manclad
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for an explanation from Blueishswede regarding the connection between the UK's nuclear weapons and the ECHR .
And me thinks there is no connection which renders the majority of his long post as mainly BS.
EU referendum
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
And me thinks there is no connection which renders the majority of his long post as mainly BS.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Messages
- 4,328
Vote IN.
You can trust Dave Boy.
You can trust Dave Boy.
Chancy Termites
Well-Known Member
Anyone who chooses not to exercise their right to vote is taking a stance that they want other people to choose on their behalf. The only salient fact from that vote is that two thirds rejected the question put to them. If only one person had voted, then the result would have been 100% one way or the other. Non-voters never matter because they quite literally elect not to matter.
Blueish Swede wrote.
"Standardization is the future. It is inevitable that countries and economic blocks will agree on common standards to better enable trade. Britain in the EU can have it's voice heard on the issues that are important to British people and British industry. (caveat - if it elects competent politicians who are prepared to cooperate and compromise). Britain outside the EU will be insignificant on the world stage. The Outers obsession with "excess" rules and regulations from the EU are simply a lack of understanding on how trade actually works. The best thing for any producer of high volume low value products is for their product to becoma a commodity."[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ that our politicians have been incompetent in negotiations. Gordon Brown refused to join the Euro which many see as a good move as it maintained a level of independence from the Federalism that Europe is moving towards. The EU is a supranational institution that derives its mandate only from the treaties that have been signed by member states. That's it. You can like what's in the treaties or you can wish they said something else but you can't change the treaties and you can't change the EU without treaty change. A common suggestion is that we should 'reform' the EU without any suggestion as to how that would be possible. We have recently witnessed our prime minister trying to negotiate a few minor changes that effect us and look at how difficult it was...and in the end he came back with f*ck all. Was he incompetent or just up against a bureaucracy supported by 27 other states that had self interest as their stubborn motive supported by Treaty? Cameron could have been a genius negotiator and it would have made no difference.
The Fiscal Pact is enshrined in EU law which we stand apart from to a degree. But European law trumps domestic law which is what Boris Johnson's wife has been banging on about so there is no way we would be able to change EU Treaty Law. The Fiscal pact is what is holding Europe together. It nearly came apart over the Greek debt crisis but even that was fudged in order to maintain the Pact.
We are already on the outside looking in. What we now need to do is formalise the arrangement and let the rest of them get on with whatever vision they have of Turkey being part of the Euro and whether Turkey would be a net contributor which I doubt. That will be a further 70 million people that the EU budget will have to massage. No thanks.
"Standardization is the future. It is inevitable that countries and economic blocks will agree on common standards to better enable trade. Britain in the EU can have it's voice heard on the issues that are important to British people and British industry. (caveat - if it elects competent politicians who are prepared to cooperate and compromise). Britain outside the EU will be insignificant on the world stage. The Outers obsession with "excess" rules and regulations from the EU are simply a lack of understanding on how trade actually works. The best thing for any producer of high volume low value products is for their product to becoma a commodity."[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ that our politicians have been incompetent in negotiations. Gordon Brown refused to join the Euro which many see as a good move as it maintained a level of independence from the Federalism that Europe is moving towards. The EU is a supranational institution that derives its mandate only from the treaties that have been signed by member states. That's it. You can like what's in the treaties or you can wish they said something else but you can't change the treaties and you can't change the EU without treaty change. A common suggestion is that we should 'reform' the EU without any suggestion as to how that would be possible. We have recently witnessed our prime minister trying to negotiate a few minor changes that effect us and look at how difficult it was...and in the end he came back with f*ck all. Was he incompetent or just up against a bureaucracy supported by 27 other states that had self interest as their stubborn motive supported by Treaty? Cameron could have been a genius negotiator and it would have made no difference.
The Fiscal Pact is enshrined in EU law which we stand apart from to a degree. But European law trumps domestic law which is what Boris Johnson's wife has been banging on about so there is no way we would be able to change EU Treaty Law. The Fiscal pact is what is holding Europe together. It nearly came apart over the Greek debt crisis but even that was fudged in order to maintain the Pact.
We are already on the outside looking in. What we now need to do is formalise the arrangement and let the rest of them get on with whatever vision they have of Turkey being part of the Euro and whether Turkey would be a net contributor which I doubt. That will be a further 70 million people that the EU budget will have to massage. No thanks.
Last edited:
When my copy arrives it will be looked at and then returned to the sender at the address below, at their own cost. It's a scandal to use tax payers money to singularly support a political arguement!
Freepost RSBB-XRZT-ZTXE
The Conservative Party Foundation
30 Millbank
LONDON
SW1P 4DP
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Still not a case of the Dutch telling the EU to 'fuck itself' is it.
This brings us back to the Dutch vote. The overwhelming rejection of the EU plan for Ukrainian membership demonstrates the deep level of frustration and anger in Europe over EU leadership following Washington’s interventionist foreign policy at the expense of European security and prosperity. The other EU member countries did not even dare hold popular referenda on the matter – their parliaments rubber-stamped the agreement.
Brussels backs US bombing in the Middle East and hundreds of thousands of refugees produced by the bombing overwhelm Europe. The people are told they must be taxed even more to pay for the victims of Washington’s foreign policy.
Brussels backs US regime change plans for Ukraine and EU citizens are told they must bear the burden of bringing an economic basket case up to European standards. How much would it cost EU citizens to bring in Ukraine as a member? No one dares mention it. But Europeans are rightly angry with their leaders blindly following Washington and then leaving them holding the bag.
The anger is rising and there is no telling where it will end.
In June, the United Kingdom will vote on whether to exit the European Union. The campaign for an exit is broad-based, bringing in conservatives, populists, and progressives. Regardless of the outcome, the vote should be considered very important. Europeans are tired of their unelected leaders in Brussels pushing them around and destroying their financial and personal security by following Washington’s foolish interventionism. No one can call any of these recent interventions a success and the Europeans know it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-11/ukraine-collapses-europeans-tire-us-interventions
Brussels backs US bombing in the Middle East and hundreds of thousands of refugees produced by the bombing overwhelm Europe. The people are told they must be taxed even more to pay for the victims of Washington’s foreign policy.
Brussels backs US regime change plans for Ukraine and EU citizens are told they must bear the burden of bringing an economic basket case up to European standards. How much would it cost EU citizens to bring in Ukraine as a member? No one dares mention it. But Europeans are rightly angry with their leaders blindly following Washington and then leaving them holding the bag.
The anger is rising and there is no telling where it will end.
In June, the United Kingdom will vote on whether to exit the European Union. The campaign for an exit is broad-based, bringing in conservatives, populists, and progressives. Regardless of the outcome, the vote should be considered very important. Europeans are tired of their unelected leaders in Brussels pushing them around and destroying their financial and personal security by following Washington’s foolish interventionism. No one can call any of these recent interventions a success and the Europeans know it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-11/ukraine-collapses-europeans-tire-us-interventions
blueonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,522
Or to use your logic over 80% of the Dutch voters refused to support the EU, that is F*CK RIGHT OFF in any language.
urmston
Well-Known Member
Here is an ex-EU bureaucrat with a solution to the referendum problem.
Ban them.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/why-we-should-ban-referenda-on-eu-policies
Ban them.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/why-we-should-ban-referenda-on-eu-policies
blueonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,522
Make that another EU bureaucrat with connections to...Goldman Sachs (Funny how they keep popping up init ?)
- Status