• 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

SpurMeUp said:
I think I said in its essence - at its heart its a trade block? The reality has shades of grey, because you have to have trading laws, people to make them, to oversee them, and the EU covers things like pollution too which isn't directly about trade. Rather than focus in on definitions, is there anything that the EU does that you don't like or affects you adversely? Or conversely, do you appreciate any of the things it does? Like cut EU air pollution for example, allow cheap travel, or free phone calls...?
Click to expand...

I think, in its essence, it is long past being a trade block - and with a proclamation of "ever closer union", Id suggest its heading further from being essentially about trade.

Personally? Its a lot like the labour party for me. I like a lot of the intent, but I just feel a distinct distrust of them.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I think, in its essence, it is long past being a trade block - and with a proclamation of "ever closer union", Id suggest its heading further from being essentially about trade.

Personally? Its a lot like the labour party for me. I like a lot of the intent, but I just feel a distinct distrust of them.
Click to expand...

I think that's where we are globally with politics at this moment. The whole thing needs reinventing. I won't bang on about the EU, but one thing I'll say is 'it' 'the EU' a collection of people from all over Europe including Brits, never really tries to promote itself. It tends to get on with its rather dull work, its never in your face proclaiming how fantastic it is. But the UK press have done the opposite, they have steadily chipped away at the EU. Easy pickings. If we actually look at what the European Commission does, its relatively boring work on trade terms, regulations on medicines, creating less air pollution etc. and first and foremost facilitating free trade for its partners; but it doesn't shout about it.

Should we leave the EU there is no doubt in my mind it will be the UKs loss.
 
Last edited:
The EU is an undemocratic Organisation posing as a trading bloc that at its heart intends to create a United States of Europe. It is by its essense undemocratic because the individual peoples of Europe cannot directly remove the European President or Commissioner (for example).

The power that these positions have is provided by the democratically elected leaders of each country that is in the EU. In terms of the UK, we were asked if we are happy that our elected leaders give the Commissioner and President their power on our behalf and overall people said no, we do not want our leaders to hand over power and assume we are ok with it.

Ultimately the United States of Europe can only exisit as a dictoarship; after all how do you square the fact that you have one president across so many countries with various different histories, cultures, economies, economic histories etc without actually ruling with a certain amount of dictatorial force? In reality very little could get done if you actually give the peoples living with the United States of Europe democracy as we enjoy in the UK (as flawed as that can inevitably be at times). Democracy across a United States of Europe is just not workable. The EU know this, hence why they are working towards a United States of Europe by stealth.

Also, the EU policies and leadership: at present they may seem relatively 'socialist' or 'left-leaning' etc. If citizens actually think they would want a change in overall policy, how do they get to push for this? Who in the EU will release a 'Govering for Europe' manifesto? How will it be voted on?
If i think Juncker is a right-wing nutjob, and i didn't like him or his policies, how would i vote him out? My MEP? Really?
 
SpurMeUp said:
I think that's where we are globally with politics at this moment. The whole thing needs reinventing. I won't bang on about the EU, but one thing I'll say is 'it' 'the EU' a collection of people from all over Europe including Brits, never really tries to promote itself. It tends to get on with its rather dull work, its never in your face proclaiming how fantastic it is. But the UK press have done the opposite, they have steadily chipped away at the EU. Easy pickings. If we actually look at what the European Commission does, its relatively boring work on trade terms, regulations on medicines, creating less air pollution etc. and first are foremost facilitating free trade of its partners; but it doesn't shout about it.

Should we leave the EU there is no doubt in my mind it will be the UKs loss.
Click to expand...

I have no feelings either way on how it will go post Brexit, far to early to say IMO.

I think if it really was within our power to control immigration while being a member and enjoying the benefits, we would have. Only an idiot would have taken it to a referendum. Having gone an asked for the same thing from the EU when we allegedly have it. It just doesnt stack up.

So, IMO, those claiming we have our sovereignty within the EU are wrong. And I can well appreciate people wanting to take that back.

I think that on the case of product and food standards, environmental efforts, regeneration of poor areas - its all good.

However, it demands a price people are unwilling to pay - hence the vote.

I do agree politics needs reinvention. And in the case of Brexit, I agree fully with GB - whatever happens we will have the ability to really shake up the establishment if we want. And I suspect we will. Be that Labour/Conservative or whatever in the next government, they will be on their own - unable to lean to the EU and say things arent in their hands - and as a result will need to deliver or be out.
 
Parklaner81 said:
If May had gone into this with a 'name-your-price-and-we'll-pay-it' approach, would you have praised her for it?
Click to expand...

We were always going to end up paying it. All we have done is wasted five months negotiating time and lost a lot of good will for no gain.

This combined with triggering A50 when we were not properly prepared and had no agreement in Cabinet on our objectives, then calling a general election are complete negligence. This would have been really difficult done properly, it is impossible with the approach taken.
 
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I have no feelings either way on how it will go post Brexit, far to early to say IMO.

I think if it really was within our power to control immigration while being a member and enjoying the benefits, we would have. Only an idiot would have taken it to a referendum. Having gone an asked for the same thing from the EU when we allegedly have it. It just doesnt stack up.
Click to expand...
We spent a lot of time demonizing the EU rather than work around the rules we agreed to. There are lots of things we could have done to control immigration within the EU and did not, the most glaring one is the 3 month rule.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.3.html

So either Cameron is an idiot or there is another reason why it was not tried.
 
glorygloryeze said:
The EU is an undemocratic Organisation posing as a trading bloc that at its heart intends to create a United States of Europe. It is by its essense undemocratic because the individual peoples of Europe cannot directly remove the European President or Commissioner (for example).

The power that these positions have is provided by the democratically elected leaders of each country that is in the EU. In terms of the UK, we were asked if we are happy that our elected leaders give the Commissioner and President their power on our behalf and overall people said no, we do not want our leaders to hand over power and assume we are ok with it.

Ultimately the United States of Europe can only exisit as a dictoarship; after all how do you square the fact that you have one president across so many countries with various different histories, cultures, economies, economic histories etc without actually ruling with a certain amount of dictatorial force? In reality very little could get done if you actually give the peoples living with the United States of Europe democracy as we enjoy in the UK (as flawed as that can inevitably be at times). Democracy across a United States of Europe is just not workable. The EU know this, hence why they are working towards a United States of Europe by stealth.

Also, the EU policies and leadership: at present they may seem relatively 'socialist' or 'left-leaning' etc. If citizens actually think they would want a change in overall policy, how do they get to push for this? Who in the EU will release a 'Govering for Europe' manifesto? How will it be voted on?
If i think Juncker is a right-wing nutjob, and i didn't like him or his policies, how would i vote him out? My MEP? Really?
Click to expand...

Do you have one example of how the EU impacts you day to day? Abstract assertions of dictatorship are absurd. The EU was built out of the ashes of Nazi tyranny and dictatorship. Please provide some real examples of what the EU does. Is cleaner European air a bad thing? Is regulation of exploitative businesses and consumer rights a bad thing? A ceiling on phone roaming charges? An ability to shape global trade regulations. At its core is a Customs Union not a Dictatorship [emoji23]

If you still maintain the EU is the Death Star can you outline how it adversely affects you or others directly?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
SpurMeUp said:
So the US and everyone else is by "protectionist" but the EU shouldn't be?
Click to expand...
Correct.

SpurMeUp said:
Which large nations are trending to a zero tariff setup? Do you mean Singapore?
Click to expand...
Pretty much every new trade agreement is at a lower rate than the one before it. The WTO is doing a very good job of bringing these rates down - why not just skip to the end point and remove them?

SpurMeUp said:
Re. the Burgers essentially you're saying that if you have the money and the knowledge, you might be able to avoid the chlorine and hormones? Why not just keep them out?
Click to expand...
There are two ways of dealing with this question, neither need an EU or a trade agreement.

1) You simply let the market decide. This is by far the best option because, when it comes down to such a decision, the public tend to show that they don't actually care. When the option is to vote with one's feet or wallet, people are far less principled than they claim to be. If the people want chlorine and hormones, they'll buy them - if they don't, they won't.

2) You create a law that makes it illegal to sell chlorinated chicken in the UK. Then you carry on with your zero tariff trade as before. This is overreach by the government in my opinion, but it's an option for those that prefer their thinking to be done for them.

SpurMeUp said:
Or with air pollutants from factories, who's going to monitor a factory in China before they buy any given commodity?
Click to expand...
Don't care.

SpurMeUp said:
Absurd. We need regulation to control pollution. That must be clear. The EU does well with that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if only those primitives around the world had a few more Westerners to tell them how to run their countries we'd all be fine ;)
 
milo said:
We were always going to end up paying it. All we have done is wasted five months negotiating time and lost a lot of good will for no gain.

This combined with triggering A50 when we were not properly prepared and had no agreement in Cabinet on our objectives, then calling a general election are complete negligence. This would have been really difficult done properly, it is impossible with the approach taken.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a no, then ;-)
 
galeforce said:
there wasn’t any upside
Click to expand...

Potentially for the Tories, there was the upside of making demonstrable progress toward a key manifesto pledge that was failing spectacularly. And for remainers (including the then-tory leadership), the possibility of effectively killing off the leave campaign. So, if genuine manoeuvre was actually possible in this regard, I can't understand why it wouldn't have been pursued?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
As I said, realities are largely indirect, aren they?

And there is nothing wrong with pointing out why people take issue. And also pointing out the state is more than the trade union you are selling it as.
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Maybe I'm being dim. If it' an issue for you (and you have every right to take issue with anything you choose to) but if it's an issue for you define it, tell us how it's an issue to you personally.
 
scaramanga said:
They can choose to go to Burger King, or Douchey McDouchebag's vegan, lactose free, gluten free, hipster clamfest in Islington, or wherever the fudge else they want to go.
Click to expand...

That assumes equality of choice which is almost as fairytale as gutterboys ramblings.

Huge businesses have huge marketing budgets, they can put a store on every corner. The have huge lobbying budgets which mean that things that will work towards equality of that choice (like labeling) would be minimised by the government that won' want to go against them.

Basically is not a level playing field so... Yes that one of the reasons for EU (for example) regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back