|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 19, 2010 16:21:13 GMT
Jumbo, utter rot. There are many rational reasons why nation states may choose to have free movement between them or not. Free movement frees up taxpayers money that would otherwise be spent on border controls, maximises employment and leisure activities for individuals, promotes business, etc. Of course, there are also rational reasons why states may choose NOT to have free movement. As with most political questions, it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons of each option. It's crazy to somehow claim as a moral absolute that there should be no open borders, ever, anywhere. first of all, that is NOT the case with the eu anyway. yes, if france and britain agreed to have open borders, that would be fine. what is NOT fine, and can never be fine, is a bunch of numbnuts sitting in belgium DICTATING that they have to. it is totally the province of each government, of each SEPARATE and DISTINCT country What do you mean it would be OK if France and the UK decided to do it? I thought you said it was a moral absolute that nations shouldn't do that. But I'm gathering that you prefer to present yourself as 'right' rather than 'consistent'. As to your points about the EU, as I've said before, I can well understand why Americans are keen to criticise the EU; it's the one multi-national entity which might one day challenge America for the political and moral leadership of the Western world, and for strategic reasons it is in America's interests to whip up opposition to it. I'm not sure who the numb-nuts in Brussels are; the key political decision-makers in the EU structure are the Ministers of the respective national governments of member states.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 19, 2010 17:14:20 GMT
first of all, that is NOT the case with the eu anyway. yes, if france and britain agreed to have open borders, that would be fine. what is NOT fine, and can never be fine, is a bunch of numbnuts sitting in belgium DICTATING that they have to. it is totally the province of each government, of each SEPARATE and DISTINCT country What do you mean it would be OK if France and the UK decided to do it? I thought you said it was a moral absolute that nations shouldn't do that. But I'm gathering that you prefer to present yourself as 'right' rather than 'consistent'. As to your points about the EU, as I've said before, I can well understand why Americans are keen to criticise the EU; it's the one multi-national entity which might one day challenge America for the political and moral leadership of the Western world, and for strategic reasons it is in America's interests to whip up opposition to it. I'm not sure who the numb-nuts in Brussels are; the key political decision-makers in the EU structure are the Ministers of the respective national governments of member states. Can I clarify something? Please tell me if I'm wrong. As far as I know, the decisions so far to allow free movement have been made by all countries in the EU, by votes taken by each country in the EU Parliament. There was a specific issue about limiting immgration or allowing free movement for the newly joined countries and countries chose whether to opt in or opt out. Britain and Ireland chose to allow free movement in that case, most of the EU did not choose such open ended policies. The EU numbnuts may have had an agenda but they aren't to blame for open door policies in individual countries. (I think the EU numbnuts must be the equivalent of civil servants?)
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Jan 19, 2010 18:01:28 GMT
The EU is a sinister power grab. I want no part of it.
AH
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 19, 2010 18:51:32 GMT
you and me both alpha...a corrupt unacountable org... with tendencies which put the kgb and stasi to shame to shame......lol..it cant even trust people to vote and when they do and give the wrong answer its told to re-vote untill the right answer is given......
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 19:48:18 GMT
first of all, that is NOT the case with the eu anyway. yes, if france and britain agreed to have open borders, that would be fine. what is NOT fine, and can never be fine, is a bunch of numbnuts sitting in belgium DICTATING that they have to. it is totally the province of each government, of each SEPARATE and DISTINCT country What do you mean it would be OK if France and the UK decided to do it? I thought you said it was a moral absolute that nations shouldn't do that. But I'm gathering that you prefer to present yourself as 'right' rather than 'consistent'. As to your points about the EU, as I've said before, I can well understand why Americans are keen to criticise the EU; it's the one multi-national entity which might one day challenge America for the political and moral leadership of the Western world, and for strategic reasons it is in America's interests to whip up opposition to it. I'm not sure who the numb-nuts in Brussels are; the key political decision-makers in the EU structure are the Ministers of the respective national governments of member states. no, no. i never said anything of the kind. i said that NO central entity has a right to dictate what any country, or two countries, wish to do between themselves. as i said, if france and britain wanted to have open border, but not allow it with germany for instance, britain and france have that right, and NO ONE else has a right to say shyt about it the FACT is that the eu will NEVER have the high moral ground with the u.s. europeans adore murderers and baby rapers and have such a disdain for human rights that it will never come close
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 19, 2010 20:00:29 GMT
Considering I always vote UKIP in European elections it's pretty obvious where I stand on this one.
I have never minded a trading bloc but this insane push towards an undemocratic and centralised Europe where decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats really drives me mad.
I think we should just pull out altogether because I can't see how it can be reformed when the auditors have refused to pass the accounts for years and yet STILL nothing gets done.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 20, 2010 0:03:05 GMT
it was presented as a trading block......fools that we were
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2010 20:59:27 GMT
the european common market already existed. the trading block was already there
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 23, 2010 13:54:05 GMT
the european common market already existed. the trading block was already there yes i know...the common market... and thats why we were fools to believe them and their presentation of thats all that was entailed the long term agenda wasnt presented
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2010 16:26:56 GMT
the european common market already existed. the trading block was already there yes i know...the common market... and thats why we were fools to believe them and their presentation of thats all that was entailed the long term agenda wasnt presented I suppose it is possible that the terminally stupid were not aware that the original EEC Treaties were very explicit about the political goals of the EU at the time of the referendum, although I believe it was explored at some length in the more analytical media. Maybe Sun and Daily Mail readers didn't get it at the time, but really ,to turn round now and say that somehow the people were 'fooled' is a bit rich.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 23, 2010 20:23:12 GMT
The Common market's mission statement makes the case for 'ever closer Union. That was clear when we voted to join.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2010 21:38:39 GMT
Random, yeah, that's my point exactly.
The UK voted to join - good thing, bad thing, there's the area for discussion.
But the 'we were fooled into joining' argument is just rubbbish.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 23, 2010 23:07:59 GMT
Well, I wasn't born when the referendum took place so I didn't get the chance to vote or hear the arguments.
I'm against the EU and think we should withdraw because:
1 We're paying a fortune to an institution whose own auditors have refused to sign the books for years.
2 They're corrupt
3 They're run by non-elected bureaucrats
4 Because we're British a lot of other countries gang up against us to try and do us down
5 I want my country to be free and not part of a European superstate.
I don't know what the issues they talked about in the 70s were - except of course from reading and talking to people who did vote and so on - and I do get a general sense that in those days the political Left was against the EU and the right were for it.
Nowadays it seems the other way round though of course I'm too much of a maverick to fit comfortably into any kind of left/right divide.
I think it's also got worse as it's expanded because we've got stuck with basket cases like Romania as well as the relatively stronger economies.
If it comes to that, thanks to Fianna Fail's mismanagement of the economy, Ireland is turning into one.
The sooner Fine Gael returns to power the better!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 9:43:49 GMT
yes i know...the common market... and thats why we were fools to believe them and their presentation of thats all that was entailed the long term agenda wasnt presented I suppose it is possible that the terminally stupid were not aware that the original EEC Treaties were very explicit about the political goals of the EU at the time of the referendum, although I believe it was explored at some length in the more analytical media. Maybe Sun and Daily Mail readers didn't get it at the time, but really ,to turn round now and say that somehow the people were 'fooled' is a bit rich. well the termially stupid...didnt have acess to the stuff we have acess to today via the computer and the details were certainly not spelt out in the media..........and a trading block was thought to be a good idea....a more peaceful union and all that sort of crap...and having gone through two world wars...peaceful was what people wanted at no time did our leaders EVER stand up and say we hope eventually to have one european state..with its own police..army..tax system etc etc to say the people were fooled is not rich but fact..the people of all the european countries were fooled never was it said it will cost you billions in taxation...never was it said this will include the eastern block or ossible turkey do you think for one brief moment anyone would have voted for it..lol do turkeys vote for christmas go ask your mother what she thought it entailed...in fact go ask any one what they thought it entailed or perhaps she is also a termially stupid sun/mail reader
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 9:48:22 GMT
The Common market's mission statement makes the case for 'ever closer Union. That was clear when we voted to join. the closer union didnt mention a great many little details...neither did fat pervy heath or the oposition we have acess now to the details...then we didnt.. a con of magnitude on the populations of europe,
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 25, 2010 11:34:58 GMT
My Mother finds the European Union most convenient because it has made foreign travel so much easier for her, and she does enjoy a break every year to spend my inheritance.
My Father, on the other hand, would have preferred an ongoing, perhaps strengthened, commonwealth as he lived in NZ for a while and felt that the NZ sheep farmers were unfairly disadvantaged.
Neither are remotely concerned about losing our sovereignty as, when UK joined the EU, Scotland had already ceded its sovereignty to the UK.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 11:47:07 GMT
My Mother finds the European Union most convenient because it has made foreign travel so much easier for her """" how has it made it easier ...it wasnt difficult before...i dont get that argument
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 11:50:04 GMT
Neither are remotely concerned about losing our sovereignty as, when UK joined the EU, Scotland had already ceded its sovereignty to the UK....mmmmmmm figures
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 25, 2010 11:52:19 GMT
5 I want my country to be free and not part of a European superstate. It can be part of Europe, or it can be a helpless adjunct of the USA. I don't think 'free' is an option.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 25, 2010 12:21:55 GMT
The EEC was always going to be 'an ever closer union'. That was clear from day one. Anyone who thinks it wasn't hasn't got a clue.
|
|