glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Indeed; not the Political entity we have today wouldn't you agree?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Indeed; not the Political entity we have today wouldn't you agree?
It had a political goal not economic, prevent war.
EEC from wiki
The main aim of the EEC, as stated in its preamble, was to "preserve peace and liberty and to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". Calling for balanced economic growth, this was to be accomplished through.
Pretty political there, trade is and always had been a means not a destination.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Yes, but it's become far more political than before; now with European Parliament, Commission, Courts etc. In fact, many would say it's been Political from the outset and that it's goal was always a "United States of Europe", which cannot and wont work (ask Napoleon, Hitler etc) so time to get out now before the sh!t hits the fan!
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
It was also a 'myth' that the European Union wanted one currency amongst member states; it was also a myth that they sought Political Union and an EU army, i mean "European Defence Union". You just have to look at the treaties and policies they bring to the table and what come to be and compare to when previously such things were labelled as "pie in the sky" to see the direction of travel.
Don't worry; i don't need to read the Sun or the Mail to see these things. Just reading the words direct from Juncker and co's mouth and articles is enough
Fair reply.
But we don't have the Euro. Neither do the EU nations of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland,Romania and Sweden. Having a single currency futhers trade - you can appreciate that i'm sure? Trade transactions don't need currency conversion so a single currency is a practicle aid to trade. BUT all these nations are in the EU with their own currency! How could this be??? When the EU is supposed to be on a clear decicisive course to a superstate? All of these nations have their own language and culture, and some of the most distinct histories in the world! You are more than deluded if you think they could let go of their histories and become like an American state. It is laughable that you even believe its possible, that any european nation would remotely entertain the idea. You wouldn't, why do you partake in a myth that others would accept it?
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Haha; it's not ME that's deluded enough to think a United States of Europe is possible; it's the likes of Juncker and the bigwigs of the EU themselevs who believe this! Look at what they write, spout and in the end do (or try to do)!!
I agree that it's not workable but that hasn't stopped them from trying! It will all end in tears but they cannot see that; it's best we are out of it as far as i'm concerned.
As i've continued to say if the EU was simply about Economics and Trade and NOT the Politics and the eventual Political Union that they are aspiring to, i'm sure Brexit wouldn't be happening
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Anyone see the loon outside Reese Moggs house giving him and his kids what for?
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
EU government leaders want to achieve things, do more, and their powers are highly limited. That's natural that they want to do more. But I'm glad we agree that a federal europe is off the cards and not possible.
imo the UK needs to team up with the Nordic countries, Italy, Poland - the EU nations that are more euro-sceptical - and look at ways to manage freedom of movement, while remaining in the EU. Large political factions in Germany and France would also be allies. We needn't lose freedom of movement completely - to be free is a fantastic human right. That you or I could up sticks this afternoon and move around, work, travel etc is a fantastic liberty. But we need to protect democratic indigenous peoples who are not happy with FOM at the moment. We need a means to send people back if they are not working for an extended period of time. The essence of this is already in EU law it just needs clarifying and solidifying.
If we did this, it would address the key concern for most Brexit voters.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
I would agree with a lot of that; In fact, naturally co-operation can and will continue outside of the 'one-size-fits-all' mechanisms that is the budding EU Supersate.
Make no mistake though that all you've written would be anathema to the EU and could only happen if Brexit happens and maybe a few other countries follow suit - or The EU stop it's march to extreme Federalism (which is very very unlikely).
I don't have an issue with people moving across countries etc, that has always happened will always continue to do so; i just want the final decisions on those processes to be in the hands of our country's elected officials; no amount of EU economic greatness for me would make me change my mind on that and be happy for the EU to decide for us instead
Just as a flip side to this argument without taking a position (with this comment)
Is being part of a European 'superstate' assuming greater closer union etc.
Is that worse than being a bit player in a world likely dominated by US China India EU, In the near to mid term future?
And then losing our secondary position to Russia Brazil Nigeria Malaysia SA and a host of others in the mid to longer term future?
What would this mean?
Is being part of a European 'superstate' assuming greater closer union etc.
Is that worse than being a bit player in a world likely dominated by US China India EU, In the near to mid term future?
And then losing our secondary position to Russia Brazil Nigeria Malaysia SA and a host of others in the mid to longer term future?
What would this mean?
borris?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The Tory leadership process is quite interesting though. The MPs get it down to the final 2, then the party members decide. The party members are massively more pro-Brexit than the MPs. So all the ERG need to do is get a candidate into the final 2, not win the leadership contest.
Saying that I still don't think they will act. They will vote for Chequers then try and move it to CETA during the transition period. I think they found an ally in Barnier for this too.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I think there has been some actual pressure from Merkle to move Barnier towards Chequers.
Personally I'm resigned to Chequers, then Brexit 2.1 (CETA) a few years later when we can more freely decolonise Ulster. But getting to that destination in the next 6-8 weeks would be incredible.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I would not have voted out if it were just for trade and economics, I understand you have to have some give and take in a club so even if the trade rules went against us as they clearly do in fishing then I would still have voted remain had it just been an economics and trade club.
Interestingly the fisherman caught up in the skirmish in France the other week were in port in Shoreham I actually cycled past them because I cycle over shoreham lock in the morning to go swimming in Hove, felt like shouting out to them "fcuk the French" but the were loads of blokes in suits and I thought some might have been special branch so thought better of it.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
It was also a 'myth' that the European Union wanted one currency amongst member states; it was also a myth that they sought Political Union and an EU army, i mean "European Defence Union". You just have to look at the treaties and policies they bring to the table and what come to be and compare to when previously such things were labelled as "pie in the sky" to see the direction of travel.
Don't worry; i don't need to read the Sun or the Mail to see these things. Just reading the words direct from Juncker and co's mouth and articles is enough
I actually think people who do not read the sun and the mail and have their own mind and want to leave, when their detractors just accuse them of believing everything they read in the mail and the sun, it actually makes them more likely to go and read the papers or side with them in arguments.
I kind of think the same thing happened in America where the democrats and the media often unfairly criticised Republican or right wing politicians that so much of the country would stop listening to the media complaining about them that you got a true megalomaniac like Trump come along and people had stopped listening to the media moaning about them because they think that is all they do, moan about Republicans.
When I hear people moaning about the mail and the sun(they are often right those papers get stuff wrong, like all the others do) but when I hear people moaning about them, in my head I am already thinking I know that person is biased in themselves.
It is the sort of behaviour from the main stream and liberal media that allowed Trump to get elected and might allow worse some where in Europe.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Slightly off topic but I notice Obama came out and said Trump was the symptom not the cause.
Considering the guy was president for 8 before him, does that mean that Obama thinks he is someway to blame because frankly I think if the is a swing to the right in any point in history it is usually because things have swung to far to the left presiding it.
What you guys think is Obama finally admitting to his part in Trumps rise.
Considering the guy was president for 8 before him, does that mean that Obama thinks he is someway to blame because frankly I think if the is a swing to the right in any point in history it is usually because things have swung to far to the left presiding it.
What you guys think is Obama finally admitting to his part in Trumps rise.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
That's a bit of a reach.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I know Clinton is a bit of a clam, but why did people fall for some rabble rouser(Trump) and not continue to vote for a steady pair of hands in the democrats?
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I've seen it described as a portion of the populace, the middle class mostly, who voted for a change from the status quo and that option was Trump . Hillary represented a continuance of a failed system in their eyes. It is a choice that clearly has backfired, and with the benefit of hindsight there's no doubt Clinton would have made a far superior president, though probably not much different than her predecessors. Trump was the most unsuitable candidate in the country but I guess they rolled the dice, and lost.
There could be an upside in that the Trump's presidency will shake the whole thing up to an extent that something truly meaningful might fall out of it. Political outcomes are for sale in America and their system had already been on a trajectory moving away from true democracy for years, well before Trump came on the scene. Maybe this will cause a swing back to something more democratic and socialist leaning.
Last edited:
Yet despite being able to see what is going on out there,half the UK electorate is considering voting for an extremist who is totally unsuited to lead the country.