|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 13:17:27 GMT
How and when are nation states being abolished? That would seem contradictory to the EU's Treaty commitment to subsidiarity. [/quote]when the nation state no longer makes laws in the interest of the people of that nation then the nation state is redundant when taxation,,defence and juresdiction and currency and the right to determin via passport entrance and numbers is taken away from the elected representatives of that nation state the nation state is redundent..as it is no longer a soveriegn and independent nation state it is simply a sattellite among sattalites orbiting around a centre which makes the rules and regulations ..no longer independent..no longer free to act in its own or its peoples interests...as greece is finding out right now to its costs it was sold as a common MARKET....market not union..not entity but market ie trading place no talk of flag,,anthem,,currency..passport or unrestricted entry of other nationals etc and i still dont see what travel advantages have been gained...i traveled without hinderence from either 49 or 50
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 27, 2010 13:46:43 GMT
Hey, come on guys. Don't use me to prop up both sides of the honesty debate ;D This is a bit of a 'how many angels can dance on the proverbial head of a pin' debate My position is that a) there was a lack of honesty (or foresight) on the part of politicians as to the political ramifications but b) you would have had to be pretty stupid not to see the political ramifications in the aftermath of WW2 irrespective of the Treaty of Rome. As I said, nothing stands still in politics.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 15:31:28 GMT
Hey, come on guys. Don't use me to prop up both sides of the honesty debate ;D This is a bit of a 'how many angels can dance on the proverbial head of a pin' debate My position is that a) there was a lack of honesty (or foresight) on the part of politicians as to the political ramifications but b) you would have had to be pretty stupid not to see the political ramifications in the aftermath of WW2 irrespective of the Treaty of Rome. As I said, nothing stands still in politics. Sorry Firedancer
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 15:32:07 GMT
when the nation state no longer makes laws in the interest of the people of that nation then the nation state is redundant when taxation,,defence and juresdiction and currency and the right to determin via passport entrance and numbers is taken away from the elected representatives of that nation state the nation state is redundent..as it is no longer a soveriegn and independent nation state it is simply a sattellite among sattalites orbiting around a centre which makes the rules and regulations ..no longer independent..no longer free to act in its own or its peoples interests...as greece is finding out right now to its costs it was sold as a common MARKET....market not union..not entity but market ie trading place no talk of flag,,anthem,,currency..passport or unrestricted entry of other nationals etc and i still dont see what travel advantages have been gained...i traveled without hinderence from either 49 or 50 As to your last point, if I or my daughters wanted to go and work in Spain, or Poland, or wherever, now we can freely. There are no rules, restrictions or visa requirements for travelling around Europe, and several frontiers (such as Germany/Netherlands) can be freely passed through without custom or immigration control. As to the rest of your post . . it's rhetorical. You can say 'our laws are being made in the EU', but it's not a meaningful response, as all I will retort is 'which laws', and point out all the areas which national - and indeed and perhaps more importantly - local governments continue to control, and all the areas where there is no involvement of the EU in political decision-making and law-making. As to sovereignty, any international treaty commitment cedes sovereignty, be it the ECHR, the Commonwealth, NATO membership or the EU. The idea that, in the 21st century, any nation can seek international isolation in order to preserve 100% sovereignty is interesting, but it's not really a workable solution for a state like the UK which has a long history of involvement in foreign affairs and multinational projects. In the 21st century, the question as to what exactly 'sovereignty' means is an interesting one. With our Scottish Parliament, for example, we are still not a sovereign nation, but we make our own laws about all domestic issues. I have no problem in agreeing that the structures of the EU require considerable reform, and that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of it. However, by democratising the work of the EU we would be really acknowledging all the stuff that you don't want the EU to be. I believe in small countries, not multi-national ones like the UK or Yugoslavia. I believe that if Slovenia wants to be an inependent Slovenia then it is the right of its citizens to have their own state. But, because of our history in Europe, there are an awful lot of very small states and it is only common sense that they would come together to work together over issues of mutual concern. The EU provides a structure for this. The EU does not abolish states; if anything it encourages the establishment of them as we saw with the break-up of Yugoslavia (although Germany did roll the EU over the independence of Croatia - but there are no black and whites in complex matters of international politics, only shades of grey.) I can fully understand all the arguments for reform of the EU and so on, but I cannot understand the argument that the UK would be better without any involvement at all. And how far would we take this isolation? Would we leave the EU and stay in NATO? Why not just become the 51st state of America? The UK isn't going to last forever anyway, but that's probably a separate discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 27, 2010 16:16:52 GMT
...if I or my daughters wanted to go and work in Spain, or Poland, or wherever, now we can freely. When I was working in Poland I had an American colleague who had wanted to work in France and had been given a job there, but couldn't get a work permit. (The Poles, who were not in the EU at the time, paid such low wages that they were glad of anyone they could get.)
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 16:19:55 GMT
In the 21st century, the question as to what exactly 'sovereignty' means is an interesting one. We do not have any real 'sovereignty anyway. Not in any real sense of the word. We can do very little in terms of acting alone. Even if we could leave the EU, we cannot do anything in isolatation: We cannot set interest rates outwith other Countries. Gary Mckinnon is to be tried and our government is powerless to stop him. We cannot set tax rates without an international agreement. We cannot stop American firms from buying our companies, and moving the jobs abroad. We cannot stop British firms from moving jobs abroad either. Our troops are not even under our control. In short there is very little our Government CAN do, whether or not the EU exists or not. So when people talk about a 'sovereignty' I wonder what they mean? If we had 'sovereignty', would we be able to save cadburys from Kraft for example? Or what about Aviva from India? Neither are in the EU but we were powerless to stop such movements. So what is the point?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 27, 2010 16:31:24 GMT
We both wanted trade arrangements although we felt the way that the Commonwealth was being sidelined was wrong, but we both also felt that we did not want political union and we saw political union of some sort as an obvious and inevitable outcome.""" so trade and ""some sort of political union"""is what you forsaw but not from what you say..the abolition of nation states or a united states of europe with one central government..one sey of laws..police..army..tax system so you would agree then that it wasnt an honest vote with full intent being spelt out which is the point that i and others have always made...it was a con..the long term/goal aims were never spelt out How and when are nation states being abolished? That would seem contradictory to the EU's Treaty commitment to subsidiarity. It is clear to those who can see, what is going on. We, and the other so called independent member states are being salami sliced into the maw of the United States of Europe. Every year, bit by bit, sovereignty is being whittled down. Already, some 80% of the new legislation passed into UK law is as a result of some EU dictat, and EU law takes precedence over UK legislation already. Any UK law can be overturned by legislation from Brussels which conflicts with it. Already we are not masters in our own house in this respect. The EU has its own flag, its own anthem, its own President, its own foreign minister, and can make treaties in its own name. Not to forget its own currency, its own parliament, and steps are being taken for it to raise its own armed forces in due course. The salami slicing will continue, a little here, a little there; the occasional retreat, but always onwards to the final goal, a completed United States of Europe, ruled from Brussels. All of our "red line" issues are disappearing faster than a promise by Gordon Brown. The veto mechanism, which did give us SOME control over our own destiny is disappearing faster than a promise by Jack Straw. The end game is clear...total union; harmonisation of taxation, of welfare, of immigration and everything else besides. We were lied to in 1975, and we are STILL being lied to today, by the political classes who know full well what is happening, and where the EU is heading. But they still tell us that we have nothing to worry about, that the EU is nothing more than a super common market, and that we can all still run our own affairs. Not for much longer! Subsidiarity is a word they use in this pretence. It has no practical meaning when the member states are already governed from Brussels in a thousand ways. All of the so called benefits of membership could have been achieved by continuing with the original concept--that of a common market. There is not one substantial benefit to the UK gained from membership that could not equally well have been gained from the common market. It is a massively expensive white elephant; a gargantuan folly of the first water. And we pay it some 6 billions each and every year for the doubtful privilege of membership. We must be mad.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 27, 2010 16:32:04 GMT
I believe that if Slovenia wants to be an inependent Slovenia then it is the right of its citizens to have their own state. But, because of our history in Europe, there are an awful lot of very small states and it is only common sense that they would come together to work together over issues of mutual concern. The EU provides a structure for this. I know Welsh nationalists find the idea of being an independent state within Europe quite appealing, and I've no doubt Scottish nationalists feel the same - a version of the Auld Alliance all over again? It appeals to the separatists of the Lega Nord in Italy (but they are a nasty racist bunch) and I suppose Basques and Catalans too. Britain is a small country, and in the past it punched above its weight by virtue of an Empire it no longer has. If we thought we could be another Switzerland, we shouldn't have made such a mess of our banking. As I said above, I think that's the only other option.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 16:34:11 GMT
Hey, come on guys. Don't use me to prop up both sides of the honesty debate This is a bit of a 'how many angels can dance on the proverbial head of a pin' debate,,,,, not using you to prop up...but to confirm
As to your last point, if I or my daughters wanted to go and work in Spain, or Poland, or wherever, now we can freely.""" but that wasnt what you said...you said it made your mothers life easier for traveling...and re spain or poland...visa,s were available
The UK isn't going to last forever anyway,...well it never was united was it...froth and air just political jargon like ""british"" is jargon
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 16:42:22 GMT
How and when are nation states being abolished? That would seem contradictory to the EU's Treaty commitment to subsidiarity. It is clear to those who can see, what is going on. We, and the other so called independent member states are being salami sliced into the maw of the United States of Europe. Every year, bit by bit, sovereignty is being whittled down. Already, some 80% of the new legislation passed into UK law is as a result of some EU dictat, and EU law takes precedence over UK legislation already. Any UK law can be overturned by legislation from Brussels which conflicts with it. Already we are not masters in our own house in this respect. The EU has its own flag, its own anthem, its own President, its own foreign minister, and can make treaties in its own name. Not to forget its own currency, its own parliament, and steps are being taken for it to raise its own armed forces in due course.. There is not one substantial benefit to the UK gained from membership that could not equally well have been gained from the common market. It is a massively expensive white elephant; a gargantuan folly of the first water. And we pay it some 6 billions each and every year for the doubtful privilege of membership. We must be mad. Gary Mckinnon is to be tried and our government is powerless to stop him...no it isnt..but it does lack the will to say no We cannot stop American firms from buying our companies, and moving the jobs abroad..yes we can but our gov wont stop it..and even lends them our monies to buy Britain is a small country, and in the past it punched above its weight by virtue of an Empire it no longer has.,,,wrong way round riot..it got an empire by punching above its weight and of course the nationalists think the EU an answer to their prayers....but they will learn...little groups of no acount in the scheme of things
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 27, 2010 16:45:48 GMT
In the 21st century, the question as to what exactly 'sovereignty' means is an interesting one. We do not have any real 'sovereignty anyway. Not in any real sense of the word. We can do very little in terms of acting alone. Even if we could leave the EU, we cannot do anything in isolatation: We cannot set interest rates outwith other Countries. Gary Mckinnon is to be tried and our government is powerless to stop him. We cannot set tax rates without an international agreement. We cannot stop American firms from buying our companies, and moving the jobs abroad. We cannot stop British firms from moving jobs abroad either. Our troops are not even under our control. In short there is very little our Government CAN do, whether or not the EU exists or not. So when people talk about a 'sovereignty' I wonder what they mean? If we had 'sovereignty', would we be able to save cadburys from Kraft for example? Or what about Aviva from India? Neither are in the EU but we were powerless to stop such movements. So what is the point? You are wrong; as usual. WE can, and DO set interest rates to suit ourselves at the moment, although in the long run we will probably not be able to. Our current rate of 0.5% is considerably lower than that in the Euro zone. We can, and DO set our own tax rates, and we do so through the annual budget, which is still prepared by our own government without any need for international agreement. Again, in the long run, the EU will take this over as well. As for McKinnon, there is a wealth of legal opinion suggesting that the Home Secretary could stop his extradition if he wanted to. Do not confuse weak Labour government for inability to act. We do not stop private firms from relocating because they have legal rights, and in any case we would not want to . It has nothing to do with being in, or out of the EU. As for the armed forces, you do not know what you are talking about. While we are members of NATO, we are still in control of our army, navy and airforce. Perhaps you were sleeping when we invaded the Falklands and Iraq? True, the Afghanistan campaign is a supposed Nato affair, but whether it was, or was not, as the Yanks started the whole thing off, Blair would have taken us in there without any hesitation. And he could have done so off his own bat. So if you are going to argue, R.V. at least get your facts right BEFORE you wade in. Not that it has ever stopped you before!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 27, 2010 16:58:25 GMT
Britain is a small country, and in the past it punched above its weight by virtue of an Empire it no longer has.,,,wrong way round riot..it got an empire by punching above its weight... Well it's both, of course. And neither way is it something we ought even to want to do. (Do sort your quotes out, mouse. It would make your posts a whole lot easier to read. And the bit you're replying to above is mine, not riot's.)
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 17:06:15 GMT
We were lied to in 1975, and we are STILL being lied to today, by the political classes who know full well what is happening, and where the EU is heading. Not true, Ned. The Labour caimpagned to pull out of the EEC and 'ever closer union as far back as 1983. Benn, Foot, Castle and Shore and others from the ' Hard Left' of the Party (when being 'Left' of the Labour Party was quite an achievement) have always been against the EEC and called for the UK to leave. Tony Benn being vocal on the concept of 'unelected European commision' making laws, here is what he said 1973: [Edward Heath], who sold out Britain's interests to the Common Market and gave our sovereignty away without our consent—with support of Mr Thorpe and the Liberals—is not entitled to wave the Union Jack to get himself out of the mess. Speech in Bristol (31 November, 1973).sourceThese people were sidelined in the early NEighties, but still they went on opposing the EEC.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 17:20:22 GMT
It's funny that nations like Serbia - very proud, nationalistic nations - are slavering to get INTO the EU, because they recognise that it's the only way their state will flourish. They recognise that their hardwon (in terms of lives and international opinion) sovereignty is not at risk by EU membership.
As to 'United States of Europe' . . . that may well come, but even so, given the EU commitment to subsidiarity, it's going to be an even looser 'Union' than the USA (where the individual states continue to have wide ranging powers to set their own laws.)
While I don't think anyone is arguing that glorious isolation is workable, the Norway example is often used of a state not in the EU and surviving. Well yes. But in reality Norway has to follow many if not most of the EU laws in order to trade, but it is not represented at the council that makes these laws.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 17:38:58 GMT
www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htmThis is a link to the text of the pro-YES campaign leaflet as distributed during the campaign which EXPLICITLY addresses the questions of sovereignty, making clear that yes, some sovereignty would be pooled and the reasons why. Maybe we can finally put to bed this silly idea that the British people were 'conned' into voting yes. It's OK if they've changed their minds, if they don't like how it's going, etc. etc. These are all valid discussions. But hopefully an end to the 'we was conned' nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 27, 2010 21:57:42 GMT
These are, as they say, interesting times. There are those who say that the European Union is the conquest of Europe by the back door and in a sense that may well be true, but it is also a fact that it has kept the peace for over 60 years.
I believe in the European ideal, not the dystopic creation we have before us. Why should not Wales and Scotland be independent states under the umbrella of the EU? They are already devolved to a degree and are moving slowly awayfrom England, anyhow.
Consider our social evolution. from the trees to the caves, to primitive forts, walled cities, regions and nation states. In each case there have been those for the change and those against. The world certainly has shrunk. The trend around the world is for smaller nations to agglomerate into larger entites, e.g. ASEAN, the EU, AU, and the Americas. Some are more further advanced, and some have barely begun.
Take the case of George Bush's steel tariffs; had Britain alone protested about them would he have changed his mind - special relationship and all that? No, he wouldn't. But the clout of the EU forced him to recant. So in that sense we can punch above our weight.
A single or common market demands a relatively level playing field in taxes etc - and a currency.
Why have 27 air forces, numerous navies, why duplicate?
The real problem is the utterly corrupt politicians who use the EU as a cash cow. It needs a bi-cameral house, not a members club. It needs to function with all the checks and balances. I can't see that happening, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 28, 2010 8:55:57 GMT
It's funny that nations like Serbia - very proud, nationalistic nations - are slavering to get INTO the EU, because they recognise that it's the only way their state will flourish. what they realise is...cash handouts....same with other poor countries...its money and back room dealings with serbia..who are still having to be very good after their little flare up....there is no love for the eu as it stands...all politics rather than mad desire...or so i am told
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 28, 2010 9:16:26 GMT
www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htmThis is a link to the text of the pro-YES campaign leaflet as distributed during the campaign which EXPLICITLY addresses the questions of sovereignty, making clear that yes, some sovereignty would be pooled and the reasons why. Maybe we can finally put to bed this silly idea that the British people were 'conned' into voting yes. It's OK if they've changed their minds, if they don't like how it's going, etc. etc. These are all valid discussions. But hopefully an end to the 'we was conned' nonsense. no its not about changed minds....the word market over and over....not union,,not federation and not state this is what they said The aims of the Common Market are: To bring together the peoples of Europe. o raise living standards and improve working conditions. To promote growth and boost world trade. To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world. To help maintain peace and freedom. else where it dismisses the notion of unelected in brussels making laws doesnt mention ...being made to vote over and over untill the right result[lol] it doesnt mention a president..blah blah blah all of which have been pointed out already ..however you were not the at the time and yes it may be convienient to ..put it to bed.....its always convienient to brush lies and manipulation under the bed....but some things will not go away and truth will always come out at some point you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of thetime the EU has been shown for what it is a corrupt mess based on lies..half truths and manipulation..whith a few benefiting and doing well at the trough...providing they play the game and those who object...lol...they aree sidelined and mired,,de toothed and de voiced and the kinnocks and the continental kinnocks make sure the family does well and the charade and the band play on... and the troughing pigs stamp and jump on any form of democracy
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2010 9:39:25 GMT
and the kinnocks and the continental kinnocks make sure the family does well and the charade and the band play on... and the troughing pigs stamp and jump on any form of democracy Well, Nick Griffin is one of them now. So there's hope, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 9:56:06 GMT
I don't look on Nick Griffin's election to tbe European Parliament as a hopeful sign either for Britain or the EU.
|
|