Too right I want the EU to fail/collapse as soon as possible, as do the people of europe. Central command economys and multi-national unions do not work. I'd turn the war scare claim around, it is not me who warns we need a united europe to avert an event like world war two - it is the EU using false and ludicrous claims like that to scare people into the union.
The EU isn't as unpopular on the mainland than here. When/If we're not in it, it's not our business if it fails or not.

Blinger1
17-04-2009, 10:23 AM
yeah and dressing up as nazi's and such.:rolleyes:
I like it. He is living life, having fun.

Would you rather the current queen who is too old to tell the difference between a spoon and fork? Or prince Charles who is so ugly and annoying that he makes Lindsay Lohan look good.

Caution
17-04-2009, 03:19 PM
I like it. He is living life, having fun.

Would you rather the current queen who is too old to tell the difference between a spoon and fork? Or prince Charles who is so ugly and annoying that he makes Lindsay Lohan look good.
what the hell? he's living life and having fun by dressing in the uniform of people who killed millions of people, yeah it sounds fun.:S

-:Undertaker:-
17-04-2009, 03:44 PM
Barriers to trade. Not barriers to people. Terrorism is such a stupid argument. The threat of terrorism is much largley reported and is an excuse for the governement to remove our civil liberties, something the EC is actually investigating. They've ruled our massive databases are illegal and the terrorism acts are being misused.

OK. But they haven't got there yet.


Our country gets ripped off, all the time, I don't understand why I'll admit, but other EU countries enjoy cheaper prices on alot of goods. We're just known as 'treasure island' by multinational firms. Switzerland are actually quite integrated. They are part of the Schengen area which means there aren't even passport checks on borders. Norway is a part of the EEA, which means they take the free trade and movement of people, but lose other benefits.


Privatisation doesn't work. What happens is that a goverment should, ideally, run it at break even, either investing profits used back into in the system or used to lower prices, lower prices means people can spend more money on other products, creating jobs and economic growth. Government contracts can be given to private firms, which creates jobs etc, economic growth etc, etc. Whilst in the other way, your way, we pay higher electricity costs to EDF so that the profits can subsidise the french. Or we pay extortiante prices on water that loses millions of litres a day in the system, due to poor maintenence and the profits are just taken abroad. Do you use electricity or do you have a wind-up computer?


We already had our riots in leeds and bradford. But apart from the BNP, most people are generally fairly tolerant of immigrants. The illegal immigrants come here because often they can speak a degree of english (the french-africans I imagine stay in france) and because of our history and our image of being very capitalist they feel that our country can offer them the chance of coming out of poverty.


Yeah, that's correct, however, your arguments about saying 'we never voted to be in the EU' is the same as the UN and how it's also democratic. It's no more democratic, we just hold more power. The UN is unpopular in the USA because they feel they are bigger than it.


That's pathetic that you'd 'salute the flag.' The USA's cooperation is just them telling us what to do. We are becoming unpopular because of our strong ties with the USA. The USA only care about themselves and is, in my eyes, corrupt. The USA want the EU to send all data on people visiting the US before they get there, but they won't do it the other way round. They are arrogant and have us round their little finger.


The EU isn't as unpopular on the mainland than here. When/If we're not in it, it's not our business if it fails or not.

If your talking about barriers to trade then why did you mention the movement of people, such as moving to other areas in europe?, you have just stabbed your own argument there. Trade can move around regardless of the EU, otherwise trade wouldn't exist. We have been trading as a nation for hundreds of years, so how come now we have to surrender sovereignty to continue what we have been doing for the past hundreds of years?

Wrong, Norway and non-EU countries are enjoying the benefits of EU trade but haven't had to surrender their sovereignty over for it. It jsut proves the EU does want to become a superpower, a nation. Its people do not.

Privatisation does work, you still haven't told me why my parents should pay for services they dont use. If you look at it actually, it makes perfect sense and destroys any argument socialism has. When you have lower taxes due to companies not being subsidised by tax, it means people have more money to spend, which means they can shop more, which in turn creates more jobs, you can afford to go on holiday, which in turn generates money for the airport, for the airlines, for the holiday companies and for local business in the country you are visiting, this in turn creates more jobs and more wealth. It is so simple and it is proven to work, just look at our economic growth from the 1980's to now, our economy recovered from terrible post-war decline in which tosspots like Arthur Scargill took advantage of.

No; the illegal immigrants come here because we give them more than any other country and they also have more of a chance of staying here if they get in. I'm sorry but why should taxpayers fund these people to live here when they often cause crime.

The difference, again, between the UN and EU is that the UN doesn't demand the handing over of sovereignty and isn't biased. The UN also serves a purpose of solving world affairs whereas the EU's only purpose is to build itself up as one nation.

The USA stand up for themselves, something this country needs to learn. The United States will always be our ally. Too right i'd salute the US flag than the EU one, I view the EU as nothing more than wanting to become a central command economy just like the Soviet Union. The USA is only unpopular due to the Bush Administration, it has in the past done the wrong things but in this world, I would rather the USA be the world power than the PROC and I would rather the EU not exist at all, just like most other people around europe.

It is our business if it fails or not, it is grabbing more and more of our sovereignty, our country is not theirs to govern and the sooner national governments around europe realise this and stop sleep walking into this undemocratic 'union' the better.

You may support it, but surely you must respect that people do not want the EU, just accept it and move on from the EU dream you and the eurocrats are living.

alexxxxx
17-04-2009, 05:42 PM
If your talking about barriers to trade then why did you mention the movement of people, such as moving to other areas in europe?, you have just stabbed your own argument there. Trade can move around regardless of the EU, otherwise trade wouldn't exist. We have been trading as a nation for hundreds of years, so how come now we have to surrender sovereignty to continue what we have been doing for the past hundreds of years?

I think you misunderstood what I said. The EU ensures free trade. Asia are currently trying to setup a common maket too. The NAFTA ensures free trade too between the USA and Canada. The EEA is our largest trading partner, leaving this union doesn't guarabtee our competition in it.



Wrong, Norway and non-EU countries are enjoying the benefits of EU trade but haven't had to surrender their sovereignty over for it. It jsut proves the EU does want to become a superpower, a nation. Its people do not.

Yeah, it's called the EEA. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA. :eusa_wall The people I have met when doing my european exchanges with people in Italy, France, Germany and another time in France, none of them had unfavourable views of the EU.



Privatisation does work, you still haven't told me why my parents should pay for services they dont use. If you look at it actually, it makes perfect sense and destroys any argument socialism has. When you have lower taxes due to companies not being subsidised by tax, it means people have more money to spend, which means they can shop more, which in turn creates more jobs, you can afford to go on holiday, which in turn generates money for the airport, for the airlines, for the holiday companies and for local business in the country you are visiting, this in turn creates more jobs and more wealth. It is so simple and it is proven to work, just look at our economic growth from the 1980's to now, our economy recovered from terrible post-war decline in which tosspots like Arthur Scargill took advantage of.

The rail companies still take subsidies from the government and still charge us stupid amounts of money. We pay twice. Tax bill goes up, the money goes abroad, less money is spent in UK shops, people lose jobs and downward spiral entails. All the companies are government sponsered monopolies, which then work in cartels against us and have no wish in reinvestment into the infastructure. All the torys did in the 80s was make a few million unemployed, sell off the country's silver, encourage people to buy houses that they then couldn't subsequently afford when the interest rates went up when a failed attempt at keeping inflation low happened. Only since the recession in 1991 (under a conservative government) as the economy grown again and now we have our slump. Your parents should continue to pay for subsidies because it is vital for movement of people around the country. In my eyes it doesn't matter if they use it or not, because they have the option of using it.



No; the illegal immigrants come here because we give them more than any other country and they also have more of a chance of staying here if they get in. I'm sorry but why should taxpayers fund these people to live here when they often cause crime.

Illegal immigrants get nothing. They aren't registered, they're under the radar. It's your daily mail goggles which are on again. Illegal Immigrants = Rapists/Murderes again. Most illegal immigrants keep their head down and work for little or no money and to escape poverty. I don't want illegal immigrants here as much as you do, but you see the world in such a one-dimensional way.



The difference, again, between the UN and EU is that the UN doesn't demand the handing over of sovereignty and isn't biased. The UN also serves a purpose of solving world affairs whereas the EU's only purpose is to build itself up as one nation.

The UN is completely different to the EU. The UN is a council to discuss global matters. It aids governments rather than aiding people in general (apart from peacekeeping).



The USA stand up for themselves, something this country needs to learn. The United States will always be our ally. Too right i'd salute the US flag than the EU one, I view the EU as nothing more than wanting to become a central command economy just like the Soviet Union. The USA is only unpopular due to the Bush Administration, it has in the past done the wrong things but in this world, I would rather the USA be the world power than the PROC and I would rather the EU not exist at all, just like most other people around europe.

The USA is so big and dominant, that's why it can. The USA isn't just unpopular because of the BA, but also because of it's stupid drug wars in the 70s/80s where they placed puppet governments in the Central and Southern Americas, it's arrogance and dominance, it's public defiance of the UN. And our weak leaders get duped into letting us get stringed along so it looks like the USA has global support for its own interests abroad.


It is our business if it fails or not, it is grabbing more and more of our sovereignty, our country is not theirs to govern and the sooner national governments around europe realise this and stop sleep walking into this undemocratic 'union' the better.

You may support it, but surely you must respect that people do not want the EU, just accept it and move on from the EU dream you and the eurocrats are living.

As the UKIP says, a vote for another party is a vote for the EU. I'm still not convinced it's cared enough yet, apart from the moaning, daily mail reading middle englanders.

You should respect people's negative views of the conservative party and thatcher. Hated by millions. I can understand why people don't want to be in the EU. I just disagree for reasons aforementioned. I think people are stupid if they want to leave the EEA however.

-:Undertaker:-
17-04-2009, 07:47 PM
I think you misunderstood what I said. The EU ensures free trade. Asia are currently trying to setup a common maket too. The NAFTA ensures free trade too between the USA and Canada. The EEA is our largest trading partner, leaving this union doesn't guarabtee our competition in it.


Yeah, it's called the EEA. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA. :eusa_wall The people I have met when doing my european exchanges with people in Italy, France, Germany and another time in France, none of them had unfavourable views of the EU.


The rail companies still take subsidies from the government and still charge us stupid amounts of money. We pay twice. Tax bill goes up, the money goes abroad, less money is spent in UK shops, people lose jobs and downward spiral entails. All the companies are government sponsered monopolies, which then work in cartels against us and have no wish in reinvestment into the infastructure. All the torys did in the 80s was make a few million unemployed, sell off the country's silver, encourage people to buy houses that they then couldn't subsequently afford when the interest rates went up when a failed attempt at keeping inflation low happened. Only since the recession in 1991 (under a conservative government) as the economy grown again and now we have our slump. Your parents should continue to pay for subsidies because it is vital for movement of people around the country. In my eyes it doesn't matter if they use it or not, because they have the option of using it.


Illegal immigrants get nothing. They aren't registered, they're under the radar. It's your daily mail goggles which are on again. Illegal Immigrants = Rapists/Murderes again. Most illegal immigrants keep their head down and work for little or no money and to escape poverty. I don't want illegal immigrants here as much as you do, but you see the world in such a one-dimensional way.


The UN is completely different to the EU. The UN is a council to discuss global matters. It aids governments rather than aiding people in general (apart from peacekeeping).


The USA is so big and dominant, that's why it can. The USA isn't just unpopular because of the BA, but also because of it's stupid drug wars in the 70s/80s where they placed puppet governments in the Central and Southern Americas, it's arrogance and dominance, it's public defiance of the UN. And our weak leaders get duped into letting us get stringed along so it looks like the USA has global support for its own interests abroad.


As the UKIP says, a vote for another party is a vote for the EU. I'm still not convinced it's cared enough yet, apart from the moaning, daily mail reading middle englanders.

You should respect people's negative views of the conservative party and thatcher. Hated by millions. I can understand why people don't want to be in the EU. I just disagree for reasons aforementioned. I think people are stupid if they want to leave the EEA however.

They may be trying to set up free trade, but they aren't being asked to sign away their sovereign powers to a union. As I said, maybe it is favourable to stay in the economic treaties but pull out of the union. A government needs to look at all the costs of the economic side and decide which is the cheapest solution.

Students often get caught up in green issues, unity and socialist ideas. Whether or not they agree with it, the majority of this country and europe do not want the EU.

The rail companies have cut back on un-needed services and so have other companies. It is not ideal but it is practical, and that my friend is the difference between socialism and capitalism. You call the mines silver?, you are duped by this socialist idea of Thatcher driving this country into the ground, why can you not understand that the mines and other services were making more and more of a loss as peoples needs changed to cars and other ways of transport. Liverpool was in the grip of communist in the 1980's and was a terrible city, and that is where and when we got our bad reputation from. People in Liverpool themselves, now, looking back at Derek Hatton know what a dangerous militant he was and how he ruined this city. The move by that Conservative government gave people their first and their only hope of buying a house, which in turn meant they did not have to rely as much on the state when they retired; again, it is independance for ones self. The 1991 recession was a world wide recession after years of boom caused by the Reagan and Thatcher idea of capitalism and guess what? - we didn't have to go to the IMF like we did in the 1970's under Labour when there wasn't even a recession. I think that is a pretty good achievement and how we recovered so quickly, thanks to Thatcherism. It does matter, at least now we are not paying as much as we were in the 1970's to subsidise these services and slowly they are improving as the companies get better at managing. A service which was losing money cannot and should not be continued with the use of public money, when most of the country use cars/don't use it at all. It, again, is called independance, a word which doesn't ring with socialism and never will.

Please do not lecture a Conservative supporter on selling off 'family silver', because Gordon Brown sold a huge amount of our Gold reserves (which were actually worth something and didn't make a loss) for a low price when Labour gained office. Again, Labour never works and certainly doesn't when it comes to economic policy.

I'm afraid illegal immigrants do cause crime, because a lot of them are here for the wrong reasons. They find a way of living here by using crime. Therefore they should not be here.

Yes, exactly, the UN sticks to what it is supposed to do, rather than the EU which is constantly making grabs at sovereignty, determined to gain more power.

I would rather the puppet governments in South America which were not socialist/communist than a communist revolution in South America which very nearly occured. The Soviet Union played dirty, America played dirty to combat it and eventually it won. As for the United States, again I do not support everything it has done, but a world dominated by the United States rather than the PROC is a world I would much rather live in.

The Daily Mail tells it how it is, whereas you support the EU yet the majority of your country do not, you would certainly not make a good journalist, oh wait, yes; the Guardian.



Shes hated by 'millions' because of one of these;

They were brought up to hate her.
They have no idea of economics.
They are socialists/communists in belief.
That is why people hate her. I, when younger, started thinking she ruined this country when I saw and read things on the internet about her time in office, but then I realised and ignored the propaganda and read the facts; she turned a failing, bankrupt former Empire into a modern day Great Power with a bustling economy in which people could work their way up again. She made it possible for more and more people in this country to have more money to spend on holidays/goods so that it in turn generated jobs. She also aroused a sense of national pride which we had lacked since world war two.

Lets have a referendum then on our membership of the Union and not EEA, do you agree or do you genuinely want a United States of Europe?

Blinger1
17-04-2009, 10:33 PM
what the hell? he's living life and having fun by dressing in the uniform of people who killed millions of people, yeah it sounds fun.:S
I don't care who is in power (it really doesn't bother me this political ********) but if I had to chose between the queen, prince charles or the two younger princes (will and harry) i'd chose either of the two kids. I am sick of the queen dressing all snobby with the gloves on and trying to read a statement that some other idiot has written for her.

alexxxxx
18-04-2009, 01:29 PM
They may be trying to set up free trade, but they aren't being asked to sign away their sovereign powers to a union. As I said, maybe it is favourable to stay in the economic treaties but pull out of the union. A government needs to look at all the costs of the economic side and decide which is the cheapest solution.

Students often get caught up in green issues, unity and socialist ideas. Whether or not they agree with it, the majority of this country and europe do not want the EU.

The rail companies have cut back on un-needed services and so have other companies. It is not ideal but it is practical, and that my friend is the difference between socialism and capitalism. You call the mines silver?, you are duped by this socialist idea of Thatcher driving this country into the ground, why can you not understand that the mines and other services were making more and more of a loss as peoples needs changed to cars and other ways of transport. Liverpool was in the grip of communist in the 1980's and was a terrible city, and that is where and when we got our bad reputation from. People in Liverpool themselves, now, looking back at Derek Hatton know what a dangerous militant he was and how he ruined this city. The move by that Conservative government gave people their first and their only hope of buying a house, which in turn meant they did not have to rely as much on the state when they retired; again, it is independance for ones self. The 1991 recession was a world wide recession after years of boom caused by the Reagan and Thatcher idea of capitalism and guess what? - we didn't have to go to the IMF like we did in the 1970's under Labour when there wasn't even a recession. I think that is a pretty good achievement and how we recovered so quickly, thanks to Thatcherism. It does matter, at least now we are not paying as much as we were in the 1970's to subsidise these services and slowly they are improving as the companies get better at managing. A service which was losing money cannot and should not be continued with the use of public money, when most of the country use cars/don't use it at all. It, again, is called independance, a word which doesn't ring with socialism and never will.

You still don't understand. A sub-standard, subsidised service doesn't benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit the public, as they have to pay stupid amounts of money to travel and the owners take money for the government. Privatisation has just led to higher costs for the people who need to use them, who often can't afford to use them. The rich people in the country enjoyed thatcher cause she rewarded them with tax breaks, which in theory, should trickle down to lower-incomes, but didn't really happen. In my idea of a perfect country, there shouldn't be barriers to anyone who wants to improve themselves or their family and that the government should provide free education and training for that, geographical barriers should be removed (ie good transport links) and that people who are unable to work or are on the lower spectrum of wage rates shouldn't be punished by high service costs, of which this money just goes straight into the rich people's hands. People need to heat their homes.

I personally think global warming is a load of balls but i don't think that we shouldn't be investing in other methods of power generation (nuclear for example) that rely on oil, gas and coal from dodgy countries.



Please do not lecture a Conservative supporter on selling off 'family silver', because Gordon Brown sold a huge amount of our Gold reserves (which were actually worth something and didn't make a loss) for a low price when Labour gained office. Again, Labour never works and certainly doesn't when it comes to economic policy.

The electricty and gas supplies were not loss-making and have the potential to be profit making. Because of the conservatives closing the mines there was a run on the gas supplies that we had in the north sea to burn to produce electricity. Now we are having to pay through the nose to heat our homes in the winter meaning that pensioners have to choose between eating or being cold.



I'm afraid illegal immigrants do cause crime, because a lot of them are here for the wrong reasons. They find a way of living here by using crime. Therefore they should not be here.

Most illegal immigrants are economic migrants to make money. Granted, they don't pay tax but they don't receive anything either. They often work for dodgy people in this country who want cheap labour. You don't have the figures on illegal immigrants because noone knows, under the radar. I dislike illegal immigrants because they will work for nothing and lower the wage rate for people on low-incomes, which can be really very damaging.



Yes, exactly, the UN sticks to what it is supposed to do, rather than the EU which is constantly making grabs at sovereignty, determined to gain more power.

The UN deals with a lot more countries than the EU with far different standpoints.



I would rather the puppet governments in South America which were not socialist/communist than a communist revolution in South America which very nearly occured. The Soviet Union played dirty, America played dirty to combat it and eventually it won. As for the United States, again I do not support everything it has done, but a world dominated by the United States rather than the PROC is a world I would much rather live in.

It's none of your business what happens in other countries, if a nation supports communism or socialism, you have to accept it. You have to accept that not everyone wants a capitalist method of government.



The Daily Mail tells it how it is, whereas you support the EU yet the majority of your country do not, you would certainly not make a good journalist, oh wait, yes; the Guardian.

The daily mail sensationalises, and often gets sued for libelous stories. They even said one of the people who were arrsted in the Madaline McCann case was a paedo and sex offender, which just wasn't true. It's sloppy journalism. I don't want to be a journalist, I'm not a gifted writer and the Guardian pulls out some better written and better researched journalism rather than just far-right propaganda. www.mailwatch.co.uk



Shes hated by 'millions' because of one of these;

They were brought up to hate her.
They have no idea of economics.
They are socialists/communists in belief.
That is why people hate her. I, when younger, started thinking she ruined this country when I saw and read things on the internet about her time in office, but then I realised and ignored the propaganda and read the facts; she turned a failing, bankrupt former Empire into a modern day Great Power with a bustling economy in which people could work their way up again. She made it possible for more and more people in this country to have more money to spend on holidays/goods so that it in turn generated jobs. She also aroused a sense of national pride which we had lacked since world war two.

Lets have a referendum then on our membership of the Union and not EEA, do you agree or do you genuinely want a United States of Europe?
I'm never going to agree that the thatcher era was great for this nation as she did destroy communities, people's lives and livelihoods and there isn't any denying of that. I also think it was irresponsible to sell off public services and utilities which we are now paying for now, ordinary people. There is a lot of opposition to private ownership of services that were once public. You could argue that the destruction of the trade unions' power helped grow our economy, but now our workers are very unproductive and the trade-union crazy france are more productive than us. There is more than one way trying to change the economy and the economy isn't everything. Thatcher's policies often meant that people bought their council houses on mortgages, when the interest rates rose they couldn't afford the repayments, the housing market crashes and people with a bit of cash buy up the houses and rent them out to people who would have benefited from a council house. She wasn't always popular at the time, the poll tax riots?

I'd actually argue that apart from the growing budget deficit, labour have done very well in lowering the unemployment and keeping interest rates relatively low and growing the economy along with the long term rate that could be sustained, until around 12 months ago, where unfortunately unregulated US housing market and mortgage market collapsed, leading to a banking crisis. 17 years of sustained growth, with labour being there for more than 10 is a good effort. We're just now going to be paying alot of tax to make up the money for the bailouts and government debt that we have picked up. Managing the economy has been fairly good, but managing their fiscal policy is turning out to being a bit of a downfall.

I think it would be sad if we left the EU in my eyes as it shows our progress of hundreds of years of war together to a sense of unity and a realisation that all humans want in the end is a good life for themselves, their family, local, national and international community. Other social benefits which i have mentioned before would be good. I personally am in favour of a United Europe because I believe our influence in waning in the world. I would like to see a less-integrated federal government, with no cross border police or military. An elected president of the union and a more syndicated foreign policy. I'd like to see no more expansion of the EU (I think to expand to eastern europe was a bad idea.) I'd like to see a constitution that clearly limits the powers of the EU on its member states and the laws that can be passed. I'd like to see a common and strict immigration policy. I'd like to see markets regulated on a european-wide basis and I'd like the EU to stop being bullied by the USA and to distance itself from the pathetic and non-existant threat of terrorism and the war on terror. I'd like to see a common asylum seeker policy, where we share the asylum seekers between EU nations so it's fairly distributed/ A bill of rights detailing our rights to privacy and other rights would be welcomed too. The right to cede at an instance would be there too. But first and foremost the idea of the EU was a common market, the EEA. If the UKIP left the EEA and EU I think that economics would tell us that would be a very stupid idea.

-:Undertaker:-
19-04-2009, 01:13 PM
I don't care who is in power (it really doesn't bother me this political ********) but if I had to chose between the queen, prince charles or the two younger princes (will and harry) i'd chose either of the two kids. I am sick of the queen dressing all snobby with the gloves on and trying to read a statement that some other idiot has written for her.

That is called style, and compared to the clothes we all wear which will date in around 5 years, royal fashion doesn't really look awful, because it is state dress code.


You still don't understand. A sub-standard, subsidised service doesn't benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit the public, as they have to pay stupid amounts of money to travel and the owners take money for the government. Privatisation has just led to higher costs for the people who need to use them, who often can't afford to use them. The rich people in the country enjoyed thatcher cause she rewarded them with tax breaks, which in theory, should trickle down to lower-incomes, but didn't really happen. In my idea of a perfect country, there shouldn't be barriers to anyone who wants to improve themselves or their family and that the government should provide free education and training for that, geographical barriers should be removed (ie good transport links) and that people who are unable to work or are on the lower spectrum of wage rates shouldn't be punished by high service costs, of which this money just goes straight into the rich people's hands. People need to heat their homes.

I personally think global warming is a load of balls but i don't think that we shouldn't be investing in other methods of power generation (nuclear for example) that rely on oil, gas and coal from dodgy countries.


The electricty and gas supplies were not loss-making and have the potential to be profit making. Because of the conservatives closing the mines there was a run on the gas supplies that we had in the north sea to burn to produce electricity. Now we are having to pay through the nose to heat our homes in the winter meaning that pensioners have to choose between eating or being cold.


Most illegal immigrants are economic migrants to make money. Granted, they don't pay tax but they don't receive anything either. They often work for dodgy people in this country who want cheap labour. You don't have the figures on illegal immigrants because noone knows, under the radar. I dislike illegal immigrants because they will work for nothing and lower the wage rate for people on low-incomes, which can be really very damaging.


The UN deals with a lot more countries than the EU with far different standpoints.


It's none of your business what happens in other countries, if a nation supports communism or socialism, you have to accept it. You have to accept that not everyone wants a capitalist method of government.


The daily mail sensationalises, and often gets sued for libelous stories. They even said one of the people who were arrsted in the Madaline McCann case was a paedo and sex offender, which just wasn't true. It's sloppy journalism. I don't want to be a journalist, I'm not a gifted writer and the Guardian pulls out some better written and better researched journalism rather than just far-right propaganda. www.mailwatch.co.uk (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk)


I'm never going to agree that the thatcher era was great for this nation as she did destroy communities, people's lives and livelihoods and there isn't any denying of that. I also think it was irresponsible to sell off public services and utilities which we are now paying for now, ordinary people. There is a lot of opposition to private ownership of services that were once public. You could argue that the destruction of the trade unions' power helped grow our economy, but now our workers are very unproductive and the trade-union crazy france are more productive than us. There is more than one way trying to change the economy and the economy isn't everything. Thatcher's policies often meant that people bought their council houses on mortgages, when the interest rates rose they couldn't afford the repayments, the housing market crashes and people with a bit of cash buy up the houses and rent them out to people who would have benefited from a council house. She wasn't always popular at the time, the poll tax riots?

I'd actually argue that apart from the growing budget deficit, labour have done very well in lowering the unemployment and keeping interest rates relatively low and growing the economy along with the long term rate that could be sustained, until around 12 months ago, where unfortunately unregulated US housing market and mortgage market collapsed, leading to a banking crisis. 17 years of sustained growth, with labour being there for more than 10 is a good effort. We're just now going to be paying alot of tax to make up the money for the bailouts and government debt that we have picked up. Managing the economy has been fairly good, but managing their fiscal policy is turning out to being a bit of a downfall.

I think it would be sad if we left the EU in my eyes as it shows our progress of hundreds of years of war together to a sense of unity and a realisation that all humans want in the end is a good life for themselves, their family, local, national and international community. Other social benefits which i have mentioned before would be good. I personally am in favour of a United Europe because I believe our influence in waning in the world. I would like to see a less-integrated federal government, with no cross border police or military. An elected president of the union and a more syndicated foreign policy. I'd like to see no more expansion of the EU (I think to expand to eastern europe was a bad idea.) I'd like to see a constitution that clearly limits the powers of the EU on its member states and the laws that can be passed. I'd like to see a common and strict immigration policy. I'd like to see markets regulated on a european-wide basis and I'd like the EU to stop being bullied by the USA and to distance itself from the pathetic and non-existant threat of terrorism and the war on terror. I'd like to see a common asylum seeker policy, where we share the asylum seekers between EU nations so it's fairly distributed/ A bill of rights detailing our rights to privacy and other rights would be welcomed too. The right to cede at an instance would be there too. But first and foremost the idea of the EU was a common market, the EEA. If the UKIP left the EEA and EU I think that economics would tell us that would be a very stupid idea.

It does benefit the public as it has already, no longer are we paying high taxes for services a lot of us don't even use. The people who need to use them can afford them, because it nows means they are not paying amazingly high taxes all year for something they might not and do not use all year. Wealth does trickle down, why can you not understand that when a company is making profit/people have money to set up business, that in turn creates jobs and in turn creates wealth. It is so simple and has been proven to work and does work. There will always be poverty, why does socialism and communism not understand this?, as Margaret Thatcher said to a left-wing Liberal Democrat; would you rather the poor be poorer? - that is basically what you are saying, you cannot have the rich poorer and not have the poor poorer as the rich do not then spend and create business, which in turn means less jobs for the poor. Yours and others socialist dream does not work and never will, how many more millions have to die from starvation and bad economic management at the hands of socialism? - Capitalism isn't perfect, but it puts bread on the table for the vast majority.

Good to hear, and from what I last had to argue with on this forum from other members over the subject, it seems this recession has knocked some sense into most peoples heads.

The mines were not making a profit and were heavily subsidised by the government which was already having to appeal to the IMF. The way older people are being treated now with higher gas and oil prices is a disgrace I totally agree, but again Labour should and have had ten years to combat this and have totally failed. Older generations of this country worked all their life, why should we now abandon them and treat them as we wouldn't even treat animals, it is a disgrace.

Illegal immigrants cost us in policing, which will amount to millions and millions, if not billions. If they are not paying taxes then I amafraid they have no right to stay in this country, and especially as they have not even been granted permission.

Yes it does, and therefore the EU is irrelvent.

Oh yes, like the revolution in the Russian Empire where a small group of communists took control 'for the greater good' and then managed the economy so badly that it collapsed and Russia and the former USSR is still recovering after nearly one hundred years of being held back.

Newspapers do often make up stories, but i'm afraid I and most of England have more faith in the Daily Mail than this government, a sad state it is in.

What communities?, the ones filled with hateful militant socialists/communists like my own city of Liverpool under Derek Hatton and the union leader Aruther Scargill? - It was harsh her economics yes, but i'm afraid it has benefitted this country and is still doing so now, by cutting back union powers which were crippling the government, by lowering taxes which involved business and even regular tax, so it encouraged business to expand and open up and for people to spend to support them businesses which in turn provided new jobs. I wish myself that mines, factories like in the victorian era were still chuffing out smoke, making our own products - but it wasn't sustainable so it had to close.

So even though the people do not want this EU superstate, you still support it? - I thought socialism was for the people? - signing away your sovereignty and our rights as country which has survived hundreds of years against many threats for the sake of a fairytale eurocrat dream which is a 'united europe' in which we all live under acommand economy and dance around little rainbows singing come by ar. It's a dream and you and many others are living it.

Why should our country have to share immigrants?; what kind of crazy and loony idea is this, let me ask you something, why should we share immigrants with europe?

The common sense approch would be to govern our own immigration policy, just like the United States, and most other countries do without having to ask permission from the EU. It is indeed, excuse after excuse to lead us through the back door into a EU superstate which I fear once we are in so far there will be no return.

alexxxxx
19-04-2009, 04:22 PM
It does benefit the public as it has already, no longer are we paying high taxes for services a lot of us don't even use. The people who need to use them can afford them, because it nows means they are not paying amazingly high taxes all year for something they might not and do not use all year. Wealth does trickle down, why can you not understand that when a company is making profit/people have money to set up business, that in turn creates jobs and in turn creates wealth. It is so simple and has been proven to work and does work. There will always be poverty, why does socialism and communism not understand this?, as Margaret Thatcher said to a left-wing Liberal Democrat; would you rather the poor be poorer? - that is basically what you are saying, you cannot have the rich poorer and not have the poor poorer as the rich do not then spend and create business, which in turn means less jobs for the poor. Yours and others socialist dream does not work and never will, how many more millions have to die from starvation and bad economic management at the hands of socialism? - Capitalism isn't perfect, but it puts bread on the table for the vast majority.

I'm going to disagree with it helping the public. The only thing I can think privatisation has helped with is drive telephone costs down with fierce competition. Everything else I can't see anything but a lack of investment and fleecing of the public. In theory pure free market economics should help everyone, but i'd argue that government intervention to improve investment in capital and labour is overlooked. The idea that 'weath trickles down' is a good theory, and by economic theory it should work as jobs should be created, however, the income/wealth gap is widening and is continuing to do so.



The mines were not making a profit and were heavily subsidised by the government which was already having to appeal to the IMF. The way older people are being treated now with higher gas and oil prices is a disgrace I totally agree, but again Labour should and have had ten years to combat this and have totally failed. Older generations of this country worked all their life, why should we now abandon them and treat them as we wouldn't even treat animals, it is a disgrace.

I agree it is a disgrace and I'm not an all-out labour supporter at all. But maybe a more of an effort to slowly close the mines and create new jobs for them pit by pit basis should have been considered. Some miners never were re-employed and mining towns are now some of the poorest in the UK. Privatisation of public services is one of the reasons why older generations who are on limited pensions can no longer afford to heat their homes.



Illegal immigrants cost us in policing, which will amount to millions and millions, if not billions. If they are not paying taxes then I amafraid they have no right to stay in this country, and especially as they have not even been granted permission.

Yeah, i agree.



So even though the people do not want this EU superstate, you still support it? - I thought socialism was for the people? - signing away your sovereignty and our rights as country which has survived hundreds of years against many threats for the sake of a fairytale eurocrat dream which is a 'united europe' in which we all live under acommand economy and dance around little rainbows singing come by ar. It's a dream and you and many others are living it.

Why should our country have to share immigrants?; what kind of crazy and loony idea is this, let me ask you something, why should we share immigrants with europe?

The common sense approch would be to govern our own immigration policy, just like the United States, and most other countries do without having to ask permission from the EU. It is indeed, excuse after excuse to lead us through the back door into a EU superstate which I fear once we are in so far there will be no return.

We should share an immigration policy, as once an immigrant can gain another EEA/EU passport they can work wherever they like in the EU. We should share a common asylum seeker policy with strict limits on movement because our governement/country gets loads of asylum seekers that could just stay in France. Other EU countries should 'take one for the team' by taking some asylum seekers off our hands. I'd like the EU to respect each others sovereignty, with only laws on trade, movement of people and goods, improvements in technologies etc, consumer protection, bill of rights for people protecting citizens from national governments, immigration, asylum. Most other things should be left to the individual states. Benefits should be only be ablre to be sought after 8yrs of living in another member state and contributing significant amounts to the tax system. Measures should be brought in to allow the cession of a nation from the EU within 24 hours of a vote in a national parliament. It requires safeguards so if it 'does take a turn for the worse' we can get out.

-:Undertaker:-
19-04-2009, 09:00 PM
I'm going to disagree with it helping the public. The only thing I can think privatisation has helped with is drive telephone costs down with fierce competition. Everything else I can't see anything but a lack of investment and fleecing of the public. In theory pure free market economics should help everyone, but i'd argue that government intervention to improve investment in capital and labour is overlooked. The idea that 'weath trickles down' is a good theory, and by economic theory it should work as jobs should be created, however, the income/wealth gap is widening and is continuing to do so.


I agree it is a disgrace and I'm not an all-out labour supporter at all. But maybe a more of an effort to slowly close the mines and create new jobs for them pit by pit basis should have been considered. Some miners never were re-employed and mining towns are now some of the poorest in the UK. Privatisation of public services is one of the reasons why older generations who are on limited pensions can no longer afford to heat their homes.


Yeah, i agree.



We should share an immigration policy, as once an immigrant can gain another EEA/EU passport they can work wherever they like in the EU. We should share a common asylum seeker policy with strict limits on movement because our governement/country gets loads of asylum seekers that could just stay in France. Other EU countries should 'take one for the team' by taking some asylum seekers off our hands. I'd like the EU to respect each others sovereignty, with only laws on trade, movement of people and goods, improvements in technologies etc, consumer protection, bill of rights for people protecting citizens from national governments, immigration, asylum. Most other things should be left to the individual states. Benefits should be only be ablre to be sought after 8yrs of living in another member state and contributing significant amounts to the tax system. Measures should be brought in to allow the cession of a nation from the EU within 24 hours of a vote in a national parliament. It requires safeguards so if it 'does take a turn for the worse' we can get out.

It has helped the general public, you now have money to spend on holidays/gardens - anything, than we have ever had before. The wealth gap is increasing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Why should there be a limit to how far people can go, to rich people I say goodluck to them if they have worked there way up to such wealth. They usually then invest that in shares in companies which provides growth for the company which means the company can expand.

It is not the governments job though to employ people, yes being unemployed is awful but i'm afraid if it is for the future stability of the nation then it has to be done. I would agree on that, that is why with higher prices now the oil andgas companies should be forced by the government to lower prices/keep them at a certain price. I don't like government intervention but the prices we pay compared to other countries is wrong. It can easily be solved if a government stands for pensioners and such.

Why should we do all that when we have been ruling ourselves for hundreds of years without europe? - it is completly pointless and the only motive is for a EU superstate so the eurocrat dream becomes reality.

alexxxxx
03-05-2009, 05:40 PM
It has helped the general public, you now have money to spend on holidays/gardens - anything, than we have ever had before. The wealth gap is increasing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Why should there be a limit to how far people can go, to rich people I say goodluck to them if they have worked there way up to such wealth. They usually then invest that in shares in companies which provides growth for the company which means the company can expand.

It is not the governments job though to employ people, yes being unemployed is awful but i'm afraid if it is for the future stability of the nation then it has to be done. I would agree on that, that is why with higher prices now the oil andgas companies should be forced by the government to lower prices/keep them at a certain price. I don't like government intervention but the prices we pay compared to other countries is wrong. It can easily be solved if a government stands for pensioners and such.

Why should we do all that when we have been ruling ourselves for hundreds of years without europe? - it is completly pointless and the only motive is for a EU superstate so the eurocrat dream becomes reality.

It's just made things more expensive! In theory, if there is economic growth, everyone everyone should end up better off. And a wide gap in distribution of wealth is a bad thing, as it shows that the 'trickling down' effect doesn't work.

Implementing price ceilings won't work and the oil/gas suppliers will find other methods of finding that lost income. British Gas buys the majority of its gas from russia. If it can't purchase it at a price below the ceiling, the company will fail. Also it doesn't follow the free market principals that you seem to be banging on about earlier and giving out money to people is another government expense!

During those hundreds of years we've been constantly fighting with them. Now we're working with them. Seems like progress to me.

-:Undertaker:-
03-05-2009, 06:13 PM
It's just made things more expensive! In theory, if there is economic growth, everyone everyone should end up better off. And a wide gap in distribution of wealth is a bad thing, as it shows that the 'trickling down' effect doesn't work.

Implementing price ceilings won't work and the oil/gas suppliers will find other methods of finding that lost income. British Gas buys the majority of its gas from russia. If it can't purchase it at a price below the ceiling, the company will fail. Also it doesn't follow the free market principals that you seem to be banging on about earlier and giving out money to people is another government expense!

During those hundreds of years we've been constantly fighting with them. Now we're working with them. Seems like progress to me.

That is the case, however you then get to the point where too much tax/high prices damage the economy, such as in the 1970s were income tax on the rich was as high as 80% in which investors left the country and we became the sick man of europe.

Everyone has ended up better, as Mrs Thatcher said; would you rather the poor be poorer? - my dad and the people of this country remember the 1970's; the dead rotting in the morgues, they remember the rubbish on the streets and the picket lines, they remember two governments (Conservative & Labour) crippled and brought down by dangerous socialist militantism and they remember the complete loss of pride in this country. Capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, but it works.

As for the gas companies, its true that in Britain we are paying more (even from some of the same companies) compared to France and so on, indeed it does backfire on my free market principles in the short term, but in the long term I would make the United Kingdom energy independant with nuclear energy which would make energy more affordable for everyone.

Again, working together and being together are two different things.

alexxxxx
03-05-2009, 10:44 PM
That is the case, however you then get to the point where too much tax/high prices damage the economy, such as in the 1970s were income tax on the rich was as high as 80% in which investors left the country and we became the sick man of europe.

Everyone has ended up better, as Mrs Thatcher said; would you rather the poor be poorer? - my dad and the people of this country remember the 1970's; the dead rotting in the morgues, they remember the rubbish on the streets and the picket lines, they remember two governments (Conservative & Labour) crippled and brought down by dangerous socialist militantism and they remember the complete loss of pride in this country. Capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, but it works.

As for the gas companies, its true that in Britain we are paying more (even from some of the same companies) compared to France and so on, indeed it does backfire on my free market principles in the short term, but in the long term I would make the United Kingdom energy independant with nuclear energy which would make energy more affordable for everyone.

Again, working together and being together are two different things.

Or, you could alternatively tax not as much the middle/working classes so they have more money to spend, which should in theory work as well. It will never be perfect.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml Income inequality is a problem, as it can cause massive social divides. Unfortunately that page doesn't show much over the last 30-40-50 years. But it shows that income inequality is growing again and again. The poorest are getting poorer (relatively) and the rich are getting richer (relatively). It does show everyone's 'real' income rises however, but not at the same rate, or even near.

-:Undertaker:-
03-05-2009, 10:54 PM
Or, you could alternatively tax not as much the middle/working classes so they have more money to spend, which should in theory work as well. It will never be perfect.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml Income inequality is a problem, as it can cause massive social divides. Unfortunately that page doesn't show much over the last 30-40-50 years. But it shows that income inequality is growing again and again. The poorest are getting poorer (relatively) and the rich are getting richer (relatively). It does show everyone's 'real' income rises however, but not at the same rate, or even near.

I believe in low taxes all across the board, I believe no government has any right to take over 45% of someones earnings, regardless of what they earn. I also believe in low taxes for middle class and working class as that is what fuels tourism and growth.

The gap will widen as enterprenialism has made so many more people millionares and billionares and that is fantastic, that is why it is widening. I read that in the 1970's less than half the population had a telephone, by the end of the 1980's most of the population had a phone. Her low tax regime benefitted everyone and that is why we have seen an explosion in jobs since the early 1980's, just look at the London Skyline or the Liverpool Skyline - it is all a product of Thatcherism, not perfect but works best.

GommeInc
03-05-2009, 11:48 PM
Isn't the current outlook on Britain that of scarying away new businesses with their over-taxism? It's no longer attractive to businesses was the last thing I heard about Britain and businesses.

Back to monarchies... I love the Dutch royal family :D

alexxxxx
04-05-2009, 09:01 AM
I believe in low taxes all across the board, I believe no government has any right to take over 45% of someones earnings, regardless of what they earn. I also believe in low taxes for middle class and working class as that is what fuels tourism and growth.

The gap will widen as enterprenialism has made so many more people millionares and billionares and that is fantastic, that is why it is widening. I read that in the 1970's less than half the population had a telephone, by the end of the 1980's most of the population had a phone. Her low tax regime benefitted everyone and that is why we have seen an explosion in jobs since the early 1980's, just look at the London Skyline or the Liverpool Skyline - it is all a product of Thatcherism, not perfect but works best.

Both of my parents get taxed 40%+ in their highest bracket. (But remember, it's not like that when you just reach a certain amount, that WHOLE amount is taxed at 40%, you get certain amounts of money taxed at different rates. I think the first few thousand is tax-free.).

But unfortunately, taxes need to be high if we are to fund our healthcare system. We constantly complain about the state of it, but that's because we attempt to do it on the cheap. Other nations with care such as ours have to pay a lot more in taxes for better service. Low taxes doesn't mean that you save money, it just means you have to fork out more for non-subsidised services. I wouldn't mind paying 45% tax if I can use the train to get to london fom nottingham for £15 return. If I can get a return ticket on the bus for £1.50. If I can get my house powered at a reasonable rate. If I don't have to pay for university fees. If I don't have to pay as much in fuel duty, if the government have free/better training facilities for people who have lost their jobs (and therefore won't be needing to leech of the state) to find new jobs. Remember the money spent on these services by the government does find itself back into the economy and does help fuel economic growth in the private sector.

That's a poor example. For example, over a period of time people do generally purchase the latest advancements. You could probably use that example with mobile phones in the mid-90s until now. It's general progression. Uneven spread of resources is a problem economically and socially.

-:Undertaker:-
04-05-2009, 01:10 PM
Isn't the current outlook on Britain that of scarying away new businesses with their over-taxism? It's no longer attractive to businesses was the last thing I heard about Britain and businesses.

Back to monarchies... I love the Dutch royal family :D

It is indeed true, in the 1970's taxes on the rich were upto 80% and that is why, combined with governments crippled by unions and the country sliding into debt thanks to public services that were not used by the majority drove business away. At one point it looked as if the military would have to intervene as the country was on its knees.


Both of my parents get taxed 40%+ in their highest bracket. (But remember, it's not like that when you just reach a certain amount, that WHOLE amount is taxed at 40%, you get certain amounts of money taxed at different rates. I think the first few thousand is tax-free.).

But unfortunately, taxes need to be high if we are to fund our healthcare system. We constantly complain about the state of it, but that's because we attempt to do it on the cheap. Other nations with care such as ours have to pay a lot more in taxes for better service. Low taxes doesn't mean that you save money, it just means you have to fork out more for non-subsidised services. I wouldn't mind paying 45% tax if I can use the train to get to london fom nottingham for £15 return. If I can get a return ticket on the bus for £1.50. If I can get my house powered at a reasonable rate. If I don't have to pay for university fees. If I don't have to pay as much in fuel duty, if the government have free/better training facilities for people who have lost their jobs (and therefore won't be needing to leech of the state) to find new jobs. Remember the money spent on these services by the government does find itself back into the economy and does help fuel economic growth in the private sector.

That's a poor example. For example, over a period of time people do generally purchase the latest advancements. You could probably use that example with mobile phones in the mid-90s until now. It's general progression. Uneven spread of resources is a problem economically and socially.

Then if all your money is spent on services that you occasionally use/many people do not use that means you then have little money to spend elsewhere in the economy, which means business shuts and jobs are lost, that in turn then means that those people then rely on the state and your already high taxes to live, which means your taxes then rise, which then means you have even less money to spend which means more business then shuts.

My dad and others don't need to be trained, they are already trained in their jobs very well. As shown on Sky News after the budget a group of people who had lost their jobs said "we don't need training we need a job." - my dad has been working in computers since he left school, he doesn't need to be told by a government that he needs to be re-trained with his tax money. That, was and is a waste of money and everybody knows it.

Its not the fact that the NHS needs funding, the NHS needs proper management as highlighted by a program on BBC last year (I forget the name of it). Our country has so much money that is waste on red tape from whitehall, the government and the EU, we also give money to states like India and China when we are in ever growing debt. All that is needed is a simple re-look at the United Kingdoms finances and a good cutdown just as Barak Obama is preparing to do in the United States.

Its an excellent example, the United States and Europe were ahead of us at that time and simple items such as that show progress in a nation, not to mention when you have morgues with rotting bodies waiting to be buried and rubbish piled high on the streets.

alexxxxx
04-05-2009, 09:45 PM
Then if all your money is spent on services that you occasionally use/many people do not use that means you then have little money to spend elsewhere in the economy, which means business shuts and jobs are lost, that in turn then means that those people then rely on the state and your already high taxes to live, which means your taxes then rise, which then means you have even less money to spend which means more business then shuts.

The money still gets spent. The money is just moved to workers employed by the government (or its contractors), who then use the money to spend in the economy in private and public sectors. The money goes somewhere.



My dad and others don't need to be trained, they are already trained in their jobs very well. As shown on Sky News after the budget a group of people who had lost their jobs said "we don't need training we need a job." - my dad has been working in computers since he left school, he doesn't need to be told by a government that he needs to be re-trained with his tax money. That, was and is a waste of money and everybody knows it.

The fact is, not everyone is skilled. Your father sounds skilled. Maybe those who lost their jobs are not skilled in the areas that are blossoming and their sector is in decline. You wonder why there aren't enough doctors in this country, not enough nurses? It's because they aren't enough trained. We wouldn't need as many immigrants if we had enough skilled workers to fill certain posts. It's about creating a skilled workforce and an environment where people can train for free for jobs if they find themselves unemployed. It's not a waste of money, as it means these people are not burdens on the state and are contributing and not leeching.


Its not the fact that the NHS needs funding, the NHS needs proper management as highlighted by a program on BBC last year (I forget the name of it). Our country has so much money that is waste on red tape from whitehall, the government and the EU, we also give money to states like India and China when we are in ever growing debt. All that is needed is a simple re-look at the United Kingdoms finances and a good cutdown just as Barak Obama is preparing to do in the United States.

Of course it's better to trim down and remove things/people that aren't effective. But the fact is also that we can't provide the service that everyone deserves with the money that we put in. Many countries spend more on health care and have better systems in place.

-:Undertaker:-
04-05-2009, 10:15 PM
The money still gets spent. The money is just moved to workers employed by the government (or its contractors), who then use the money to spend in the economy in private and public sectors. The money goes somewhere.


The fact is, not everyone is skilled. Your father sounds skilled. Maybe those who lost their jobs are not skilled in the areas that are blossoming and their sector is in decline. You wonder why there aren't enough doctors in this country, not enough nurses? It's because they aren't enough trained. We wouldn't need as many immigrants if we had enough skilled workers to fill certain posts. It's about creating a skilled workforce and an environment where people can train for free for jobs if they find themselves unemployed. It's not a waste of money, as it means these people are not burdens on the state and are contributing and not leeching.

Of course it's better to trim down and remove things/people that aren't effective. But the fact is also that we can't provide the service that everyone deserves with the money that we put in. Many countries spend more on health care and have better systems in place.

The money does get spent, but the money is not creating new wealth. In the socialist way of spending the money just gets spent and nothing comes back, yes a service is held up at a huge which few use. You only have to compare the economics of the Soviet Union to the United States of America and its a shining example. The cycle I wrote out is correct and is an example of what was occuring in Britain in the 1970's and throughout the Soviet Union leading to its demise.

Not everyone is skilled no, but no matter how many chances/oppertunities you give certain sponges they will not accept them/will find another way (criminal) to fund their lifestyles, attempting to force people who are just out of work to do community service/go to training is an absolute disgrace, how dare this government even suggest hard working people re-train when they are already trained.

The NHS is different to the railways, mines and so forth. The NHS is used by nearly everyone and is vital to peoples lives. I'm for keeping the NHS public but it needs to be re-organised completly and the red tape needs rolling back, then I think it could start to function properly.

She did it for a reason, i've said before I believe the old victorian United Kingdom was amazing, I wish we still made all our own steel, I wish our chimleys still poured our black smoke and I wish Liverpools docks were still full of ships loading and unloading goods from around the world.

We're in the modern world now though, and economics are everything.

alexxxxx
06-05-2009, 04:53 PM
The money does get spent, but the money is not creating new wealth. In the socialist way of spending the money just gets spent and nothing comes back, yes a service is held up at a huge which few use. You only have to compare the economics of the Soviet Union to the United States of America and its a shining example. The cycle I wrote out is correct and is an example of what was occuring in Britain in the 1970's and throughout the Soviet Union leading to its demise.

20 000 000 nation spend £1 on taxes --> £20 000 000 spent by the government on bus services --> money to the builders to build buses --> spend in shops --> creates jobs --> economic growth (short term), people can travel further to find jobs, remove geographical labour problems- workers become more mobile, greater mobility of labour (long run growth)

people can find jobs further away, earn money--> get loan to buy a big house --> money to builders --> spend in shops --> create jobs --> consume more etc.

It's called the multiplier effect. If money is invested wisely, GDP can rise.




Not everyone is skilled no, but no matter how many chances/oppertunities you give certain sponges they will not accept them/will find another way (criminal) to fund their lifestyles, attempting to force people who are just out of work to do community service/go to training is an absolute disgrace, how dare this government even suggest hard working people re-train when they are already trained.

It's not about forcing, it's about giving it for free, incentives. This is why we have problems today. People often need to be retrained. If you know your simple economics, you'd understand that the inflexibility of labour is an imperfection in a market economy, and therefore steps need to be taken to help those get back into jobs. Miners for example were skilled for mining and not much else, they were promised retraining and new jobs, which hasn't always happened. Some haven't found any new jobs because of their Geographical location (another market imperfection), most mining towns relied on the mines entirely, once they were removed, jobs were a premium. A better transport system can help, but not remove this imperfection. Retraining to skill them in another sector helps the economy again, as labour isn't flexible always. It's about improving the productive potential of the economy by removing imperfections.



The NHS is different to the railways, mines and so forth. The NHS is used by nearly everyone and is vital to peoples lives. I'm for keeping the NHS public but it needs to be re-organised completly and the red tape needs rolling back, then I think it could start to function properly.

There's only so much streamlining you can do before you start degrading the service altogether. Of course removing useless positions is a good idea, but cost reductions have to be made carefully.



She did it for a reason, i've said before I believe the old victorian United Kingdom was amazing, I wish we still made all our own steel, I wish our chimleys still poured our black smoke and I wish Liverpools docks were still full of ships loading and unloading goods from around the world.

We're in the modern world now though, and economics are everything.
The problem with that is that then we could get our raw materials and other goods and services for cheap because of our colonies, which i think most people now have a morale objection to. Economics isn't everything. You have to think about people's general wellbeing, health and happiness. It's alright being rich, but you can't enrich yourself with just money.

UKIP
06-05-2009, 08:45 PM
20 000 000 nation spend £1 on taxes --> £20 000 000 spent by the government on bus services --> money to the builders to build buses --> spend in shops --> creates jobs --> economic growth (short term), people can travel further to find jobs, remove geographical labour problems- workers become more mobile, greater mobility of labour (long run growth)

people can find jobs further away, earn money--> get loan to buy a big house --> money to builders --> spend in shops --> create jobs --> consume more etc.

It's called the multiplier effect. If money is invested wisely, GDP can rise.



It's not about forcing, it's about giving it for free, incentives. This is why we have problems today. People often need to be retrained. If you know your simple economics, you'd understand that the inflexibility of labour is an imperfection in a market economy, and therefore steps need to be taken to help those get back into jobs. Miners for example were skilled for mining and not much else, they were promised retraining and new jobs, which hasn't always happened. Some haven't found any new jobs because of their Geographical location (another market imperfection), most mining towns relied on the mines entirely, once they were removed, jobs were a premium. A better transport system can help, but not remove this imperfection. Retraining to skill them in another sector helps the economy again, as labour isn't flexible always. It's about improving the productive potential of the economy by removing imperfections.


There's only so much streamlining you can do before you start degrading the service altogether. Of course removing useless positions is a good idea, but cost reductions have to be made carefully.


The problem with that is that then we could get our raw materials and other goods and services for cheap because of our colonies, which i think most people now have a morale objection to. Economics isn't everything. You have to think about people's general wellbeing, health and happiness. It's alright being rich, but you can't enrich yourself with just money.

People may be able to travel futher to jobs, except that you miss two vital and important facts.

1. Most people do not want to travel far to work.
2. Due to the high taxes there is no business located in the United Kingdom for them to go to, just look at the 1970's its a standing example.

If its such a great way of investment then why does the west not follow this example, because other countries such as North Korea and the Soviet Union did/are and look at them, just look at North Korea compared to South Korea.

People losing their jobs is terrible yes, but as I said if its the country itself at stake then them industries have to go. There is no two ways about it, it is wrong and does not work when you have industries which are not making money and are infact making a loss that ordinary people have to pay to keep these industries open. If my dad for example was fired from his job because the company was losing money and was in debt/his position is no longer needed, is is right that the taxpayer continue to fund his wages even though he is not needed? - no it simply isn't.

You talk about the economy as if it should be controlled like a command economy, central command economics do not work, again i'll point to the Soviet Union and North Korea compared to the United States and South Korea.

The NHS needs a goos streamlining, once its cut down it then has more cash and is more independant. The staff themselves say there is too much red tape and targets to meet.

You try telling the people of East Germany that, i'm sure you'd get a very different idea of the power of money and how it ties in with happiness.

Barmi
06-05-2009, 11:34 PM
OP, your topic/poll is greatly misguided. The poll as it stands is virtually moot, and would be better phrased "Do you want to see the abolition of the monarchy?", unless we had an absolute monarchy. The system of government in a constitutional monarchy is not that far removed from a republican system. If you were wanting to ask "should the Prime Minister be the Head of State?", then you should have been explicit.


Seems like none of you know what a presidential democracy is.
The president cannot just pass laws as they please. Because than they could change the whole consitution and become a dictatorship. To prevent this we have checks and balances. What this does is the 3 branches of the government (legislative, judicial, executive) have to all make sure that each of them isnt making too many decisions so that they all have equal power. If the president wants to pass a law, the law must be approved by the supreme court first.
It is even more embarrassing that you don't know your own system of government. A president's bill goes to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not directly involved in the law-making process, but rather looks at legislation with a view to checking compliance with your Constitution. It's ironic that every American can churn the words "checks and balances" out like a phrase they were born with, and yet so few actually care how their federal government operates.

As twisted fate has it, my exam on Constitutional Law is in less than three weeks... meaning I've recently gone over my material on a hell of a lot, including sovereignty and the EU. This thread gives me the giggles. -:Undertaker:-, I am not going to entertain your ridiculous UKIP ideas. It is clear you have gleaned comments from a UKIP manifesto like it is a Bible. If you want an informed discussion, keep politics out. And yes, that is possible.

Oh, and in the hope you don't throw any more comments around you can't justify, I'd just like to add: your general comment about "the people want to leave the EU" does not apply to me. I'm not exactly pro-EU, but I'm not against it. I am not going to re-read such a bloated thread at this time in the evening, but I do not recall you providing any evidence so support the suggestions that (a) the majority of the UK want to leave the EU; and (b) other member states wish to leave.

alexxxxx
10-05-2009, 04:18 PM
People may be able to travel futher to jobs, except that you miss two vital and important facts.

1. Most people do not want to travel far to work.
2. Due to the high taxes there is no business located in the United Kingdom for them to go to, just look at the 1970's its a standing example.


That's not true, I have friends who parents work in London (1.75 hour train) and someone who commutes to Amsterdam or Denmark every Tuesday and comes back on a Friday night. My parents used to commute 45minutes to their jobs (but we had to buy a house which cost almost double of our house's cost) and ended up living in a smaller house to.



If its such a great way of investment then why does the west not follow this example, because other countries such as North Korea and the Soviet Union did/are and look at them, just look at North Korea compared to South Korea.


Western governments do it all the time!



People losing their jobs is terrible yes, but as I said if its the country itself at stake then them industries have to go. There is no two ways about it, it is wrong and does not work when you have industries which are not making money and are infact making a loss that ordinary people have to pay to keep these industries open. If my dad for example was fired from his job because the company was losing money and was in debt/his position is no longer needed, is is right that the taxpayer continue to fund his wages even though he is not needed? - no it simply isn't.

How is this relevant to my argument? I said that they should pay for retraining!



You talk about the economy as if it should be controlled like a command economy, central command economics do not work, again i'll point to the Soviet Union and North Korea compared to the United States and South Korea.

I talk about the economy and free markets having imperfections... which the government can try to even out.



The NHS needs a goos streamlining, once its cut down it then has more cash and is more independant. The staff themselves say there is too much red tape and targets to meet.

You try telling the people of East Germany that, i'm sure you'd get a very different idea of the power of money and how it ties in with happiness.
Yeah... but you can't expect the NHS to perform well for peanuts by cutting corners.

Money isn't everything at all. I'm sure there were some in east germany who lived a better, more enjoyable life than those living in the west.

UKIP
10-05-2009, 06:05 PM
OP, your topic/poll is greatly misguided. The poll as it stands is virtually moot, and would be better phrased "Do you want to see the abolition of the monarchy?", unless we had an absolute monarchy. The system of government in a constitutional monarchy is not that far removed from a republican system. If you were wanting to ask "should the Prime Minister be the Head of State?", then you should have been explicit.


It is even more embarrassing that you don't know your own system of government. A president's bill goes to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not directly involved in the law-making process, but rather looks at legislation with a view to checking compliance with your Constitution. It's ironic that every American can churn the words "checks and balances" out like a phrase they were born with, and yet so few actually care how their federal government operates.

As twisted fate has it, my exam on Constitutional Law is in less than three weeks... meaning I've recently gone over my material on a hell of a lot, including sovereignty and the EU. This thread gives me the giggles. -:Undertaker:-, I am not going to entertain your ridiculous UKIP ideas. It is clear you have gleaned comments from a UKIP manifesto like it is a Bible. If you want an informed discussion, keep politics out. And yes, that is possible.

Oh, and in the hope you don't throw any more comments around you can't justify, I'd just like to add: your general comment about "the people want to leave the EU" does not apply to me. I'm not exactly pro-EU, but I'm not against it. I am not going to re-read such a bloated thread at this time in the evening, but I do not recall you providing any evidence so support the suggestions that (a) the majority of the UK want to leave the EU; and (b) other member states wish to leave.

The topic is fine, don't try nit picking at small things. The question is simple, do you want the monarchy to continue or do you want it abolished which would mean we would become a republic. Very simple.

Yet again another person who jumps in the discussion who doesn't tackle my claims and facts about the European Union but yet can't justify or defend its existance. I know most people don't want to be the union, thats exactly why France, Republic of Ireland and others turned it down. That is why we are not being given a vote, it is so simple, if the EU knew it would win referendums on its existence or even evolution then it would gives us a referendum but it won't and you and others simply refuse to accept this simple, common sense fact.

If our government knew they could settle the EU issue once and for all with a 'yes' vote from the public then it would hold a referendum, but it won't because it knows the answer is; no, no, no!


That's not true, I have friends who parents work in London (1.75 hour train) and someone who commutes to Amsterdam or Denmark every Tuesday and comes back on a Friday night. My parents used to commute 45minutes to their jobs (but we had to buy a house which cost almost double of our house's cost) and ended up living in a smaller house to.

Western governments do it all the time!

How is this relevant to my argument? I said that they should pay for retraining!

I talk about the economy and free markets having imperfections... which the government can try to even out.

Yeah... but you can't expect the NHS to perform well for peanuts by cutting corners.

Money isn't everything at all. I'm sure there were some in east germany who lived a better, more enjoyable life than those living in the west.

The fact and issue still remains, why should my family and most others pay more taxes for a bloated service they do not use. It simply isn't fair, why should the state take money from people to support a service the minority use. Tax hurts customers, which in turn hurts business, then business if driven away from the United Kingdom, then less tax is being paid so taxes then rise even more making the survining business suffer.

It is not the governments job to infringe on peoples right to buy, sell and so on. That is exactly why Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979 because people had simply had enough of a government which had too much power, was being controlled by unions and nearly destroyed our country.

You can't expect the NHS to perform well on peanuts, however you can't expect to solve its problems by throwing endless cash at it, as if that did solve the problems of the NHS then Labour would of fixed it within the last 11 years. The NHS has far too much red tape, it needs to be cut down and given more independance from government. Then we will have a national health service which works for everyone.

That is a poor example, history and the world know for a fact East Germany was poor and a total mess, that is exactly why a concreate wall along with mines and soldiers were built around Soviet Berlin to stop people leaving. East Germany and the Soviet Union were command economies, along with North Korea and Mao's China which have/did leave their people starving due to their glorious 'socialist/communist revolutions'. Socialism is dead, people do not want a return to 1970's Britain.

alexxxxx
10-05-2009, 06:57 PM
If our government knew they could settle the EU issue once and for all with a 'yes' vote from the public then it would hold a referendum, but it won't because it knows the answer is; no, no, no!

There was a referendum, and it passed. It wouldn't be no, no, no and you're going to attack me for this, but alot of people aren't qualified to make those decisions. They believe 100% of things they read. They don't know how things work, that's why you elect MPs to do that job for you. If you don't want to be in the EU you vote for UKIP in the general election. Once there is a majority, guess what, they get what they want. You're making it out to be a bigger issue than it really is. People don't vote UKIP because it isn't a viable alternative.



The fact and issue still remains, why should my family and most others pay more taxes for a bloated service they do not use. It simply isn't fair, why should the state take money from people to support a service the minority use. Tax hurts customers, which in turn hurts business, then business if driven away from the United Kingdom, then less tax is being paid so taxes then rise even more making the survining business suffer.

Because many others are not in a position to have a choice about which method of transport they use. I'm not suprised you haven't used this argument into public health spending, not everyone uses it, not everyone needs it, but the fact and the issue remains is that if a poor person needs to work, the only job they can find is 10 miles away on a train and their return fare is, lets say, £10 a day, that ends up being £200/month. If it's a low income job, £15k a year for example, alot of that income is dried up, that's a whole £2,500 gone, quite a large disincentive to work. And guess what, that means they're more likely to claim benefits. Taking over the public transport system, running it to break even, say to only £4/day, the price ends up being alot less to taxpayers.

Not everyone uses universities, but spending money on them helps the country as a whole, as the workforce can be better trained, earn more money, maybe spend less (as a proportion) on taxes.

You look at everything in such a simplistic manner, you seem to think that maximising economic growth is the only thing that matters, the only government goal. I'd be really suprised if you have never ridden on a train, a bus, a motorway, or used any other government thing.


It is not the governments job to infringe on peoples right to buy, sell and so on. That is exactly why Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979 because people had simply had enough of a government which had too much power, was being controlled by unions and nearly destroyed our country.

Eh? Where's this come from? Where did I say this? Or is this another 'back in the old days' speech. Okay.....


You can't expect the NHS to perform well on peanuts, however you can't expect to solve its problems by throwing endless cash at it, as if that did solve the problems of the NHS then Labour would of fixed it within the last 11 years. The NHS has far too much red tape, it needs to be cut down and given more independance from government. Then we will have a national health service which works for everyone.

Look at our figures compared to everyone else's. You'll notice we aren't as high up on the spending figures as the torygraph and the daily fail would like to believe. Do you want a free-market version like in the USA where people pay inflated prices, much more than you would in tax, some people don't get insurance. They let people die there or pensioners have to work into their 90s just to pay for the medicines they need to live on. "it's unfair because not everyone uses these, only the minority." It's called a safety net.


That is a poor example, history and the world know for a fact East Germany was poor and a total mess, that is exactly why a concreate wall along with mines and soldiers were built around Soviet Berlin to stop people leaving. East Germany and the Soviet Union were command economies, along with North Korea and Mao's China which have/did leave their people starving due to their glorious 'socialist/communist revolutions'. Socialism is dead, people do not want a return to 1970's Britain.
Maybe that's true. Maybe. But I think you group money and happiness too close together. You don't need to be rolling in it, with a 40" TV, Sky HD with the film channels, a BMW, Mercedes to be happy.

Bun
10-05-2009, 08:33 PM
tories took us into it. labours' manifesto promised a referendum in 1974. got in, held it, got more than 2 thirds of the votes, get over it.

UKIP
10-05-2009, 10:12 PM
There was a referendum, and it passed. It wouldn't be no, no, no and you're going to attack me for this, but alot of people aren't qualified to make those decisions. They believe 100% of things they read. They don't know how things work, that's why you elect MPs to do that job for you. If you don't want to be in the EU you vote for UKIP in the general election. Once there is a majority, guess what, they get what they want. You're making it out to be a bigger issue than it really is. People don't vote UKIP because it isn't a viable alternative.

Because many others are not in a position to have a choice about which method of transport they use. I'm not suprised you haven't used this argument into public health spending, not everyone uses it, not everyone needs it, but the fact and the issue remains is that if a poor person needs to work, the only job they can find is 10 miles away on a train and their return fare is, lets say, £10 a day, that ends up being £200/month. If it's a low income job, £15k a year for example, alot of that income is dried up, that's a whole £2,500 gone, quite a large disincentive to work. And guess what, that means they're more likely to claim benefits. Taking over the public transport system, running it to break even, say to only £4/day, the price ends up being alot less to taxpayers.

Not everyone uses universities, but spending money on them helps the country as a whole, as the workforce can be better trained, earn more money, maybe spend less (as a proportion) on taxes.

You look at everything in such a simplistic manner, you seem to think that maximising economic growth is the only thing that matters, the only government goal. I'd be really suprised if you have never ridden on a train, a bus, a motorway, or used any other government thing.

Eh? Where's this come from? Where did I say this? Or is this another 'back in the old days' speech. Okay.....

Look at our figures compared to everyone else's. You'll notice we aren't as high up on the spending figures as the torygraph and the daily fail would like to believe. Do you want a free-market version like in the USA where people pay inflated prices, much more than you would in tax, some people don't get insurance. They let people die there or pensioners have to work into their 90s just to pay for the medicines they need to live on. "it's unfair because not everyone uses these, only the minority." It's called a safety net.

Maybe that's true. Maybe. But I think you group money and happiness too close together. You don't need to be rolling in it, with a 40" TV, Sky HD with the film channels, a BMW, Mercedes to be happy.

In that case then we don't have the qualifications to elect our MP's, thats basically what you are saying. People know fully well that the European Union is taking sovereignty, you can see it in regulations, and agriculture and fishing. It is a big issue, if it wasn't a big issue and it had peoples support, it would of gone to a referendum a long time ago, or perhaps UKIP wouldn't of gone from a very small party in the 1990's to the fourth largest party-and growing right now. If its such a small issue as you make it out to be, then why is the EU determined to ram it through parliaments around Europe and avoid referendums at all costs. If its such a small issue then why are the main parties so reluctant to talk about the EU? - it is a ticking time bomb and sometime in the future it will have to be discussed, and when that time comes the eurocrats will not have a leg to stand on. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, makes sense to give billions of our money to every year, and be told what to do by it aswell.

I have tackled that issue, the point is that the NHS is a matter of life and death and just about everyone uses it, whereas a train service to London most will not use at all, or once in their lifetime. It does benefit some people you are right, however most people live quite near to their workplace/drive a car, therefore the argument is alreayd blown out of the window, not to mention the economic damage high taxes do for supporting a transport fantasy you are supporting would do.

University should be free yes, as I believe health and education are two of the few things which should remain free, yet quite independant from government red tape. As for my travel, yes I have ridden on bus and train services, and they are now private thanks to Margaret Thatcher. The fact is that I would rather be paying 80p rather than 50p if it means my family being able to afford other luxaries and not having to live in a bankrupt country with rubbish piling up on the streets and dead bodies rotting in the morgues. Economic growth is everything as with money brings prosperity, as Maragret Thatcher said; money doesn't fall from the sky, it has to be earned here on Earth.

As I have said before, I support the national health service. The point I am making is the point the staff themselves make in numerous interviews/conferences that get held, the NHS is bloated and needs to have red-tape cut back, which would means millions upon millions more to spend on extra staff or life saving drugs which people in this country are being denied because the NHS can't afford it, yet the government see fit to donate money to the EU, China, India and of course, more red tape at the NHS.

Money and happiness are very close together, if you have a nice home, low taxes and a family it means you can afford holidays and luxaries which in turn makes you happy. Whereas if you have no money you lose self-respect as your living from the state, you haven't got a home, you can't have a family because taxes are too high and your struggling as it is and you can't have holidays and luxaries then you are not happy. It is incredibly simple.


tories took us into it. labours' manifesto promised a referendum in 1974. got in, held it, got more than 2 thirds of the votes, get over it.

The tories took us into stages of it yes and shame on them, however since them orginial treaties were signed many things have changed and the EU is more powerful than ever before. The referendum was on the EU at that time, far different from the EU we see today, which has the aim of becoming a superstate which its citzens do not want.

Lets have a vote, once and for all which the choice is simple, do we want to remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or do we want to go down the ever narrowing path of becoming a state within the European Union.

I think you'll find the answer begins with the letter 'n'.

RandomManJay
11-05-2009, 02:57 AM
Although I have nothing against Monarchy and I feel quite privileged to have one of the most powerful Monarchies remaining the world. I think it’s a bit antiquated and probably won't last much longer in the revolutionary society were going to turn into eventually.

alexxxxx
11-05-2009, 06:51 PM
In that case then we don't have the qualifications to elect our MP's, thats basically what you are saying. People know fully well that the European Union is taking sovereignty, you can see it in regulations, and agriculture and fishing. It is a big issue, if it wasn't a big issue and it had peoples support, it would of gone to a referendum a long time ago, or perhaps UKIP wouldn't of gone from a very small party in the 1990's to the fourth largest party-and growing right now. If its such a small issue as you make it out to be, then why is the EU determined to ram it through parliaments around Europe and avoid referendums at all costs. If its such a small issue then why are the main parties so reluctant to talk about the EU? - it is a ticking time bomb and sometime in the future it will have to be discussed, and when that time comes the eurocrats will not have a leg to stand on. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, makes sense to give billions of our money to every year, and be told what to do by it aswell.

People do not have the time to educate themselves (i'm not being elitist, but it's true) about every subject in the UK and abroad so they can make decisions about how the country can progress. They cannot see evry different possiblility of each action. It's a full-time job to be an MP, if it was easy to make decisions like this, then we would have refferenda on every law passed/treaty signed. I'd argue that our membership of the EU actually increases our sovereignty. The EU is increasingly speaking out and acting united in the world. They have more weight behind their words than ourselves. If we were to leave, we have trading with our largest trading partner on their terms, not ours. We would be, in effect, a 'slave-state' to the EU. At least in the EU we have a say in what happens there. We are nearing an EU election, and so the EU will be in the limelight in a couple of weeks time.



I have tackled that issue, the point is that the NHS is a matter of life and death and just about everyone uses it, whereas a train service to London most will not use at all, or once in their lifetime. It does benefit some people you are right, however most people live quite near to their workplace/drive a car, therefore the argument is alreayd blown out of the window, not to mention the economic damage high taxes do for supporting a transport fantasy you are supporting would do.

On average 11% of the people of this country (outside the capital) rely on public transport. That's around 5-6million, I'd call that more than a minority. I make 4 trips a daywith the public transport system here, which costs my parents £28/month (unlimited travel), which I think is fairly reasonable. The reason why this is fairly reasonable is that the local government have a large stake and subsidise it. Those living further away have to spend more than that, maybe £4-5/return for a rather short journey. The average commute time for the UK is actually 45minutes, not that short at all. If a new system allows 1000 more people to take new jobs up, who wouldn't already being able to, on £18k a year, think of the new opportunities and how the local economy in that area can improve.



Economic growth is everything as with money brings prosperity, as Maragret Thatcher said; money doesn't fall from the sky, it has to be earned here on Earth.

There are more goals that the government need to think about. Unemployment, in my eyes, is as important as economic growth as it strengthens the moral of the population.



As I have said before, I support the national health service. The point I am making is the point the staff themselves make in numerous interviews/conferences that get held, the NHS is bloated and needs to have red-tape cut back, which would means millions upon millions more to spend on extra staff or life saving drugs which people in this country are being denied because the NHS can't afford it, yet the government see fit to donate money to the EU, China, India and of course, more red tape at the NHS.

I don't know the specifics with the donations abroad to china and india, i'd argue that in the moment in time most donations to overseas nations need to be removed as welfare costs are rising. The NHS should be under pressure to save costs, remove unnessasary posts, but WITHOUT comprimising care, which is my fear. It must be done carefully.



Money and happiness are very close together, if you have a nice home, low taxes and a family it means you can afford holidays and luxaries which in turn makes you happy. Whereas if you have no money you lose self-respect as your living from the state, you haven't got a home, you can't have a family because taxes are too high and your struggling as it is and you can't have holidays and luxaries then you are not happy. It is incredibly simple.

Being able to spend time with your famiily and friends and being able to relax is important too. I think that this is shown that we are one of the most unproductive nations in Europe. Output per worker per hour is much lower than France, Germany etc, yet they take many more days off than we do. The 'Rat Race' has produced many social problems with families being torn apart from work. The phrase 'it takes a village to raise a child' i think is a very true one. Shipping your children off to faceless childcare facilities for extended periods of time causes a rift for some. Economic growth does not grow at the same rate as Happiness Growth.



The tories took us into stages of it yes and shame on them, however since them orginial treaties were signed many things have changed and the EU is more powerful than ever before. The referendum was on the EU at that time, far different from the EU we see today, which has the aim of becoming a superstate which its citzens do not want.

Lets have a vote, once and for all which the choice is simple, do we want to remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or do we want to go down the ever narrowing path of becoming a state within the European Union.

I think you'll find the answer begins with the letter 'n'.
I'd disagree. There is alot of distortion with what the EU does in the media and the EU does not want to be a superstate and Iceland want to JOIN! I'd argue that the EU only gets bad press and it's positives are not shown enough in the media and the right-wing media uses it as a scapegoat to sell on to xenophobes. There is alot of support for the EU.

UKIP
11-05-2009, 09:53 PM
People do not have the time to educate themselves (i'm not being elitist, but it's true) about every subject in the UK and abroad so they can make decisions about how the country can progress. They cannot see evry different possiblility of each action. It's a full-time job to be an MP, if it was easy to make decisions like this, then we would have refferenda on every law passed/treaty signed. I'd argue that our membership of the EU actually increases our sovereignty. The EU is increasingly speaking out and acting united in the world. They have more weight behind their words than ourselves. If we were to leave, we have trading with our largest trading partner on their terms, not ours. We would be, in effect, a 'slave-state' to the EU. At least in the EU we have a say in what happens there. We are nearing an EU election, and so the EU will be in the limelight in a couple of weeks time.


On average 11% of the people of this country (outside the capital) rely on public transport. That's around 5-6million, I'd call that more than a minority. I make 4 trips a daywith the public transport system here, which costs my parents £28/month (unlimited travel), which I think is fairly reasonable. The reason why this is fairly reasonable is that the local government have a large stake and subsidise it. Those living further away have to spend more than that, maybe £4-5/return for a rather short journey. The average commute time for the UK is actually 45minutes, not that short at all. If a new system allows 1000 more people to take new jobs up, who wouldn't already being able to, on £18k a year, think of the new opportunities and how the local economy in that area can improve.


There are more goals that the government need to think about. Unemployment, in my eyes, is as important as economic growth as it strengthens the moral of the population.


I don't know the specifics with the donations abroad to china and india, i'd argue that in the moment in time most donations to overseas nations need to be removed as welfare costs are rising. The NHS should be under pressure to save costs, remove unnessasary posts, but WITHOUT comprimising care, which is my fear. It must be done carefully.


Being able to spend time with your famiily and friends and being able to relax is important too. I think that this is shown that we are one of the most unproductive nations in Europe. Output per worker per hour is much lower than France, Germany etc, yet they take many more days off than we do. The 'Rat Race' has produced many social problems with families being torn apart from work. The phrase 'it takes a village to raise a child' i think is a very true one. Shipping your children off to faceless childcare facilities for extended periods of time causes a rift for some. Economic growth does not grow at the same rate as Happiness Growth.


I'd disagree. There is alot of distortion with what the EU does in the media and the EU does not want to be a superstate and Iceland want to JOIN! I'd argue that the EU only gets bad press and it's positives are not shown enough in the media and the right-wing media uses it as a scapegoat to sell on to xenophobes. There is alot of support for the EU.

Hang on, you say we haven't got the qualifactions to make the decision ourselves, yet the minister for Europe hadn't even read the lisbon treaty. If she hadn't read it and its her job to, what makes you think the majority of the other MP's had done so? - that argument is utter nonsense and holds no substance, it is only because a no vote would win that you have come out with all that same old Labour 'we elect our MP's so they can make the decisions for us' - holds no substance what so ever and is an insult to the people of this country.

The claim you make about us having no influence, well is that why the Soviet states had no influence even though they were in a very powerful political and military union? - if that is the case, then would we suddenly lose our UN security council seat overnight? - that argument holds no substance what so ever. Command economies and grouping countries together which do not wish to be together will not and does not work.

We do have a say in what happens in the EU, but considering most of our MEP's don't reflect values anywhere close to public opinion then that argument is also finished. Besides, we have a voice, but other countries also have a voice which means even if our voice was strong enough and we opposed it very strongly, if other countries voted in favour then we would still have to implement what ever red tape they want us to impose. That is why is does not work and never will, your living in a eurocrat dream.

1,000 state jobs created, countless lost in the private sector and a fall in spending across the board would mean it would hurt us more than it would benefit us. I will ask again, no I will tell you, the majority of this country do not use these services therefore you and no government has no right to take our money, which we earned and not anyone else. You spend your own money, not other peoples - that is exactly why socialist Britain failed.

Creating false state jobs such as those in the 1970's with the mines and so forth does not raise moral, it raises powerful unions which forced members to strike and brought moral in the whole country down. State jobs do not create prosperity like private sector jobs do, the happiness scale I made and the economic cycle I typed out prove this. State is not the solution.

The NHS won't compromise care, with the loss of red tape and countless burocrats the NHS will have extra billions to spend on itself and the patients rather than faceless numptys who have stuck to the NHS more than ever before in the last 11 years, its time to get our lighter out and once and for all get rid of these leeches.

It does though, you haven't been able to reply to my cycle because it is true and you know it. When you have money you can raise a family, buy a house, go on holiday, days out, set up business and so forth. When you do not have money you can barely fend for yourself let alone a family and a holiday is out of the question.

You disagree because you know people do not want it, thats why eurocrats do not want a referendum at any cost because even a famously pro-EU state such as the Republic of Ireland voted the EU down - that says a lot. The EU uses right-wing media as a scapegoat, not the other way around. Right-wing media is in some of the most popular newspapers in this country, if people didn't like what they heard they wouldn't buy it - simple, there is no other excuse.

If the EU didn't want to be a superstate why is it moving closer and closer to one, an anthem and embelm? - they are living on the planet zog (or should we say euro in future) in mine and the majority of Europes opinion.

The day the EU falls or we leave, I can tell you now, very few will shed a tear, maybe the left-wing failure politicians in Brussels will once their nice fat pay cheques disappear, but not any normal people.

alexxxxx
12-05-2009, 01:07 PM
Hang on, you say we haven't got the qualifactions to make the decision ourselves, yet the minister for Europe hadn't even read the lisbon treaty. If she hadn't read it and its her job to, what makes you think the majority of the other MP's had done so? - that argument is utter nonsense and holds no substance, it is only because a no vote would win that you have come out with all that same old Labour 'we elect our MP's so they can make the decisions for us' - holds no substance what so ever and is an insult to the people of this country.

The claim you make about us having no influence, well is that why the Soviet states had no influence even though they were in a very powerful political and military union? - if that is the case, then would we suddenly lose our UN security council seat overnight? - that argument holds no substance what so ever. Command economies and grouping countries together which do not wish to be together will not and does not work.

Many countries would like to be in the EU, Iceland, like I have said, Turkey, Croatia. MPs and MEPs should do their jobs that they are paid £65k + expenses to do. If they are found not to be doing their jobs they should be voted out. That's the idea of parliament, to make the laws. Not the people. Our legal-setup does not include a constitution so regular referenda are not required. If you look at the setup of Switzerland, they have regular votes among the people for more contreversial laws. Our way is called a parliamentary democracy.

The EU is not a command economy and are actually freemarketers.



We do have a say in what happens in the EU, but considering most of our MEP's don't reflect values anywhere close to public opinion then that argument is also finished. Besides, we have a voice, but other countries also have a voice which means even if our voice was strong enough and we opposed it very strongly, if other countries voted in favour then we would still have to implement what ever red tape they want us to impose. That is why is does not work and never will, your living in a eurocrat dream.

Why don't they? It's PR-elected. So everyone's vote counts. If you know how the European Parliament works (which I have actually visited and sat in the chamber), parties sit in groups. Decisions about UK's membership should be taken up in the generals. If UKIP works in the EU they should be voting against further integration and representing their values. They shouldn't be acting childishly, giving out melted chocolate Euro-coins.



1,000 state jobs created, countless lost in the private sector and a fall in spending across the board would mean it would hurt us more than it would benefit us. I will ask again, no I will tell you, the majority of this country do not use these services therefore you and no government has no right to take our money, which we earned and not anyone else. You spend your own money, not other peoples - that is exactly why socialist Britain failed.

You misunderstand what I am saying. 1000 people are now mobilised to take up private sector jobs, all 'real' jobs. Private sector builing firms are used to build the stops and buses, which create jobs in the priavte sector and the only jobs which are held by the state is the Bus Drivers. And then the cycle of wealth is increased.



Creating false state jobs such as those in the 1970's with the mines and so forth does not raise moral, it raises powerful unions which forced members to strike and brought moral in the whole country down. State jobs do not create prosperity like private sector jobs do, the happiness scale I made and the economic cycle I typed out prove this. State is not the solution.

I know. You misunderstood what I meant.



The NHS won't compromise care, with the loss of red tape and countless burocrats the NHS will have extra billions to spend on itself and the patients rather than faceless numptys who have stuck to the NHS more than ever before in the last 11 years, its time to get our lighter out and once and for all get rid of these leeches.

You say they won't compromise care, but you don't know if that's possible.



It does though, you haven't been able to reply to my cycle because it is true and you know it. When you have money you can raise a family, buy a house, go on holiday, days out, set up business and so forth. When you do not have money you can barely fend for yourself let alone a family and a holiday is out of the question.

When I stayed in France, the whole family returned home for lunch and the whole atmosphere in the school was alot less stressful, but more focused. Everyone is more relaxed and everyone is more productive. Much better for the economy, much better for the people. In the UK only the richer people can afford to take time off.



You disagree because you know people do not want it, thats why eurocrats do not want a referendum at any cost because even a famously pro-EU state such as the Republic of Ireland voted the EU down - that says a lot. The EU uses right-wing media as a scapegoat, not the other way around. Right-wing media is in some of the most popular newspapers in this country, if people didn't like what they heard they wouldn't buy it - simple, there is no other excuse.

If the EU didn't want to be a superstate why is it moving closer and closer to one, an anthem and embelm? - they are living on the planet zog (or should we say euro in future) in mine and the majority of Europes opinion.

The day the EU falls or we leave, I can tell you now, very few will shed a tear, maybe the left-wing failure politicians in Brussels will once their nice fat pay cheques disappear, but not any normal people.
The EU decided that the emblem and the anthem were deemed as too far and so they removed them from the lisbon treaty. The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty because they lost some of their power in Brussels. Adjustments have been made and now they are to vote again. If they don't like that, then more pro-irish adjustments will be made. If they cannot find a compromise, then the Irish can leave, simple as.

UKIP
12-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Many countries would like to be in the EU, Iceland, like I have said, Turkey, Croatia. MPs and MEPs should do their jobs that they are paid £65k + expenses to do. If they are found not to be doing their jobs they should be voted out. That's the idea of parliament, to make the laws. Not the people. Our legal-setup does not include a constitution so regular referenda are not required. If you look at the setup of Switzerland, they have regular votes among the people for more contreversial laws. Our way is called a parliamentary democracy.

The EU is not a command economy and are actually freemarketers.

Why don't they? It's PR-elected. So everyone's vote counts. If you know how the European Parliament works (which I have actually visited and sat in the chamber), parties sit in groups. Decisions about UK's membership should be taken up in the generals. If UKIP works in the EU they should be voting against further integration and representing their values. They shouldn't be acting childishly, giving out melted chocolate Euro-coins.

You misunderstand what I am saying. 1000 people are now mobilised to take up private sector jobs, all 'real' jobs. Private sector builing firms are used to build the stops and buses, which create jobs in the priavte sector and the only jobs which are held by the state is the Bus Drivers. And then the cycle of wealth is increased.

I know. You misunderstood what I meant.

You say they won't compromise care, but you don't know if that's possible.

When I stayed in France, the whole family returned home for lunch and the whole atmosphere in the school was alot less stressful, but more focused. Everyone is more relaxed and everyone is more productive. Much better for the economy, much better for the people. In the UK only the richer people can afford to take time off.

The EU decided that the emblem and the anthem were deemed as too far and so they removed them from the lisbon treaty. The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty because they lost some of their power in Brussels. Adjustments have been made and now they are to vote again. If they don't like that, then more pro-irish adjustments will be made. If they cannot find a compromise, then the Irish can leave, simple as.

Then you expect us to now sign up to the Lisbon Treaty and just say "hey what the hell, we can just vote her out next time around." - doesn't wash mate. People want their promised referendum and they want it now. The people of Europe want it. Yes countries may want to join up, that doesn't mean their citzens want to join it.

The EU is a command economy as it is a central economy which is all planned, if it wasn't a command economy then there would be no EU and it would be normal trade like the rest of the world have, and are getting along fine with.

UKIP are defending our interests in parliament, but Labour MEP's and others are still signing away sovereignty. That is why the BNP and UKIP are growing fast in the European Parliament with the BNP expected to make its first wins there for the first time ever, I think you can now see the message is no, no again and no to the EU.

The loss via tax still outweighs it and the loss due to high tax is even more outweighed by the loss of business. It has been tried before and it failed, how many times must Labour supporters make us fail in various areas until the message; it doesn't work gets through.

If the staff at the NHS are saying it, i'm pretty sure it stands more of a chance than any of the red tape and targets Labour throws out every day.

That is French culture and not ours, we're not the same.

As for the EU deciding it was 'too far' - wrong. The EU only removed them because France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty as they were given a referendum on the consitution. As the EU wants to ram this through in any shape or form, they removed their true objective of the plan for the superstate (the constitution) and renamed it the Lisbon Treaty with small parts such as the emblem and anthem removed, but don't worry because they will appear in the future once the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU yet more power.

Isn't it strange that after the Frrench & Netherlandral rejections no more referendums were held in them or any other country (excluding the Republic of Ireland because they, by law, have to hold a referendum on the EU) and Ireland, which is famously pro-EU still rejected the treaty.

I think that says it all on what people think of the European Union.

.:Admiral:.
12-05-2009, 07:21 PM
This is how I see it right.

The UK Monarchy has been around for many many years, it's been passed generation to generation within the Royal Family. Yes, we pay tax money towards keeping them there; but people really don't realise how much work they actually do carry out.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the head of what, 53 Commonwealth Naitons? Thats pretty impressive considering many people "don't want a Monarchy" but yet, the still choose to have her as Head of State. She's 84 next year, she's been Queen since the age of 25. She's given up so much just to take the title; let alone the Duties & other things that she has to carry out as Head of State. Her Maj has attended EVERY single Trooping The Colour since it began; compaired to Queen Victoria (who only attended 1 in her whole life) it's amazing.

I wouldn't want to do her job, yeah you'd have everyone salute you every day, bow down to you or whatever but surely it'd get boring. You'd have to watch what you do, be careful of what you say, make sure you say the right things; wear the right things, eat the right things, look like a Monarch etc etc. The list goes on and on.

If we get rid of the Monarchy, LOADS of things go with it. For instance; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland... what would that be? The Republic of Great Britian? The title of Royal would dissapear from everything; Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Queens Colour Squadron RAF, Royal Fleet Air Arm... the list goes on. It'd cause so much hassle just to get rid of the Royal Family. Think, they'd have to become a normal citizen again? Dames, Sir's, Lords, Saints, OBEs, MBEs, KBEs, they'd all dissapear as they're awards from a Monarch. It's rediculous, the list is endless.

I hope to god that this country has some sence still left in here somewhere. The country has gone mad. I'd love to see the Monarchy remain throughout my entire lifetime, and through my Grandkids etc. It's part of what makes me proud to be British, not Welsh or Scottish or English... BRITISH.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! :)

alexxxxx
12-05-2009, 09:24 PM
Then you expect us to now sign up to the Lisbon Treaty and just say "hey what the hell, we can just vote her out next time around." - doesn't wash mate. People want their promised referendum and they want it now. The people of Europe want it. Yes countries may want to join up, that doesn't mean their citzens want to join it.

I expect the government to read through the material, debate freely, listen to their constituents concerns and not be influenced by what the Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Sky News and BBC News say. The media is to inform the public NOT to inform the MPs of the public. The referendum vote in the house of commons was not close to passing, with many conservatives against it, including K Clarke.

The EU is seen as a safety net to Iceland, a union that will help them if they fail, again.



The EU is a command economy as it is a central economy which is all planned, if it wasn't a command economy then there would be no EU and it would be normal trade like the rest of the world have, and are getting along fine with.

What are you on about!? It's called a FREE MARKET. A FREE MARKET. That's what the whole EU is ABOUT. It's about removing barriers of trade and services between nations. UKIP know f-all about the economy and what's best for trade. They just appeal to old-romantics. The EU is our biggest trading partner because of our membership. It is the largest single economic market in the world, larger than the USA. A truely free-market world wouldn't have borders at ALL. A Planned or Controlled Economy is wear there is no private business and the government determines who produces, in what quantity and where it goes. Who is going to set up a factory in the UK where there is no-one to trade with. THINK IT THROUGH.

One of the only things that isn't very free about it is the CAP, which is done to protect farmers' livelihoods. If we didn't have the CAP there wouldn't be enough food to go around! The world-price for food is TOO LOW for farmers in this country to compete with. There would be no milk and no break without CAP.



UKIP are defending our interests in parliament, but Labour MEP's and others are still signing away sovereignty. That is why the BNP and UKIP are growing fast in the European Parliament with the BNP expected to make its first wins there for the first time ever, I think you can now see the message is no, no again and no to the EU.

The BNP were polled yesterday at 4% of the vote. UKIP higher, but behind the Greens, Lib Dems etc. It isn't a large majority at all. Why do you think the 'Big 3' get in so much. It's because they are VOTED IN and you can't accept that. The Daily Mail doesn't speak for the nation, votes do.



The loss via tax still outweighs it and the loss due to high tax is even more outweighed by the loss of business. It has been tried before and it failed, how many times must Labour supporters make us fail in various areas until the message; it doesn't work gets through.

No it doesn't! The tax DOESN'T out way it at all. Infact, it increases wealth. When new roads are built in a new area, the local economy grows and grows. It's called careful spending, to trigger an economic phenomenon known as the Multiplier Effect.



That is French culture and not ours, we're not the same.

In my eyes, it's a better system.



As for the EU deciding it was 'too far' - wrong. The EU only removed them because France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty as they were given a referendum on the consitution. As the EU wants to ram this through in any shape or form, they removed their true objective of the plan for the superstate (the constitution) and renamed it the Lisbon Treaty with small parts such as the emblem and anthem removed, but don't worry because they will appear in the future once the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU yet more power.

They were removed because it's called negotiation. Someone tries to sell you a dirty car, then you say 'clean the car before i buy it, add 6 months insurance and get rid of the dints' and then you get the deal. You aren't buying the dirty car anymore, you're buying a slightly different version, a better version.



Isn't it strange that after the Frrench & Netherlandral rejections no more referendums were held in them or any other country (excluding the Republic of Ireland because they, by law, have to hold a referendum on the EU) and Ireland, which is famously pro-EU still rejected the treaty.

Technically, they aren't the same thing. They voted on the constitution, where this is the Lisbon Treaty. Quite a lot of it is the same, but not 100%. I guess the French and Dutch Government thought it was different enough to not warrant a Referendum.



I think that says it all on what people think of the European Union.
If UKIP poll more than 50% of the vote in June, maybe we'll have a case to leave the EU, as that would be a majority.

UKIP
12-05-2009, 09:48 PM
I expect the government to read through the material, debate freely, listen to their constituents concerns and not be influenced by what the Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Sky News and BBC News say. The media is to inform the public NOT to inform the MPs of the public. The referendum vote in the house of commons was not close to passing, with many conservatives against it, including K Clarke.

The EU is seen as a safety net to Iceland, a union that will help them if they fail, again.


What are you on about!? It's called a FREE MARKET. A FREE MARKET. That's what the whole EU is ABOUT. It's about removing barriers of trade and services between nations. UKIP know f-all about the economy and what's best for trade. They just appeal to old-romantics. The EU is our biggest trading partner because of our membership. It is the largest single economic market in the world, larger than the USA. A truely free-market world wouldn't have borders at ALL. A Planned or Controlled Economy is wear there is no private business and the government determines who produces, in what quantity and where it goes. Who is going to set up a factory in the UK where there is no-one to trade with. THINK IT THROUGH.

One of the only things that isn't very free about it is the CAP, which is done to protect farmers' livelihoods. If we didn't have the CAP there wouldn't be enough food to go around! The world-price for food is TOO LOW for farmers in this country to compete with. There would be no milk and no break without CAP.


The BNP were polled yesterday at 4% of the vote. UKIP higher, but behind the Greens, Lib Dems etc. It isn't a large majority at all. Why do you think the 'Big 3' get in so much. It's because they are VOTED IN and you can't accept that. The Daily Mail doesn't speak for the nation, votes do.


No it doesn't! The tax DOESN'T out way it at all. Infact, it increases wealth. When new roads are built in a new area, the local economy grows and grows. It's called careful spending, to trigger an economic phenomenon known as the Multiplier Effect.


In my eyes, it's a better system.


They were removed because it's called negotiation. Someone tries to sell you a dirty car, then you say 'clean the car before i buy it, add 6 months insurance and get rid of the dints' and then you get the deal. You aren't buying the dirty car anymore, you're buying a slightly different version, a better version.


Technically, they aren't the same thing. They voted on the constitution, where this is the Lisbon Treaty. Quite a lot of it is the same, but not 100%. I guess the French and Dutch Government thought it was different enough to not warrant a Referendum.


If UKIP poll more than 50% of the vote in June, maybe we'll have a case to leave the EU, as that would be a majority.


Your using the media argument again to defend your views, people buy newspapers because they appeal to their own views. I read the Daily Mail because I choose to, it agrees with my views and therefore I buy it. It is very simple, unless you'd like to start restricting the press in which case we're really entering a socialist state.

The EU is seen as a safety net to Iceland, that still doesn't hide the fact we and most other countries do not agree or want the EU.

Your making it out as if we didn't trade with Europe before the EU was set up, again it is just more 'EU-if we weren't in the EU we would collapse' nonsense. The EU isn't a free market, if it was a free market it wouldn't have restrictions on prices and produce, therefore it is a command economy. It is centrally planned and fisherman and farmers do not like it one bit, hence the decimation of British apple farms in the 1970's overnight and the French fishing protests only a few weeks back. I have thought it through, and I think the farmers and fishermen who actually do the work rather than faceless eurocrats know what is best, don't you?

More rubbish about restrictions helping us, i'm sorry but it doesn't wash at all. I do not see non-EU countries not having enough food because they are not in the EU. The EU restricts our farming and fishing, therefore if we left we could grow our own, how its supposed to be done and has been done long before this faceless organisation was set up.

Why are they not higher? - because of PR it is simple as that. Those who do not vote are either fed up with the main three and see no point in voting because thanks to our FPTP system it is virtually impossible for UKIP and other parties to get a foothold. Who mentioned the Daily Mail here, it seems that is the only argument you have left now is to attack the Daily Mail, then again, it is one of the most popular newspapers in this country which goes to show, people agree with what they are reading.

The economic miracle you point to, is that the Soviet Union or 1970's Britain, or even North Korea? - yes they are doing/did excellent aren't/didn't they, starving population with economics which eventually led to their collapse. You would love us to go through the 1970's again, and then, just maybe, you'd realise what high tax does to a countries economy. If you would like to see business leave this country and have a repeat of mass strikes, rubbish piling up on the streets, power cuts and dead bodies rotting in the morgues then your thinking the right way.

If its called negotiation when is our negotiation going to come from the EU on whether we even want to be in the EU? - its not called negotiation, its called spin doctoring, the same thing but dressed up differently.

Various people, even supporters of the two reform proposals have admitted they are the same thing, just dressed up in a different way. The French and Netherlandral governments did not hold a referendum this time because the EU wouldn't want it and they themselves know it would fail yet again. If the EU want to be free and negotiate, then they are welcome to come anytime and bring a referendum to the people of Europe asking whether we even want to be in this waste of time, good for nothing, controlling and near-dictorial so called 'union'. Of course it will never happen because they know it will lose and they will continue to hide behind the same 'we elect MP's to make our decision' argument that you yourself are so keen on using.

Yes maybe we'll get some more UKIP/other parties into there and even Westminister with some backbone, infact instead of waiting for a 50% majority in the European Parliaments, heres a better idea put forward by your own party in the 2005 General Election; hold a referendum.

Caution
12-05-2009, 10:02 PM
This is how I see it right.

The UK Monarchy has been around for many many years, it's been passed generation to generation within the Royal Family. Yes, we pay tax money towards keeping them there; but people really don't realise how much work they actually do carry out. Because they don't do a lot.:S

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the head of what, 53 Commonwealth Naitons? Thats pretty impressive considering many people "don't want a Monarchy" but yet, the still choose to have her as Head of State. She's 84 next year, she's been Queen since the age of 25. She's given up so much just to take the title; let alone the Duties & other things that she has to carry out as Head of State. Her Maj has attended EVERY single Trooping The Colour since it began; compaired to Queen Victoria (who only attended 1 in her whole life) it's amazing.

I wouldn't want to do her job, yeah you'd have everyone salute you every day, bow down to you or whatever but surely it'd get boring. You'd have to watch what you do, be careful of what you say, make sure you say the right things; wear the right things, eat the right things, look like a Monarch etc etc. The list goes on and on.

If we get rid of the Monarchy, LOADS of things go with it. For instance; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland... what would that be? The Republic of Great Britian? The title of Royal would dissapear from everything; Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Queens Colour Squadron RAF, Royal Fleet Air Arm... the list goes on. It'd cause so much hassle just to get rid of the Royal Family. Think, they'd have to become a normal citizen again? Dames, Sir's, Lords, Saints, OBEs, MBEs, KBEs, they'd all dissapear as they're awards from a Monarch. It's rediculous, the list is endless.

What a shame!:rolleyes: You're correct, it is ridiculous how there are people living in a palace paid for by citizens hard earned cash.

I hope to god that this country has some sence still left in here somewhere. The country has gone mad. I'd love to see the Monarchy remain throughout my entire lifetime, and through my Grandkids etc. It's part of what makes me proud to be British, not Welsh or Scottish or English...

I lol'd, I personally would hate to be classed as a 'Brit', despite the fact I sadly am. It's probably because the National Anthem says 'Rebellious Scots to crush' BRITISH.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! :)

Those are my beliefs and I'm aware haven't took any political considerations into it, so flame me. I don't want to be classed as a Brit and sing the national anthem which says Scots should be crushed.

alexxxxx
13-05-2009, 09:06 AM
Your using the media argument again to defend your views, people buy newspapers because they appeal to their own views. I read the Daily Mail because I choose to, it agrees with my views and therefore I buy it. It is very simple, unless you'd like to start restricting the press in which case we're really entering a socialist state.

The media is there for the people. If you choose to read the in-factual, nazi-supporting, 'let's make up a story and hope we don't get sued' daily mail, then I guess it's your choice. But I'd argue that reading a newspaper because it appeals to your views is a terrible practice as it doesn't educate yourself about the world in a neutral way. I read the Guardian, Metro (Daily Mail Sister-Paper), Daily Mail Online, Telegraph and Independent Online. A mixture. Don't be stupid, under the 'socialist state of the 1970s when there was rubbish on the streets, dead people left to rot and those pesky unions controlling the country I believe freedom of the press was still allowed.



Your making it out as if we didn't trade with Europe before the EU was set up, again it is just more 'EU-if we weren't in the EU we would collapse' nonsense. The EU isn't a free market, if it was a free market it wouldn't have restrictions on prices and produce, therefore it is a command economy. It is centrally planned and fisherman and farmers do not like it one bit, hence the decimation of British apple farms in the 1970's overnight and the French fishing protests only a few weeks back. I have thought it through, and I think the farmers and fishermen who actually do the work rather than faceless eurocrats know what is best, don't you?

More rubbish about restrictions helping us, i'm sorry but it doesn't wash at all. I do not see non-EU countries not having enough food because they are not in the EU. The EU restricts our farming and fishing, therefore if we left we could grow our own, how its supposed to be done and has been done long before this faceless organisation was set up.


The USA uses subsidies and uses similar schemes to the EU to keep farmers in business and to keep the price of food high. THE USA ARE COMMAND ECONOMY TOO? OMG COMMUNISMMMMM. It needs to be done. If it was left to the free market food prices would fall through the floor, putting people out of business. Alot of farmers rely on EU subsidies to keep them afloat, without them they would leave the business. My parents' friend run a farm and they can barely keep afloat now.

Say a car manufacturer is looking to build a new factory in Europe. They narrow it down to Germany, France or the UK. Suddenly, the UK pull out of the EU and France puts up import taxes on cars coming into their country from non-EU states. Oh, I guess they'll build the cars in Germany or France now, seeing as the added expense of tax. Less jobs for the UK, less consumption, less jobs etc. Downward spiral. The EU fines countries who defy their free-trade. Like when France banned British Beef imports, even though there were no problems with it. The EU saw this as a protectionist measure and fined them.



Why are they not higher? - because of PR it is simple as that. Those who do not vote are either fed up with the main three and see no point in voting because thanks to our FPTP system it is virtually impossible for UKIP and other parties to get a foothold. Who mentioned the Daily Mail here, it seems that is the only argument you have left now is to attack the Daily Mail, then again, it is one of the most popular newspapers in this country which goes to show, people agree with what they are reading.

Ridiculous statement. It's not low 'because they're fed up,' it's low because 'no-one wants to vote for them.'



The economic miracle you point to, is that the Soviet Union or 1970's Britain, or even North Korea? - yes they are doing/did excellent aren't/didn't they, starving population with economics which eventually led to their collapse. You would love us to go through the 1970's again, and then, just maybe, you'd realise what high tax does to a countries economy. If you would like to see business leave this country and have a repeat of mass strikes, rubbish piling up on the streets, power cuts and dead bodies rotting in the morgues then your thinking the right way.

If you know anything about economics, which I'm starting to feel like you know very little, and I don't know that much, apart from an A at AS Level because it's noticed by EVERY GOVERNMENT NOW. It's not a socialist thing, although a bit Keynesian, but it does work to stimulate growth in aggregate demand and therefore real GDP.



If its called negotiation when is our negotiation going to come from the EU on whether we even want to be in the EU? - its not called negotiation, its called spin doctoring, the same thing but dressed up differently.

You do have your say, every time you, or your parents, tick 'conservative' on the ballot. They are pro-EU, maybe they don't like some of the things they say, but ultimately they are pro-EU.



Various people, even supporters of the two reform proposals have admitted they are the same thing, just dressed up in a different way. The French and Dutch governments did not hold a referendum this time because the EU wouldn't want it and they themselves know it would fail yet again. If the EU want to be free and negotiate, then they are welcome to come anytime and bring a referendum to the people of Europe asking whether we even want to be in this waste of time, good for nothing, controlling and near-dictorial so called 'union'. Of course it will never happen because they know it will lose and they will continue to hide behind the same 'we elect MP's to make our decision' argument that you yourself are so keen on using.

They are similar with a lot of the text exactly the same word-for-word. I haven't read the constitution or the lisbon treaty so I don't know what the differences are.

Who dictates? Who dictates? This isn't like the USSR where Russia was the one in control. This is a union between nations, a voluntary union, where the presidency switches between nations. We had it fairly recently and it is the czech's turn now.



Yes maybe we'll get some more UKIP/other parties into there and even Westminister with some backbone, infact instead of waiting for a 50% majority in the European Parliaments, heres a better idea put forward by your own party in the 2005 General Election; hold a referendum.
Who said I'm a labour supporter? You've been assuming this all the way through? I'm actually siding with LibDems at the moment, Pro-EU, against ID cards, Freedom Bill. As Edward Davey of the LibDems said "This is a treaty which genuine Euro-sceptics should be coming to praise - not to bury." because it makes is easier for people to actually leave the EU.

.:Admiral:.
13-05-2009, 02:49 PM
Monarchy or Republic

Where in that sentance does it say anything about the EU, or if you want to leave the EU? If you wanna argue about the flaiming EU, make another thread. Stop having a little hissy fit about some poxy stars on a flag and start thinking about your own country first.

alexxxxx
13-05-2009, 03:20 PM
Monarchy or Republic

Where in that sentance does it say anything about the EU, or if you want to leave the EU? If you wanna argue about the flaiming EU, make another thread. Stop having a little hissy fit about some poxy stars on a flag and start thinking about your own country first.

Eh mate. Why don't you just leave this thread? It was Undertakers to begin with, and turned into a debate, which veered off into another topic. UKIP is Undertaker.

It's not all about the EU anyway this debate, some of it is about other topics.

Cheers.

.:Admiral:.
13-05-2009, 03:27 PM
Yeah but most of what your saying is. Don't call me Mate either, won't get you very far.

I was just pointing out a fact that most people would have realised if they were following it?

UKIP
13-05-2009, 09:27 PM
The media is there for the people. If you choose to read the in-factual, nazi-supporting, 'let's make up a story and hope we don't get sued' daily mail, then I guess it's your choice. But I'd argue that reading a newspaper because it appeals to your views is a terrible practice as it doesn't educate yourself about the world in a neutral way. I read the Guardian, Metro (Daily Mail Sister-Paper), Daily Mail Online, Telegraph and Independent Online. A mixture. Don't be stupid, under the 'socialist state of the 1970s when there was rubbish on the streets, dead people left to rot and those pesky unions controlling the country I believe freedom of the press was still allowed.

The USA uses subsidies and uses similar schemes to the EU to keep farmers in business and to keep the price of food high. THE USA ARE COMMAND ECONOMY TOO? OMG COMMUNISMMMMM. It needs to be done. If it was left to the free market food prices would fall through the floor, putting people out of business. Alot of farmers rely on EU subsidies to keep them afloat, without them they would leave the business. My parents' friend run a farm and they can barely keep afloat now.

Say a car manufacturer is looking to build a new factory in Europe. They narrow it down to Germany, France or the UK. Suddenly, the UK pull out of the EU and France puts up import taxes on cars coming into their country from non-EU states. Oh, I guess they'll build the cars in Germany or France now, seeing as the added expense of tax. Less jobs for the UK, less consumption, less jobs etc. Downward spiral. The EU fines countries who defy their free-trade. Like when France banned British Beef imports, even though there were no problems with it. The EU saw this as a protectionist measure and fined them.

Ridiculous statement. It's not low 'because they're fed up,' it's low because 'no-one wants to vote for them.'

If you know anything about economics, which I'm starting to feel like you know very little, and I don't know that much, apart from an A at AS Level because it's noticed by EVERY GOVERNMENT NOW. It's not a socialist thing, although a bit Keynesian, but it does work to stimulate growth in aggregate demand and therefore real GDP.

You do have your say, every time you, or your parents, tick 'conservative' on the ballot. They are pro-EU, maybe they don't like some of the things they say, but ultimately they are pro-EU.

They are similar with a lot of the text exactly the same word-for-word. I haven't read the constitution or the lisbon treaty so I don't know what the differences are.

Who dictates? Who dictates? This isn't like the USSR where Russia was the one in control. This is a union between nations, a voluntary union, where the presidency switches between nations. We had it fairly recently and it is the czech's turn now.

Who said I'm a labour supporter? You've been assuming this all the way through? I'm actually siding with LibDems at the moment, Pro-EU, against ID cards, Freedom Bill. As Edward Davey of the LibDems said "This is a treaty which genuine Euro-sceptics should be coming to praise - not to bury." because it makes is easier for people to actually leave the EU.

Your doing it again, the "nazi supporting Daily Mail" - as far as I know we don't have tributes to Hitler and the Third Reich in the Daily Mail. That was the 1970's, the winter of discontent and so forth. That is why we were known in Europe as the sick man of Europe. If you made me read one thousand Guardian newspapers I still wouldn't believe anything in it, because its a left wing newspaper which constantly shows Global Warming in a biased matter.

That is one country, therefore they do wholely what benefits the United States of America, whereas the EU does whats best for the whole of the European Union, rather than the United Kingdom. You just said it yourself, if America can use suitable farming control then why can't we, that has completly destroyed the argument for farm and fisheries control from the EU, let alone also handing over sovereignty as well as billions and billions to a union people don't even want to be in. I watched a program in which many farmers stated that overnight from joining the pre-EU farms closed instantly as cheaper prices from EU imports brought the prices of apples, tomatoes crashing through the roof.

If a car company wants to build a car company in Europe which they seldom seem to do now, they would mostly likely pick Germany due to it being the main industrial power in Europe, not because it is in a red-tape burocratic EU.

That is not free-trade, that is breaking so called EU-law which is a disgrace. I'm sorry but France has every right as a sovereign country to ban any imports it wishes even if I disagree with their decision.

It isn't a ridiculous statement, it is perfectly true. That is why voting figures for the three main parties is very low because people are fed up with them and if they vote for another party it is likely to make little difference.

Who said I needed an A Level in economics to know a simple common sense fact about business and socialism, you only have to look towards the Soviet Union, North Korea, Peoples Republic of China under Mao to see what socialism has done.

They simply don't, as we live in Liberal Democrat and Labour strongholds (I don't even think the Conservatives bother standing here) so if we voted Conservative or any other party which didn't win that seat, it would be a wasted vote. That is why the FPTP system is wrong and doesn't reflect the number of votes compared with the number of seats.

It may be a voluntary union, but its not democratic as it hasn't asked us the simple question of whether we want it to exist or not, and you have ignored the fact that the treaty has been turned down by three countries so far via referendum, and only because they had a referendum which reflects the publics opinion and not the political elites opinion.

The Czechs have the presidency now, and at a good time aswell because their excellent President Klaus I believe he's called, is trying every measure to stop this Lisbon treaty going ahead and good on him, if only we had someone with a backbone like him in our government and across Europe, because we know as soon as that happens the EU is finished, exactly why the EU was over the moon when Margaret Thatcher resigned from office.

The Liberal Democrats can bang on about the EU as much as they want, the party is socialism with a smile and its well known for it. It appears that the only argument for signing is now some 'pullout' clause, so i'd ask why do we need to sign up and sign away more sovereign powers for some pullout clause which the EU knows will most likely never be used.

Who dictates? - the European Commision and the European Parliament, its very simple. They can tell Westminister Parliament to pay a fine, or to implement more red tape/laws - that is dictation.

You've previously said you are a Labour supporter in the past. Anyways, as I have said previously, you cannot justify the EU as at any time when it has been put to a public vote is has been turned down, that is why this time the only country which held a referendum was the country which legally had to hold a referendum over it - doesn't that just show what the EU is like, it cannot and refuses to take 'NO' for an answer.


Monarchy or Republic

Where in that sentance does it say anything about the EU, or if you want to leave the EU? If you wanna argue about the flaiming EU, make another thread. Stop having a little hissy fit about some poxy stars on a flag and start thinking about your own country first.

Don't get involved then, very simple. Discussions like the one me and alex are having are far better than comments like the one you have just posted which is intended to stir up an argument.

Bun
14-05-2009, 08:33 AM
there's just one thing i don't understand about UKIP. if they are so imposed to the EU, why do they still sit in it, reaping the benefits? even standing for the election is hypocritical enough.

.:Admiral:.
14-05-2009, 02:29 PM
The Government need to sort themselfs out first anyway, before they even start to worry about the Country that they lead. Bunch of muppets.

UKIP
14-05-2009, 03:36 PM
there's just one thing i don't understand about UKIP. if they are so imposed to the EU, why do they still sit in it, reaping the benefits? even standing for the election is hypocritical enough.

To defend British interests for the meantime, then they can build on leaving the European Union. The decision was taken many years ago by UKIP to involve itself rather than distance itself from the issue. It isn't hypocritical, they are fighting for us in that parliament, better than the other three are doing, mainly the Liberal Democrats and Labour.

Bun
14-05-2009, 05:44 PM
To defend British interests for the meantime, then they can build on leaving the European Union. The decision was taken many years ago by UKIP to involve itself rather than distance itself from the issue. It isn't hypocritical, they are fighting for us in that parliament, better than the other three are doing, mainly the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
sorry i am confused. are they fighting for "us" as a country as a whole in a place they don't believe should exist? or are they fighting for "us" in trying to get us out of the eu?

UKIP
14-05-2009, 10:10 PM
sorry i am confused. are they fighting for "us" as a country as a whole in a place they don't believe should exist? or are they fighting for "us" in trying to get us out of the eu?

Your attempting to make a molehill out of a very simple matter.

UKIP are fighting in the European Parliament along with other anti-EU groups to defend the interests of sovereign nations against the EU. Once they have more MEP's it means more money and publicity, then they will start to target Westminister or even influence the Conservative Party once they have a majority in the European Parliament.

They believe we, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should exist, just not the European Union.

alexxxxx
15-05-2009, 03:16 PM
That is one country, therefore they do wholely what benefits the United States of America, whereas the EU does whats best for the whole of the European Union, rather than the United Kingdom. You just said it yourself, if America can use suitable farming control then why can't we, that has completly destroyed the argument for farm and fisheries control from the EU, let alone also handing over sovereignty as well as billions and billions to a union people don't even want to be in. I watched a program in which many farmers stated that overnight from joining the pre-EU farms closed instantly as cheaper prices from EU imports brought the prices of apples, tomatoes crashing through the roof.

The USA began sort of like the EU. A union of independant states. They are more fractured than it seems. Different laws between states, some people even want their state to ceede from the USA (which they are all entitled to do so). Some people might argue that the Federal Government doesn't treat everyone/state equally.


If a car company wants to build a car company in Europe which they seldom seem to do now, they would mostly likely pick Germany due to it being the main industrial power in Europe, not because it is in a red-tape burocratic EU.

Change 'car company' to anyother sort of consumer or capital goods producer, it would still be the same. They would be (or could be) liable to pay import taxes when selling goods abroad), less jobs, less economic growth. That's a free market.


That is not free-trade, that is breaking so called EU-law which is a disgrace. I'm sorry but France has every right as a sovereign country to ban any imports it wishes even if I disagree with their decision.

Yes it is free-trade. Free-trade is where trade happens without government intervention. The EU makes sure that free trade exists between nations so everyone's economy can benefit.


It isn't a ridiculous statement, it is perfectly true. That is why voting figures for the three main parties is very low because people are fed up with them and if they vote for another party it is likely to make little difference.

Not in the european elections though!


Who said I needed an A Level in economics to know a simple common sense fact about business and socialism, you only have to look towards the Soviet Union, North Korea, Peoples Republic of China under Mao to see what socialism has done.

Socialism does not mean isolationism or communism. Spending money on something that helps everyone (or a minority). You could use your arguments on everything. Why should we fund road-building in parts of the country we don't go to, why should we fund transport in inner-city London. It's because the benefits outway the costs.


It may be a voluntary union, but its not democratic as it hasn't asked us the simple question of whether we want it to exist or not, and you have ignored the fact that the treaty has been turned down by three countries so far via referendum, and only because they had a referendum which reflects the publics opinion and not the political elites opinion.

Our democratically elected government who represent the people said 'yes.' To the union, we have said yes. It's everyone's fault, the voters' 'fault' that we're in the union.



The Liberal Democrats can bang on about the EU as much as they want, the party is socialism with a smile and its well known for it. It appears that the only argument for signing is now some 'pullout' clause, so i'd ask why do we need to sign up and sign away more sovereign powers for some pullout clause which the EU knows will most likely never be used.

There are other decent reasons. The UK actually has quite a few opt-outs in the EU.


Who dictates? - the European Commision and the European Parliament, its very simple. They can tell Westminister Parliament to pay a fine, or to implement more red tape/laws - that is dictation.

I'm glad they do. They stop our government from keeping DNA databases of people who have never commited a crime and other national databases. At least there's some people who can tell our government to give us the rights that we deserve.


You've previously said you are a Labour supporter in the past. Anyways, as I have said previously, you cannot justify the EU as at any time when it has been put to a public vote is has been turned down, that is why this time the only country which held a referendum was the country which legally had to hold a referendum over it - doesn't that just show what the EU is like, it cannot and refuses to take 'NO' for an answer.

I'm fairly sure I haven't. Labour haven't been an absolute disaster over the last 12 years, but some decisions were awful (billions wasted on iraq&afghanistan), stupid expenses claims etc. But they sorted out NI and they introduced the minimum wage and other things to help people.

But Labour are now disillusioned and people don't know what to think of them anymore. They've stepped too right-wing for many people.

Out of interest, what do you think of the pan-european party libertas? They're pro-EU but doesn't like the way it's heading (as far as i can see).

By the way, i'm tired of this debate now as i'll never get you to see things from my point of view. Agree to disagree aha.

UKIP
15-05-2009, 04:19 PM
The USA began sort of like the EU. A union of independant states. They are more fractured than it seems. Different laws between states, some people even want their state to ceede from the USA (which they are all entitled to do so). Some people might argue that the Federal Government doesn't treat everyone/state equally.

Change 'car company' to anyother sort of consumer or capital goods producer, it would still be the same. They would be (or could be) liable to pay import taxes when selling goods abroad), less jobs, less economic growth. That's a free market.

Yes it is free-trade. Free-trade is where trade happens without government intervention. The EU makes sure that free trade exists between nations so everyone's economy can benefit.

Not in the european elections though!

Socialism does not mean isolationism or communism. Spending money on something that helps everyone (or a minority). You could use your arguments on everything. Why should we fund road-building in parts of the country we don't go to, why should we fund transport in inner-city London. It's because the benefits outway the costs.

Our democratically elected government who represent the people said 'yes.' To the union, we have said yes. It's everyone's fault, the voters' 'fault' that we're in the union.


There are other decent reasons. The UK actually has quite a few opt-outs in the EU.

I'm glad they do. They stop our government from keeping DNA databases of people who have never commited a crime and other national databases. At least there's some people who can tell our government to give us the rights that we deserve.

I'm fairly sure I haven't. Labour haven't been an absolute disaster over the last 12 years, but some decisions were awful (billions wasted on iraq&afghanistan), stupid expenses claims etc. But they sorted out NI and they introduced the minimum wage and other things to help people.

But Labour are now disillusioned and people don't know what to think of them anymore. They've stepped too right-wing for many people.

Out of interest, what do you think of the pan-european party libertas? They're pro-EU but doesn't like the way it's heading (as far as i can see).

By the way, i'm tired of this debate now as i'll never get you to see things from my point of view. Agree to disagree aha.

The United States were totally different, the majority of them states, if not all, wanted to join up and create the United States of America. We do not, theres no excuse for a European superstate.

The car company is an example, the EU does not play a factor in businesess settling in a country, infact it just means more red tape for them which could persuade them to not invest in Europe.

The EU makes sure the governments don't intervene and the EU the intervenes, so your just replacing your own elected government with a un elected, faceless and biased government.

Not for long, polls already show figures up for UKIP and the BNP which propose leaving the EU. Anti-EU parties are growing and will continue to grow until we, the country, get what we want.

I know what socialism is, it promotes so called 'workers unite' as in the 1970's and 1980's, which nearly destroyed this country, along with destroying North Korea, the Soviet Union and others. We do not want a repeat of it. You, back in the 1980's would of supported keeping the mines open, the failing public services nationalised? - you sound like Michael Foot, the man who wrote the Labour Party the biggest suicide manifesto in history.

Yes and well done to that, however i'd rather have a DNA database than have a foreign country, to quote, telling us not to do certain things. You say a democratically elected government signed up, yes indeed they did, however they signed up to an entirely different european alliance which certainly wasn't a EU superstate.

You say a democratically elected government signed up to the EU, well how about this; a democratically elected government wants to implement a database system. I don't support the database but there you go, the EU is blocking a democratically elected government. The ID card scheme is still going ahead anyway, so much for our EU saviour.

Northern Ireland was mostly sorted out under the Major government, yes the minimum wage was a good idea, however having a minimum wage when you have driven the country into debt and made terrible economic decisions is no good, because if you carry on down that path then there won't be any jobs for a minimum wage to be applied to.

Labour are no were near right-wing, true they won't re-nationalise industries because they know if they did there would be public outcry and would reverse the progress Margaret Thatcher made. However they have followed a socialist doctrine of throwing cash at useless causes, punishing the majority, soft on crime, run the country into debt, not save money for bad economic times, introduce a CCTV culture into this country (which some people who lived under the Soviet Union say Britain is now worse), also on taxes they have been very socialist, constantly raising taxes to absurd levels, and finally they have continued a unsustainable spending program, but it won't matter to them, because yet again, another Conservative government will have to come in and pick up the pieces.

I don't think thats good enough, I think we should withdraw completely and if I was elected to office, the first form I would sign would be a pullout form.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!