Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Oh the joys of being part of the EU
Without the EU these people would not be here, all Lithuanian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-essex-12725927
http://www.shieldsgaz...for_robbery_1_3129319
http://content.met.po...7473562/1257246745756
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-essex-12725927
http://www.shieldsgaz...for_robbery_1_3129319
http://content.met.po...7473562/1257246745756
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Sp1814-
Am I correct in saying that you don't think that people should have the right to vote on their own country's membership of the EU because they might vote “No”? If a nation such as Ireland voted, “Yes” (eventually...) do you accept that that is the will of the people?
Just because a subject is complex, do you honestly think that people (who ultimately foot the bill) should be barred from deciding whether or not to be involved? If you're being serious then you astonish me.
From a simple trade agreement made in 1957, the monstrously expensive and inefficient behemoth that is the EU has emerged. A once relatively simple thing that our Government joined without our consent is now a hugely complicated thing and your argument for not allowing the British public to vote on whether or not to remain a member of the EU is because, “... it's too complex a subject to put before the people...”. An argument that I can only assume you're making in jest because if you're serious then you are far less intelligent that I gave you credit for.
Am I correct in saying that you don't think that people should have the right to vote on their own country's membership of the EU because they might vote “No”? If a nation such as Ireland voted, “Yes” (eventually...) do you accept that that is the will of the people?
Just because a subject is complex, do you honestly think that people (who ultimately foot the bill) should be barred from deciding whether or not to be involved? If you're being serious then you astonish me.
From a simple trade agreement made in 1957, the monstrously expensive and inefficient behemoth that is the EU has emerged. A once relatively simple thing that our Government joined without our consent is now a hugely complicated thing and your argument for not allowing the British public to vote on whether or not to remain a member of the EU is because, “... it's too complex a subject to put before the people...”. An argument that I can only assume you're making in jest because if you're serious then you are far less intelligent that I gave you credit for.
i can see the advantages for new members...
if we can imagine the eu to be a golf club say....where new members unable to pay their fees and with no useful benefit to give to the other members of the club are freely alowed to take large divots out of the fabric of the course without bothering to make repairs and who wont stand a round of drinks at the bar, are allowed in and the other members are compelled to pay their membership fees,
well, thats not a club many would choose to be a member of is it???
in respect of that cost to members we are allowed to freely trade with them and buy any old tut that they presently cant sell enough of to make a living on their own
if we can imagine the eu to be a golf club say....where new members unable to pay their fees and with no useful benefit to give to the other members of the club are freely alowed to take large divots out of the fabric of the course without bothering to make repairs and who wont stand a round of drinks at the bar, are allowed in and the other members are compelled to pay their membership fees,
well, thats not a club many would choose to be a member of is it???
in respect of that cost to members we are allowed to freely trade with them and buy any old tut that they presently cant sell enough of to make a living on their own
"Since you class the electorate as 'thickos', perhaps they are also too thick to choose a government?"
As I said, 75% of the electorate have an IQ of less than 110, they are thickos. Choosing someone to be in charge is one thing, telling that someone how to do their job is another thing entirely.
Imagine if you ran the rest of your life the way you expect to run the county. Select an electrician to wire your house or a mechanic to fix your car - fine. But would you then presume to tell them how to do their job?
As I said, 75% of the electorate have an IQ of less than 110, they are thickos. Choosing someone to be in charge is one thing, telling that someone how to do their job is another thing entirely.
Imagine if you ran the rest of your life the way you expect to run the county. Select an electrician to wire your house or a mechanic to fix your car - fine. But would you then presume to tell them how to do their job?
[Two Part Post]
So rojash, the owners of newspapers think they will sell more copies if they publish journals that simply reflect their own thoughts and wishes? They know, of course, that even though these views may be totally abhorrent to their readers they will still sell papers. Glad I’ve no shares in any of the main media organisations!
Back to sp’s point about democracy, I could not have put it more succinctly than birdie. Essentially what sp is saying is that decisions must be left to experts because generally the population is far too dense to understand the implications of what they’re voting (and paying) for. Well that’s the strangest form of democracy I’ve come across.
What’s even more strange is that this was not considered to be so in 1975 when the electorate was asked to endorse the UK’s continuing membership (they were not asked for their views when we joined in 1973) of what was then described as simply the “Common Market”. I know because I voted (“Yes” to my subsequent horror) in that plebiscites and I remember the campaign. If I remember correctly neither the campaign nor the referendum question made any mention of voters supporting a European superstate with many national powers handed over to bureaucrats in Brussels. If it had I fancy the result (67% in favour) may have been a little different. Nor was the issue considered too complex for the Danes or the Irish when they were both asked questions about their continuing relationship with Europe. They obviously have a greater collective intelligence than us ignorant Brits.
So rojash, the owners of newspapers think they will sell more copies if they publish journals that simply reflect their own thoughts and wishes? They know, of course, that even though these views may be totally abhorrent to their readers they will still sell papers. Glad I’ve no shares in any of the main media organisations!
Back to sp’s point about democracy, I could not have put it more succinctly than birdie. Essentially what sp is saying is that decisions must be left to experts because generally the population is far too dense to understand the implications of what they’re voting (and paying) for. Well that’s the strangest form of democracy I’ve come across.
What’s even more strange is that this was not considered to be so in 1975 when the electorate was asked to endorse the UK’s continuing membership (they were not asked for their views when we joined in 1973) of what was then described as simply the “Common Market”. I know because I voted (“Yes” to my subsequent horror) in that plebiscites and I remember the campaign. If I remember correctly neither the campaign nor the referendum question made any mention of voters supporting a European superstate with many national powers handed over to bureaucrats in Brussels. If it had I fancy the result (67% in favour) may have been a little different. Nor was the issue considered too complex for the Danes or the Irish when they were both asked questions about their continuing relationship with Europe. They obviously have a greater collective intelligence than us ignorant Brits.
[Part Two]
Nobody who voted “Yes” in 1975, even the most avid of Europhiles, imagined that the UK would be forced to allow hundreds of thousands, if not millions of migrants from Eastern Europe to work, settle and possibly commit serious crime here. (Remember, the government’s estimate when it refused to allow a transitional ban on such movement was “no more than 13,000”). Nobody imagined that the UK government would be forced to allow the European authorities to “approve” (or otherwise) its budget proposals before they could be put to the UK Parliament (as is now being proposed as a result of the Lisbon Treaty).
The country was duped in 1975 with ludicrous promises and it has been duped by stealth ever since by politicians with vested interests to see the “European Project” roll on. Now the question is even simpler for the great British uneducated souls to consider than it was 35 years ago. It is simply this: “Do you want the UK to be governed by the UK’s elected government or do you want it governed by an unelected super-quango composed mainly of foreigners and based in Brussels (with a monthly trek to Strasbourg at a cost of >£200m per year)?”
Put that honest question to the electorate (thikkos and all) and see what the answer is.
I think that’s enough from me on this one !!!
Nobody who voted “Yes” in 1975, even the most avid of Europhiles, imagined that the UK would be forced to allow hundreds of thousands, if not millions of migrants from Eastern Europe to work, settle and possibly commit serious crime here. (Remember, the government’s estimate when it refused to allow a transitional ban on such movement was “no more than 13,000”). Nobody imagined that the UK government would be forced to allow the European authorities to “approve” (or otherwise) its budget proposals before they could be put to the UK Parliament (as is now being proposed as a result of the Lisbon Treaty).
The country was duped in 1975 with ludicrous promises and it has been duped by stealth ever since by politicians with vested interests to see the “European Project” roll on. Now the question is even simpler for the great British uneducated souls to consider than it was 35 years ago. It is simply this: “Do you want the UK to be governed by the UK’s elected government or do you want it governed by an unelected super-quango composed mainly of foreigners and based in Brussels (with a monthly trek to Strasbourg at a cost of >£200m per year)?”
Put that honest question to the electorate (thikkos and all) and see what the answer is.
I think that’s enough from me on this one !!!
And finally (honest!) supposing you were told, rojash, that you were no longer to be allowed to choose your electrician or mechanic any more, but "Europe" will choose one for you. Oh, and when he arrives, he will decide how much work needs to be done and how much it will cost you, and his decision is final and binding and you will pay for the work he says is needed whether you want it done or not.
I stand by my earlier statement. I honestly don't think the public knows how the EU works, because we only ever get one side of the argument (and its the negative side). I wouldn't want this country's future to be based on whether I think that Lithuanians are 'pouring in to steal our jobs'
I would want top economists assigned by the (democratically elected government) to weigh up the pros and cons of membership.
...in the same way that I don't think the general public should decide on defence strategy...because as a group - we're just too thick.
I would want top economists assigned by the (democratically elected government) to weigh up the pros and cons of membership.
...in the same way that I don't think the general public should decide on defence strategy...because as a group - we're just too thick.
[Two Part answer]
No, the public should not decide defence strategy, sp. But they should decide who does and if the leeching of Parliamentary power continues they soon will not be able to. This a step back from the decisions, it’s about who takes them on behalf of the people of the UK and politicians should not decide that.
Yes rojash, for the moment we do choose our government (well, to be pedantic we choose MPs and it is they who choose a government, but that does not matter for the sake of this debate).
However, the range of activities where that government’s authority is being eroded grows almost by the day. I could not possibly go into them all here but here’s a few for consideration:
- It has no influence over immigration from EU countries (which themselves are set to grow in number).
- It has no authority over so-called “carbon reduction” policy which itself dictates energy policy to a large degree.
- It cannot allow 60w tungsten lightbulbs to be manufactured in or even imported into the UK
- It cannot say that “Cornish” pasties may be made in Devon.
To retreat from flippancy, there are also large numbers of areas including finance, defence and foreign policy where there currently exists the power of veto by individual nations. However, as with most things European, the option to veto is gradually and quietly being removed from many of them so that a common “EU” policy will emerge, as always, by stealth. Each accession of power just “a little bit more” than has already been forfeited “so it’s no big deal”. But when you look at the start and end position it is a very big deal indeed.
No, the public should not decide defence strategy, sp. But they should decide who does and if the leeching of Parliamentary power continues they soon will not be able to. This a step back from the decisions, it’s about who takes them on behalf of the people of the UK and politicians should not decide that.
Yes rojash, for the moment we do choose our government (well, to be pedantic we choose MPs and it is they who choose a government, but that does not matter for the sake of this debate).
However, the range of activities where that government’s authority is being eroded grows almost by the day. I could not possibly go into them all here but here’s a few for consideration:
- It has no influence over immigration from EU countries (which themselves are set to grow in number).
- It has no authority over so-called “carbon reduction” policy which itself dictates energy policy to a large degree.
- It cannot allow 60w tungsten lightbulbs to be manufactured in or even imported into the UK
- It cannot say that “Cornish” pasties may be made in Devon.
To retreat from flippancy, there are also large numbers of areas including finance, defence and foreign policy where there currently exists the power of veto by individual nations. However, as with most things European, the option to veto is gradually and quietly being removed from many of them so that a common “EU” policy will emerge, as always, by stealth. Each accession of power just “a little bit more” than has already been forfeited “so it’s no big deal”. But when you look at the start and end position it is a very big deal indeed.
[Part Two]
Finally (really!) the EU now has a "legal personality" and its laws trump those of national parliaments. From the EU constitution: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."
The EU Commission is the body which proposes and executes such laws. This commission is composed of many former politicians who have failed to convince their own electorate of their political prowess (e.g. “Lord” Mandelson; Neil Kinnock (Yes I know he no longer serves)). These are among the people who have a vested interest in seeing the EU Project preserved.
If you like having your laws made by such people and if you don’t mind having the Parliament for which you voted “trumped” by an unelected commission composed of political has-beens them that’s fine. But many people don’t. This is not about HOW the elected government does its work (as you suggest) but more WHETHER it can do its work in accordance with the wishes of those who elected them and before too much longer choosing your electrician will be about as important (or probably more so) as choosing your MP.
I’m sure you’ve got my drift by now so I really must go and mow the lawn before it rains.
Finally (really!) the EU now has a "legal personality" and its laws trump those of national parliaments. From the EU constitution: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."
The EU Commission is the body which proposes and executes such laws. This commission is composed of many former politicians who have failed to convince their own electorate of their political prowess (e.g. “Lord” Mandelson; Neil Kinnock (Yes I know he no longer serves)). These are among the people who have a vested interest in seeing the EU Project preserved.
If you like having your laws made by such people and if you don’t mind having the Parliament for which you voted “trumped” by an unelected commission composed of political has-beens them that’s fine. But many people don’t. This is not about HOW the elected government does its work (as you suggest) but more WHETHER it can do its work in accordance with the wishes of those who elected them and before too much longer choosing your electrician will be about as important (or probably more so) as choosing your MP.
I’m sure you’ve got my drift by now so I really must go and mow the lawn before it rains.
The relation ship between the DM and its readership (and, indeed, many newspapers and their readership) could be characterised as "Folie a deaux".
http://www.answers.com/topic/folie-deux
http://www.answers.com/topic/folie-deux
sp1814, regarding your comment about theTories destruction of the manufacturing and energy industries, I could agree, to a point, about the botched privatisation of the energy industry but I think you will find virtually everything the politicians( of all colours) have touched seems to give no benefit to the public at large. I do feel however that it was the industries which destroyed themselves through incompetent management and bloody minded union leaders. Looking at the situation now I still see so many Companies led by extremely incompetent management and "short- term" attitudes prevailing.
New Judge
Simple answer - vote for the party that wants to withdraw from Europe, or vote for a party that wants to stay within Europe, but ensures Britain gets the best out of the EU.
By the way (and I cannot link to it because it's a podcast from Tim Hartman, the 'Underecover Ecomonist' who writes for The Economist magazine) - the idea that EU law swamps UK-derived laws is hokum. Big study last year. Something like 0.5% of all new UK laws comes from adherence to EU directives - thing is, out of that 0.5%, there are a number that make the papers because of the press bias against the EU.
Simple answer - vote for the party that wants to withdraw from Europe, or vote for a party that wants to stay within Europe, but ensures Britain gets the best out of the EU.
By the way (and I cannot link to it because it's a podcast from Tim Hartman, the 'Underecover Ecomonist' who writes for The Economist magazine) - the idea that EU law swamps UK-derived laws is hokum. Big study last year. Something like 0.5% of all new UK laws comes from adherence to EU directives - thing is, out of that 0.5%, there are a number that make the papers because of the press bias against the EU.
Don't know where 0.5% comes from, sp. The lowest I can find is 9.1% (House of Commons library), through 50% (David Cameron), 75% (Nigel Farage) up to 80% (Daniel Hannan, MEP). They can't all be right (or wrong) but I imagine the true figure is far higher than 0.5%.
That figure probably refers to primary legislation, but most EU law and regulation comes to the UK books by means of Statutory Instrument. Having already been "scrutinised" by the EU Parliament (if they manage to fit it in whilst flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg!) it is deemed to be in no need of thorough examination in Westminster.
That figure probably refers to primary legislation, but most EU law and regulation comes to the UK books by means of Statutory Instrument. Having already been "scrutinised" by the EU Parliament (if they manage to fit it in whilst flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg!) it is deemed to be in no need of thorough examination in Westminster.
Latest Posts
Technology72 mins ago
News90 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 12Th May
Crosswords109 mins ago
ChatterBank118 mins ago