|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 9:58:20 GMT
Riot, thanks for your link to that interesting leaftlet. So far as sovreignty is concerned, how about this:
"Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
Some might say that some of the rules imposed about what foods can or can't be sold (in particular the standardisation of fresh fruit and vegetables) go quite a way towards depriving us of our National identity.
But most crucial is this paragraph:
What would be the effect on Britain if we gave up membership of the Common Market? In the Government's view, the effect could only be damaging.
Inevitably, there would be a period of uncertainty.
Businessmen who had made plans for investment and development on the basis of membership would have to start afresh.[/size]
As I stated in an earlier post, we were already in the Common Market when we were asked to vote. I said "yes" purely because our family business had made plans on the basis of membership; because of its nature it had little choice. I remember discussing it with my father who said that had he been asked to vote before we actually entered, he would have said "no".
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 28, 2010 11:04:50 GMT
Some might say that some of the rules imposed about what foods can or can't be sold (in particular the standardisation of fresh fruit and vegetables) go quite a way towards depriving us of our National identity. What national identity? Most Scottish people have a Scottish national identity, so I'm not sure what this British national identity that people were going to be deprived of is exactly. Also, my Scottish national identity is not dependent on the standard of fresh fruit and vegetables sold. And I would pity anyone whose national identity was so weak and shallow that it would be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 11:58:04 GMT
Point taken! But as a Kentish girl I recognised the value of small Cox's apples, picked late and eaten only if the pips rattle. Now, you can only get large Coxes and they are horrible. I don't necessarily believe that their demise was totally due to the EU, but I dare say the rules about size didn't help.
And what about bananas? We knew the ones from the Canary islands were the best, small and sweet. The EU graciously allowed them to be sold as an exception to the size rule, but only as class II fruit. Then they put restrictions on the sale of class II fruit. Ask a Madeiran what they think about the EU! So if we want little bananas we have to import them from outside the EU ....daft or what?
But what about the second extract I quoted from that leaflet?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 12:03:23 GMT
Why have 27 air forces, numerous navies, why duplicate?
i would trust that this comment is intended to be farcical. there is NO, not one, zip, zilch, nada, intelligent, rational, or legitimate reason not to. do you not understand what sovereignty means?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 28, 2010 12:20:52 GMT
Why have 27 air forces, numerous navies, why duplicate? i would trust that this comment is intended to be farcical. there is NO, not one, zip, zilch, nada, intelligent, rational, or legitimate reason not to. do you not understand what sovereignty means? Then you have understood nothing of what I wrote. And that's shocking. Sovereignty is always trotted out by the Luddite tendency. But what sovereignty? Whether England is in the EU or not the truth is sovereignty has been bargained away in part. Or do treaties etc not count? The fact is that within Europe we have all pooled our sovereignty together. Well its clear that you do not, jumbo. Where we really have lost our sovereignty has clearly passed you by and you haven't so much as whimpered a protest against it. One in five of our leading companies has become foreign-owned in a buying spree unprecedented in our or any comparable western country. Nearly all our investment banks are foreign-owned, as are many of our utilities and strategic sectors, including steel production. Centrica, owner of British Gas, is widely expected soon to receive a bid from the Russian GazProm; and the Chinese government has just set up a $200bn fund to buy foreign companies, with Britain among its top targets. Britain's new xenophobes certainly curse Brussels as the devil, but excuse foreign ownership. One reason, of course, is that so much of the British media is owned by foreigners (Rupert Murdoch) or tax exiles.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 28, 2010 12:56:39 GMT
Point taken! But as a Kentish girl I recognised the value of small Cox's apples, picked late and eaten only if the pips rattle. Now, you can only get large Coxes and they are horrible. I don't necessarily believe that their demise was totally due to the EU, but I dare say the rules about size didn't help. And what about bananas? We knew the ones from the Canary islands were the best, small and sweet. The EU graciously allowed them to be sold as an exception to the size rule, but only as class II fruit. Then they put restrictions on the sale of class II fruit. Ask a Madeiran what they think about the EU! So if we want little bananas we have to import them from outside the EU ....daft or what? But what about the second extract I quoted from that leaflet? I didn't think the idea that the EU was about 'business' was controversial. It is an association of nations committed to capitalism and free market. The business interest would lie in having a completely integrated USE; we've already seen how businesses have sought to benefit by the free movements of people by bringing in to the UK lower paid Eastern European workers. Socialists have opposed the EU since its inception on the grounds that it's a capitalism club. The anti-EU people on this thread SEEM to be happy enough with the EU as the basis for wealth creation and capitalism, but object to the political aspects of it. For myself, I find a distinction between politics and economics artificial. If you are going to have a big capitalism club, then it seems to follow that workers rights across the club would need to be harmonised, etc. to avoid one member having an unfair advantage. But until the Council of Ministers is changed to become a directly elected legislative body, it is nonsense to say that member states have somehow been extinguished by the EU.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2010 12:59:40 GMT
I recognised the value of small Cox's apples, picked late and eaten only if the pips rattle. Now, you can only get large Coxes and they are horrible. I don't necessarily believe that their demise was totally due to the EU, but I dare say the rules about size didn't help. Is it down to the EU at all? I thought it was our own supermarkets that made these decisions, because I can buy small Coxes in the local independent greengrocer's. You might say (I'm not sure if it's true) that the French manipulated EU regulations to force us to import their disgusting Golden Delicious at an unfeasibly low price. But then it's our fault for buying them.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 28, 2010 13:07:36 GMT
I don't look on Nick Griffin's election to tbe European Parliament as a hopeful sign either for Britain or the EU. neither do i..a very retrograde step...but one possibly the first of many..not necessarily bnp but of a type
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 28, 2010 13:17:23 GMT
What national identity? Most Scottish people have a Scottish national identity, so I'm not sure what this British national identity that people were going to be deprived of is exactly.. i dont think anyone knows what a british identity is...lol...first one to find out should let us know but i know what an english identity is just as you know about your scots identity and the welsh know etc but british...simply an inclusive term dreamed up as a political expediency by george 3rd and encouraged by the fool blair and brown to suit their agenda of inclusiveness. and the giving out of passports..meaningless as a national id as there no people british...exist... britons existed once but they are long gone
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 13:40:44 GMT
Why have 27 air forces, numerous navies, why duplicate? i would trust that this comment is intended to be farcical. there is NO, not one, zip, zilch, nada, intelligent, rational, or legitimate reason not to. do you not understand what sovereignty means? Then you have understood nothing of what I wrote. And that's shocking. Sovereignty is always trotted out by the Luddite tendency. But what sovereignty? Whether England is in the EU or not the truth is sovereignty has been bargained away in part. Or do treaties etc not count? The fact is that within Europe we have all pooled our sovereignty together. Well its clear that you do not, jumbo. Where we really have lost our sovereignty has clearly passed you by and you haven't so much as whimpered a protest against it. One in five of our leading companies has become foreign-owned in a buying spree unprecedented in our or any comparable western country. Nearly all our investment banks are foreign-owned, as are many of our utilities and strategic sectors, including steel production. Centrica, owner of British Gas, is widely expected soon to receive a bid from the Russian GazProm; and the Chinese government has just set up a $200bn fund to buy foreign companies, with Britain among its top targets. Britain's new xenophobes certainly curse Brussels as the devil, but excuse foreign ownership. One reason, of course, is that so much of the British media is owned by foreigners (Rupert Murdoch) or tax exiles. sovereignty, and territorial integrity are not relinquished in an alliance. nato is a good example. each country contributes forces to the alliance, but does NOT give up its own. the eu is not remotely similar. it wants to have one force, under the total control of a central band of fools, and totally disarm the totally separate and distinct nations
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 28, 2010 13:44:29 GMT
it wants to have one force, under the total control of a central band of fools, and totally disarm the totally separate and distinct nations That is quite true though. They want our armies to come together as a common force, not removed and replaced by a central army.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 14:05:56 GMT
Point taken! But as a Kentish girl I recognised the value of small Cox's apples, picked late and eaten only if the pips rattle. Now, you can only get large Coxes and they are horrible. I don't necessarily believe that their demise was totally due to the EU, but I dare say the rules about size didn't help. And what about bananas? We knew the ones from the Canary islands were the best, small and sweet. The EU graciously allowed them to be sold as an exception to the size rule, but only as class II fruit. Then they put restrictions on the sale of class II fruit. Ask a Madeiran what they think about the EU! So if we want little bananas we have to import them from outside the EU ....daft or what? But what about the second extract I quoted from that leaflet? I didn't think the idea that the EU was about 'business' was controversial. It is an association of nations committed to capitalism and free market. The business interest would lie in having a completely integrated USE; we've already seen how businesses have sought to benefit by the free movements of people by bringing in to the UK lower paid Eastern European workers. Socialists have opposed the EU since its inception on the grounds that it's a capitalism club. The anti-EU people on this thread SEEM to be happy enough with the EU as the basis for wealth creation and capitalism, but object to the political aspects of it. For myself, I find a distinction between politics and economics artificial. If you are going to have a big capitalism club, then it seems to follow that workers rights across the club would need to be harmonised, etc. to avoid one member having an unfair advantage. But until the Council of Ministers is changed to become a directly elected legislative body, it is nonsense to say that member states have somehow been extinguished by the EU. The point I was trying to make is that we were already in the Common Market when we were asked to vote; the "yes" lobby told us (correctly) that a no vote would cause great problems to businesses who had changed their working practices.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 28, 2010 14:07:45 GMT
I didn't think the idea that the EU was about 'business' was controversial. It is an association of nations committed to capitalism and free market. The business interest would lie in having a completely integrated USE; we've already seen how businesses have sought to benefit by the free movements of people by bringing in to the UK lower paid Eastern European workers. Socialists have opposed the EU since its inception on the grounds that it's a capitalism club. The anti-EU people on this thread SEEM to be happy enough with the EU as the basis for wealth creation and capitalism, but object to the political aspects of it. For myself, I find a distinction between politics and economics artificial. If you are going to have a big capitalism club, then it seems to follow that workers rights across the club would need to be harmonised, etc. to avoid one member having an unfair advantage. But until the Council of Ministers is changed to become a directly elected legislative body, it is nonsense to say that member states have somehow been extinguished by the EU. The point I was trying to make is that we were already in the Common Market when we were asked to vote; the "yes" lobby told us (correctly) that a no vote would cause great problems to businesses who had changed their working practices. Oh right, I see that. But that was nothing more than the truth; not blackmail.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 14:21:57 GMT
I recognised the value of small Cox's apples, picked late and eaten only if the pips rattle. Now, you can only get large Coxes and they are horrible. I don't necessarily believe that their demise was totally due to the EU, but I dare say the rules about size didn't help. Is it down to the EU at all? I thought it was our own supermarkets that made these decisions, because I can buy small Coxes in the local independent greengrocer's. You might say (I'm not sure if it's true) that the French manipulated EU regulations to force us to import their disgusting Golden Delicious at an unfeasibly low price. But then it's our fault for buying them. There are certainly regulations in place dictating the quality of fresh fruit and vegetables; they have been relaxed recently for certain fruits - not apples. Canary Island bananas can't meet the quality standards; I'm told they can sell them internally. I'm still hunting for apples; as I say, I'm not confident the EU is totally to blame for the destruction of our orchards. It may be that we never exported Coxes anyway! Yes, come to think of it I have also seen little ones on sale as Class II fruit, but of course these should be class 1. you will see that apples are one of the fruits that remain covered by the regulations, following relaxation only last year of the EU rules preventing the sale of odd shaped produce
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 28, 2010 14:58:26 GMT
Then you have understood nothing of what I wrote. And that's shocking. Sovereignty is always trotted out by the Luddite tendency. But what sovereignty? Whether England is in the EU or not the truth is sovereignty has been bargained away in part. Or do treaties etc not count? The fact is that within Europe we have all pooled our sovereignty together. Well its clear that you do not, jumbo. Where we really have lost our sovereignty has clearly passed you by and you haven't so much as whimpered a protest against it. One in five of our leading companies has become foreign-owned in a buying spree unprecedented in our or any comparable western country. Nearly all our investment banks are foreign-owned, as are many of our utilities and strategic sectors, including steel production. Centrica, owner of British Gas, is widely expected soon to receive a bid from the Russian GazProm; and the Chinese government has just set up a $200bn fund to buy foreign companies, with Britain among its top targets. Britain's new xenophobes certainly curse Brussels as the devil, but excuse foreign ownership. One reason, of course, is that so much of the British media is owned by foreigners (Rupert Murdoch) or tax exiles. sovereignty, and territorial integrity are not relinquished in an alliance. nato is a good example. each country contributes forces to the alliance, but does NOT give up its own. the eu is not remotely similar. it wants to have one force, under the total control of a central band of fools, and totally disarm the totally separate and distinct nations We have pooled sovereignty....together. Is it really that hard to understand? NATO is America's way of avoiding European military rivalry, they don't like having to pay for that, mind you. And now NATO is as good as finished. Something will take its place, nature abhors a vacuum. Have the American states been totally disarmed. Are the states not separate and distinct? You still haven't addressed the real threat to sovereignty that I pointed out. I wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 15:06:37 GMT
What national identity? Most Scottish people have a Scottish national identity, so I'm not sure what this British national identity that people were going to be deprived of is exactly.. i dont think anyone knows what a british identity is...lol...first one to find out should let us know but i know what an english identity is just as you know about your scots identity and the welsh know etc but british...simply an inclusive term dreamed up as a political expediency by george 3rd and encouraged by the fool blair and brown to suit their agenda of inclusiveness. and the giving out of passports..meaningless as a national id as there no people british...exist... britons existed once but they are long gone Thanks for that point. It's actually quite a complex issue. From the moment James VI of Scotland became James I of England the relationship between the two countries began to change and the concept of Britain began to emerge. Charles I and Cromwell, in completely different ways, tried to mould the two countries into a single nation. When the Dutchman William of Orange became king the idea grew in popularity, and by the time that George I of Hanover became king of England people began to speak of the Scots as 'North Britons' and the Irish as 'West Britons.' Ironically, two of the main people responsible for creating the idea of 'Britishness' were a Scot and an Irishman. Sir Walter Scott explicity wrote 'Ivanhoe' as a tract to persuade the Scots and English to bury their historical differences. He was the first major Scottish literary figure to be a Unionist (although Burns did describe himself, during the Napoleonic Wars, as 'a Pittite up to a point'). The other was the Irishman Arthur Wellesley, better known as the Duke of Wellington. Both men knew the dangers - having lived through a long and bitter period of war - in terms of national security. Wellington, from the very beginning of his political career, recognised the potential danger of an irreconcilable Ireland. He may have been too optimistic about the prospects of the Union but at least he did everything he could to make the Irish and English feel that they shared a common purpose, values and interests. His maiden speech in Grattan's Parliament was in FAVOUR of Catholic Emancipation, so far from being a Johnny come lately to the cause, he had ALWAYS supported it in spite of his own fierce Protestantism. Scott too felt that Scottish and English people could live in harmony and that the things that drew them together far outweighed those that divided them. Queen Victoria's obsession with all things Scottish also helped to break down the barriers between the two countries. If it comes to that, even though he was one of the biggest disasters ever to BE the leader of Britain, the appointment of the Earl of Bute in 1762 as Prime Minister showed how, only a few years ater the Jacobite rebellion under Bonnie Prince Charlie, a Scot could be considered trustworthy enough to lead the whole nation.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 28, 2010 17:17:29 GMT
I'm another one who has bought small Cox's from supermarkets - the Co-op and ASDA recently.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 18:45:50 GMT
For what it's worth most of us have more than a single identity. For instance, I'm a gypsy; my Dad is from Ulster so he has both an Irish and a British identity; my Mum, as well as being a gypsy, is a proud Yorkshirewoman; I'm a Londoner; I'm English; I'm British; I'm European; and so on.
Take the Ryder Cup - that's a golfing event played between Europe and America. British, Spanish, Dutch, German, Swedish and golfers from other countries all play quite happily against the US without feeling strange about it.
That's because it's not a permanent organisation that affects every aspect of your life like the EU does.
Visiting Europe or even living and working there for a while is one thing.
Being dictated to by a bunch of non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels is another.
The EU Commissioners, at the very LEAST, ought to be chosen by popular vote and not just some cronies that the leaders of their country shove in as a favour.
As Jim says, we have organisations like NATO where we co-operate but they don't infringe on our own national sovereignty.
That's what I'd like to replace the busted EU dinosaur with.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 28, 2010 19:10:43 GMT
The EU Commissioners, at the very LEAST, ought to be chosen by popular vote and not just some cronies that the leaders of their country shove in as a favour. I agree with you. But directly elected commissioners would only strengthen the political union.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 19:21:26 GMT
The EU Commissioners, at the very LEAST, ought to be chosen by popular vote and not just some cronies that the leaders of their country shove in as a favour. I agree with you. But directly elected commissioners would only strengthen the political union. I think you're probably right about that but as I can't see us actually withdrawing then at least we can try and improve it as much as possible and that would be a big step towards reform.
|
|