Jump to content

europe should we stay or should we go?


should a national poll be held to determine whether we should stay in europe  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. should a national poll be held to determine whether we should stay in europe

    • yes as soon as possible
      14
    • yes immediately after next elections(uk)
      0
    • don't know
      1
    • no
      6
    • I don't belive in referendums
      2


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This was, in large measure, the original rationale for European unification. The founding fathers had come through the Second World War with – perhaps understandably – a jaded view of democracy. They fretted that, left to themselves, electorates might fall for demagogues. So they deliberately designed a system in which supreme power was wielded by appointed Commissioners who didn’t need to worry about public opinion. It would be going too far to describe the Euro-patriarchs as anti-democratic: Robert Schuman had a sincere commitment to the ballot box, even if Jean Monnet hadn’t. But it is fair to say that they believed that the democratic process sometimes needed to be guided, tempered, constrained.

 

I'd totally agree with this, would you want a Franco, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, or an empowered Joerg Haider, Gabor Vona, Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosely or Nick Griffin running a country independant of the EU's regulation Damn Saxon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems very little to choose between having people like those you mention running individual countries and having them running the whole of Europe. In fact, handing them power over even larger areas of the world is probably the worst possible option.

 

"To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." - Douglas Adams, "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"

 

One of the truest political statements ever made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eu isn't one giant country that can operate like a sovereign nation run by a government or even one person. Its kept in check by the sovereignties of its members and its members are kept in check by its obligation to treaty.

 

You might not like having these obligations and feel that it takes sovereign power away from both the UK and by extension from yourself. I can only refer you to your own Douglas Admas quote in the latter case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Jews" also scare the hell out of you which is why we need an EU to stop people lilke you running countries like mine :-)

 

I'm not talking about theory, this is how it operates. It is very far fetched to think that in practice any such person can control the entire EU and its member nations like those I mentioned have controlled (or would like to control) countries.

 

You really think an EU President could send the EU and its sovereign states on a continental or worldwide rampage like Hitler did with Germany? Thats not really possible in anything like its present form.

 

I'd rather have the EU which is designed to stop this kind of power weilding than go back to individual and unregulated states being (in the worst case scenario) at the disposal of essentially one man.

 

If you think the people that want to rule are by definition unsuitable for it then it makes sense to have rulers in charge of something that regulates and limits their power rather than being in charge of something they can directly use for their own extremist ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Jews" also scare the hell out of you which is why we need an EU to stop people lilke you running countries like mine :-)

 

Tsk, tsk, Gib. You were doing so well without mentioning "The Jews" and you go and spoil it. There was I, thinking this thread was about the EU. We need something like Godwin's Law.

 

OK. Given that "people like me" believe in the truth of the Douglas Adams quote I mentioned above, there's really not much chance of finding "people like me" running "countries like yours" (which happens also to be mine, btw), is there? "People like me" would prefer to see a system under which the governments of the countries of the world (not just the EU) actually represent the wishes and interests of the people who, in theory, they represent, rather than the wishes and interests of the military-industrial complex which owns them at present.

 

It may be far-fetched to think that any one person can control the EU - or, indeed, the world. However, it is very easy to see that a corrupt crust of "global government" clones - those running the EU, all the "International" bodies like the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc., and most if not all governments - controls a terrifying amount of power and influence, and it's naïve to imagine that such power will ever be used in the interests of ordinary people, rather than in the interests of those who own the clones. Leaders of individual countries may be able to whip up wars on a relatively local scale; leaders on an international scale can destroy on a continental, or even global, scale, and there is currently no system in place to allow us to restrain them. That should scare the hell out of anybody.

 

Gibber, you say that "it makes sense to have rulers in charge of something that regulates and limits their power ..." NO. Absolutely not. It is we, the ordinary people of the world, who must be in charge of regulating and limiting them. One of the best ideas to come out of our chequered British history is the concept of a king - or other ruler - ruling with the consent of the governed. The current option of voting for this or that "party", when all are bought and paid for by those with no interests outside their own greed is not a means of giving such consent. It is a farce. Too many countries don't even get the farce.

 

To make government work, all governmental institutions (global and local) need to be transparently run, so that what they are doing can be seen by all, and unbiased information must be freely available to us all in order that we can exercise meaningful regulation and limiting over the way the world (our world) develops. None of the organisations I mentioned above incorporates any degree of transparency, nor any means of effective regulation by the governed. They are all, in the strictest sense, completely unfit for purpose because of that, and in urgent need of replacement.

 

Of course we need some form of global oversight if humanity is to move forwards without succumbing over and over again to our good ol' reptile-brain tendency to kill off anyone on the other side of some (meaningless) line. We need to learn, as a species, how to work out our differences peaceably, no matter how profitable war may be for the few. We categorically do not need some sort of "global overlord" caste in the pockets of the greediest and most amoral members of humanity, and the EU, as it stands, is merely the European outpost of exactly that, busily working towards just the sort of "Brave New World" which scares hell out of me. We should get out of it now for our own good, and work vigorously against it for the good of Europe. As I commented elsewhere, though, in a country run by the rich for the rich, it's not likely to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We need something like Godwin's Law.

 

Yep

 

However, it is very easy to see that a corrupt crust of "global government" clones - those running the EU, all the "International" bodies like the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc., and most if not all governments - controls a terrifying amount of power and influence, and it's naïve to imagine that such power will ever be used in the interests of ordinary people, rather than in the interests of those who own the clones.

 

and yep

 

Does it not strike anyone else as a tad unusual that an ethnic group comprising maybe a couple of percent of the populations involved somehow contrived to provide practically all the major players for something on the scale of a world war - not to mention most of the funding for both "sides"? It does me, I'm afraid.

 

and no

 

NO. Absolutely not. It is we, the ordinary people of the world, who must be in charge of regulating and limiting them.

 

No power for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

As I watched D.C. sound tough about halting the E.U. budget increase, the exact same thought went through my mind as the poster below.

In that the whole charade is trying to make it look as giving another 450 million to the fat cats on the e.u gravy train on top of the other 15 billion per year is some sort of victory????

Remember there is no accounts available for where this money actually goes, the E.U. accounts have never been properly audited for years.

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100061206/cameron-must-refuse-any-increase-in-the-eu-budget-rather-than-surrender-vichy-style/#disqus_thread

Comment below from above page

 

Yes, just heard this from the BBC:

 

"David Cameron says he has protected British taxpayers by putting the spotlight on reining in EU budget "excesses" at a Brussels summit."

 

What were we ever worried about?

 

The 'summit' of course is nothing of the kind. It's called a summit in the Council of Europe documentation, but in fact it's a routine meeting of an EU institution, and the EU budget is not even on agenda for the 'summit' meeting. This is because the Council of Europe has no jurisdiction over the budget, simple as that.

 

So Dave is plain lying when he talks tough about the spotlights and the reigns. This is not to say that the EU budget was never mentioned at all. I dare say he and the rest of the Slime Gods gave each other the nod and the wink when they got together. Now they can have the 2.9% that doesn't look so bad compared to the 5.9% they were scaring us with. Job done.

 

This fraud is greatly assisted by the soap opera representation of politics by the media and by many people here as well. The idea is that a British strongman can tell the EU what they can and can't have. All he needs is courage.

 

In fact, the situation is far more serious than that. Britain has signed away her legal right to resist EU budget decisions. The soap opera ideas are dead wrong. We have already surrendered across the board. If we want to reverse that decision, shouldn't we start of by at least facing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...