The EU thread Page 2

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • Moot_Point 10 Jan 2013 20:50:46 3,912 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Both American and Germany need to lay the fuck off trying to pressurize our (pathetic) Government. Its about time we had a vote as to whether to stay in the chaotic EU or leave. It should be OUR choice, not that of other Governments to bully us into.

    When I see other countries with their own agenda's pushing us in a direction they want us to go, I want to go the other way. So, I would vote to be out!

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Chopsen 10 Jan 2013 20:52:43 15,713 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah. That's the problem with a democracy. People with the emotional maturity of a toddler contribute to making decisions of national importance.
  • Cripper 10 Jan 2013 21:17:30 29 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah. That's the problem with a democracy. People with the emotional maturity of a toddler contribute to making decisions of national importance.
    Universal sufferage has been a complete disaster. If you don't pay income tax or work for the government you should not get a vote. Stopping people voting for handouts would cure the deficit almost immediately. The revolution in America was caused by taxation without representation we need to stop representation without taxation. Regressive indirect taxes like VAT/duties would have to be abolished and this would boost the economy

    England will definitely leave the EU sooner or later. We don't want to be in it and the other members know this and would like us to leave
  • senso-ji 10 Jan 2013 21:53:53 5,790 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    Both American and Germany need to lay the fuck off trying to pressurize our (pathetic) Government. Its about time we had a vote as to whether to stay in the chaotic EU or leave. It should be OUR choice, not that of other Governments to bully us into.

    When I see other countries with their own agenda's pushing us in a direction they want us to go, I want to go the other way. So, I would vote to be out!
    It's not just foreign Governments who are concerned; UK businesses also warn the PM against an EU exit.

    There are positives and negatives associated with being in the EU, and the supports of membership are going to focus on the positives.
  • Psychotext 10 Jan 2013 21:56:59 53,802 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Yeah. That's the problem with a democracy. People with the emotional maturity of a toddler contribute to making decisions of national importance.
    I watched remains of the day earlier... let me see if I can find the appropriate scene.
  • Psychotext 10 Jan 2013 22:01:17 53,802 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Snooty: My good man, I have a question for you. Do you suppose the debt situation
    regarding America factors significantly in the present low levels of trade? Or is this a red herring and the abandonment of the gold standard is the cause of the problem?

    Butler: I'm sorry, sir, but I am unable to be of assistance in this matter.

    Snooty: Perhaps you'd help us on another matter. Do you think Europe's currency problem would be alleviated by an arms agreement between the French and the Bolsheviks?

    Butler: I'm sorry, sir, but I'm unable to be of assistance in this matter.

    Snooty: My good fellow do you share our opinion that M. Daladier's recent speech on North Africa was simply a ruse to scupper the nationalist fringe of his own domestic party?

    Butler: I'm sorry, sir. I am unable to help in any of these matters.

    Snooty: You see, our good man here is "unable to assist us in these matters". Yet we still go along with the notion that this nation's decisions be left to our good man here and a few millions like him. You may as well ask the Mothers' Union to organize a war campaign.

    Edited by Psychotext at 22:02:25 10-01-2013
  • X201 10 Jan 2013 22:04:56 15,130 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    Both American and Germany need to lay the fuck off trying to pressurize our (pathetic) Government.
    How about newspapers owned by millionaires and/or foreigners?
  • MightyMouse 10 Jan 2013 22:08:33 1,127 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's a tough one to call, but in the end I doubt we'll leave the EU as it would be bad for everyone involved as the Economist points out.

    Eurosceptics are basically the Tea Party of Britain - a confused political movement of people who don't like the world as it is but don't know what to do about it, heavily inflated by a media who sell an over-simplified narrative because it's easy and promises quick solutions. But under any sustained scrutiny the stuff their peddling doesn't make any sense, and if there's a referendum then people outside the nutty echo-chamber of UKIP and the Daily Mail start looking at it, at which point the jig is up. As the GOP found, you can't convince a majority of people of a nonsensical scheme just by shouting loudly.

    Edited by MightyMouse at 22:44:35 10-01-2013
  • rudedudejude 10 Jan 2013 22:15:58 2,151 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The whole question of EU membership is just another example of the media manipulating public opinion by only shouting stories to the public that generate sales and get eyes on TV. And that almost always results in negative stories leading much of the media coverage.

    Whichever way it goes, pubic opinion and views above such as "We don't want to be in it" will continue to be shouted as as result of continued media coverage focusing predominantly on one side of the argument. And that's not even an argument anyway.

    I don't know the whether we should be in, out, or shaking it all about as I honestly don't know enough about the subject to comment, let alone vote. God only knows why we think the electorate should even potentially decide this stuff.

    It would be nice to hear informative, balanced information in the media that would allow the voters (if a vote is to go ahead) and actually make an informed decision for a change. And for this information to take center stage, instead of the usual "THEY TOOK OUUUUR JOOOOOBS!" headlines.
  • X201 10 Jan 2013 22:31:24 15,130 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Euromyths is worth a read.

    http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/blog/index_en.htm
  • MightyMouse 10 Jan 2013 22:47:38 1,127 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    rudedudejude wrote:
    The whole question of EU membership is just another example of the media manipulating public opinion by only shouting stories to the public that generate sales and get eyes on TV. And that almost always results in negative stories leading much of the media coverage.

    Whichever way it goes, pubic opinion and views above such as "We don't want to be in it" will continue to be shouted as as result of continued media coverage focusing predominantly on one side of the argument. And that's not even an argument anyway.

    I don't know the whether we should be in, out, or shaking it all about as I honestly don't know enough about the subject to comment, let alone vote. God only knows why we think the electorate should even potentially decide this stuff.

    It would be nice to hear informative, balanced information in the media that would allow the voters (if a vote is to go ahead) and actually make an informed decision for a change. And for this information to take center stage, instead of the usual "THEY TOOK OUUUUR JOOOOOBS!" headlines.
    I agree, and that's one good thing that should come out of this. Normally the Economist wouldn't write a header about why we shouldn't leave the EU, because the issue doesn't normally arise.
  • Moot_Point 11 Jan 2013 09:45:30 3,912 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Yeah. That's the problem with a democracy.
    But we do not live in a democracy, not with political parties assuming power by creating a coalition.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • TheSaint 11 Jan 2013 09:50:26 14,199 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Plenty of countries only ever have coalition governments. I don't really see how it is undemocratic.
  • LeoliansBro 11 Jan 2013 09:54:33 43,227 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    We live in a Republic. The people don't decide what happens, they elect people to decide for them.

    (Jed Bartlett)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Chopsen 11 Jan 2013 09:55:52 15,713 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    A republic with a monarch?
  • Moot_Point 11 Jan 2013 09:56:59 3,912 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.


    In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 11 Jan 2013 09:57:14 43,227 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    Yeah. That's the problem with a democracy.
    But we do not live in a democracy, not with political parties assuming power by creating a coalition.
    This is wrong on about 5 different levels. It's almost completely naive and arse-about-face.

    Coalitions are not undemocratic. Political parties are nothing more than coalitions themselves, loose unofficial affiliations of like-minded MPs and voters given credibility by their collective weight and support. There is no provision in UK electoral or Parliamentary law for their existence beyond recognition that they will inevitably happen.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 11 Jan 2013 09:59:27 43,227 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    A republic with a monarch?
    The Queen is a monarch in name, but in the absence of real political power in her hands we don't live in a monarchy.

    (Plus JB was talking about the US)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 11 January 2013 09:59:51
    The anti-Europe agenda simply stems from the fact that people do not understand the benefits of a United Europe and anything complex ergo must be bad. The fact that you have the Daily Fail and the Sun periodically whipping up rabid Anti-EU sentiment through poorly researched stories with deliberately provocative headlines does nothing to promote or encourage integration and only reinforces negative stereotype and prejudices.

    I'm pretty much convinced at this point that giving 'the people' a vote on this would be the worst thing possible as the general ennui and apathy will automatically lead to a sustained withdrawal vote. Then in five, maybe ten years, it'll be decried and the people will want to know why the Government ever pulled out and how can we get back in?

    By then, all bargaining power will have been eroded, we'll need to agree to the acquis communities and if it's still going adopt the Euro by default. In trying to strengthen independence and sovereignty now as a way of affirming ourselves only leaves us open to surrendering more of it later.

    Quite depressing really.
  • Moot_Point 11 Jan 2013 10:00:45 3,912 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @LeoliansBro You know the Capitalist doctrine well. Maybe that is why you dream of pedophilia? :D

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • nickthegun 11 Jan 2013 10:01:29 58,782 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You cant not let people vote on a topic because they will vote incorrectly.

    Thats kind of how dictatorships start.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • TheSaint 11 Jan 2013 10:03:26 14,199 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.


    In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.
    Our system is based on first past the post not the popular vote.
  • Mr-Brett 11 Jan 2013 10:03:27 12,723 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.


    In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.
    The Tories got the majority of votes.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Deleted user 11 January 2013 10:06:58
    @nickthegun True, but where is the positive representation of the EU going to come from to balance out the oppressive and sustained attacks and smear campaigns of the media and twats like Farrago?
  • Moot_Point 11 Jan 2013 10:08:13 3,912 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.


    In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.
    The Tories got the majority of votes.
    Yes, but only with the culmination of the Liberal Democrats votes. They didn't win outright.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Chopsen 11 Jan 2013 10:09:57 15,713 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    They had more seats in parliament than any other single party as well, as well as the majority of the votes nationally.

    Edited by Chopsen at 10:10:15 11-01-2013
  • TheSaint 11 Jan 2013 10:11:03 14,199 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Moot_Point

    I think you need to read up on how our electoral system works. You seem to be confusing votes and seats.

    Edited by TheSaint at 10:11:32 11-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 11 Jan 2013 10:11:59 43,227 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @LeoliansBro You know the Capitalist doctrine well. Maybe that is why you dream of pedophilia? :D
    Capitalism has nothing to do with this conversation.

    Capitalism is a hugely powerful and effective method of exchange and development and innovation, using it as a jibe makes no sense.

    I'm not sure where the paedophilia reference came from, I guess it was an attempt at wit.

    You spelled 'paedophilia' incorrectly.

    You failed to address any of my points as to why you don't know what you are talking about.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • andytheadequate 11 Jan 2013 10:13:03 8,075 posts
    Seen 6 seconds ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    With a proportional representation democratic model, coalitions would be the norm. And as others have said, we only vote for people to make a decision for us, in a true democracy everyone would be able to vote on every issue (which would be impossible, and probably an utter nightmare)
  • LeoliansBro 11 Jan 2013 10:14:20 43,227 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.


    In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.
    The Tories got the majority of votes.
    Yes, but only with the culmination of the Liberal Democrats votes. They didn't win outright.
    You seem obsessed with the idea that a 'party' is a permanent and ring fenced structure.

    Does it help if I say that a larger party consisting of the old Conservative and Lib Dem parties won the election?

    All it takes to form a Government is for someone to approach the queen with the support of the majority of MPs and ask to be made PM.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply