Dolph:
Carryfast, the whole idea of EU is Federal state, why British people don’t know that I have no idea, but it’s obvious.
One main capitol and Government in Brussels, one currency, same rules everywhere, one interconnected road network, no borders between member states, treaties and laws valid for everyone and on and on. Its like USE(United States of Europe).
You(not you personally) got to be blind and deaf not to know the whole idea of EU.
Firstly an ‘interconnected road network’ is irrelevant in being any identifier of Federalism as opposed to sovereignty and national borders.IE it’s the border crossing formalities that define national borders not continuous road layout.
But yes the out campaign at least always knew that the plan was all about us handing over sovereignty to a Federal European system.However you’re underestimating the massive Federalist in campaign propaganda exercise which effectively spun the sovereignty angle to the point where it drowned out the truth for those who were undecided.Nothing has changed in that regard.
You are wrong on that, in the Balkans its clear example of that. In Soviet time motorways were not build, we barely had several miles of them. The main reason was that as outer border of Warsaw pact we had to hold Greek and Turkish NATO troops until Soviets came to aid. To prevent them from moving fast(this is from US experience in Germany during WW2) motorways were not build,. Today they are build with fast pace, some become international corridors, linking Sofia to Black sea port of Burgas, Istanbul, and Aegean sea port of Thessaloniki. Motorway is going to be build from Sofia to Serbian border as well, this way there will be motorway from Thessaloniki, Greece all the way to Western Europe.
This entire concept of a “Veto” is to stop laws popular with the public but unpopular with the ruling classes from ever being implemented. When trying to “reverse” laws that are UNpopular with the public - the Government then always seems to have the power of “Veto”… So it’s Lose/Lose in all things that are supposed to be democratic.
A government can be elected with 34% of the vote - but can only be “removed by vote of no confidence” if 51% sign a petition. Just think how difficult it would be to get a 35m voter petition signed… Even if that were to happen - it would just be denied as a fake - ie “Vetoed” yet again.
When was the last time we actually had a true democratic government in this country? - A popularist government that could do no wrong in the eyes of it’s people…?
BillyHunt:
No, the issue is you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked so, in that situation could we veto any proposed changes to the constitution, yes or no.
I have answered your question.
You’re talking about trying to justify your obviously pro EU agenda.By dressing up the extremely limited EU member state VETO over an equally limited range of decision making criterea,as ‘a VETO’.Within what you’ve admitted is a Federal system of government.
While I’m talking about the ‘total’ retention,of individual nation state sovereignty and sovereign right of VETO/opt out,over ‘all’ of the decision making process,within a Confederal type of ‘Union’.The difference is chalk and cheese.
Carryfast: Firstly an ‘interconnected road network’ is irrelevant in being any identifier of Federalism as opposed to sovereignty and national borders.IE it’s the border crossing formalities that define national borders not continuous road layout.
But yes the out campaign at least always knew that the plan was all about us handing over sovereignty to a Federal European system.However you’re underestimating the massive Federalist in campaign propaganda exercise which effectively spun the sovereignty angle to the point where it drowned out the truth for those who were undecided.Nothing has changed in that regard.
You are wrong on that, in the Balkans its clear example of that. In Soviet time motorways were not build, we barely had several miles of them. The main reason was that as outer border of Warsaw pact we had to hold Greek and Turkish NATO troops until Soviets came to aid. To prevent them from moving fast(this is from US experience in Germany during WW2) motorways were not build,. Today they are build with fast pace, some become international corridors, linking Sofia to Black sea port of Burgas, Istanbul, and Aegean sea port of Thessaloniki. Motorway is going to be build from Sofia to Serbian border as well, this way there will be motorway from Thessaloniki, Greece all the way to Western Europe.
How does only ‘motorway’ connections define cross border road links/connectivety in your view. On that note the UK had no motorways at all before 1958.While if you check out the old time trucks forums you’ll see that there was plenty of cross border road inter connectivety in the form of motorways or non motorway throughout Western and Eastern Europe long before any East Euro state was in the EU and still in the soviet/warsaw pact/sphere of influence.Or for that matter before us,Switzerland or Austria were EEC/EU member or EU affiliate member states.To the point where ‘roads’ as we know them didn’t run out until at least the borderlands with Asia while obviously still providing cross border ‘inter connectivety’ even in that case.
P.S. He is going to talk with our PM about his desire to change migrants benefits in UK for the first 4 years. As you know all EU members has to agree on Cameron proposal.
P.S. He is going to talk with our PM about his desire to change migrants benefits in UK for the first 4 years. As you know all EU members has to agree on Cameron proposal.
Yet more proof that we need to leave the federalist scam.On that note the issue isn’t about benefits it’s the whole issue of free movement.Within a governmental system in which foreign governments not our own decide our national immigration policy among others.Which in this case takes advantage of the free movement clause to justify massive unsustainable levels of economic migration.
Winseer:
This entire concept of a “Veto” is to stop laws popular with the public but unpopular with the ruling classes from ever being implemented. When trying to “reverse” laws that are UNpopular with the public - the Government then always seems to have the power of “Veto”… So it’s Lose/Lose in all things that are supposed to be democratic.
A government can be elected with 34% of the vote - but can only be “removed by vote of no confidence” if 51% sign a petition. Just think how difficult it would be to get a 35m voter petition signed… Even if that were to happen - it would just be denied as a fake - ie “Vetoed” yet again.
When was the last time we actually had a true democratic government in this country? - A popularist government that could do no wrong in the eyes of it’s people…?
Yes we’ve been lumbered with numerous bad governments over the years.But we won’t fix that by handing over any chance we’ve got of changing the situation to the even worse system of Federal rule by the EU.
P.S. He is going to talk with our PM about his desire to change migrants benefits in UK for the first 4 years. As you know all EU members has to agree on Cameron proposal.
Yet more proof that we need to leave the federalist scam.On that note the issue isn’t about benefits it’s the whole issue of free movement.Within a governmental system in which foreign governments not our own decide our national immigration policy among others.Which in this case takes advantage of the free movement clause to justify massive unsustainable levels of economic migration.
Well get out on the streets of Britain and demand that from your politicians, in front of the PC screen its not going to happen, neither Cameron nor Corbyn/Osborne/Farage etc. will hear you on the internet.
And yes its about free movement and we all in continental EU want it to remain. When you don’t like a club, you leave it instead of forcing a fundamental change.
UK refuses Schengen, refuses the euro, refuses equal rights for all EU citizens living in UK, does want to change the rules, not because they are bad, but because UK benefit system is an outdated nanny state. Well GTFO, stop telling us how bad EU is, Federalist this, Federalist that, its great and I hope with more work and cooperation we can make it even better for our kids.
BillyHunt:
No, the issue is you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked so, in that situation could we veto any proposed changes to the constitution, yes or no.
I have answered your question.
You’re talking about trying to justify your obviously pro EU agenda.By dressing up the extremely limited EU member state VETO over an equally limited range of decision making criterea,as ‘a VETO’.Within what you’ve admitted is a Federal system of government.
While I’m talking about the ‘total’ retention,of individual nation state sovereignty and sovereign right of VETO/opt out,over ‘all’ of the decision making process,within a Confederal type of ‘Union’.The difference is chalk and cheese.
No, you haven’t answered the question, preferring your usual method of making up things to suit your agenda. You stated we don’t have a veto, going so far as to post a link to an article, an old one obviously, telling us we will all be part of a bigger federal state according to the long gone manuel barrosso. This is normal form for you in your anti everything state of mind so not unexpected. The fact is we do have a veto, and you know it, your just not able to admit you’re wrong again.
Oh no, I’ve admitted its a federal state! The cats out of the bag now this vital news has surfaced. Get a grip you clown, we retain a veto so that we don’t become involved in a bigger federal state, that’s the whole point of it.
BillyHunt:
No, the issue is you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked so, in that situation could we veto any proposed changes to the constitution, yes or no.
I have answered your question.
You’re talking about trying to justify your obviously pro EU agenda.By dressing up the extremely limited EU member state VETO over an equally limited range of decision making criterea,as ‘a VETO’.Within what you’ve admitted is a Federal system of government.
While I’m talking about the ‘total’ retention,of individual nation state sovereignty and sovereign right of VETO/opt out,over ‘all’ of the decision making process,within a Confederal type of ‘Union’.The difference is chalk and cheese.
No, you haven’t answered the question, preferring your usual method of making up things to suit your agenda. You stated we don’t have a veto, going so far as to post a link to an article, an old one obviously, telling us we will all be part of a bigger federal state according to the long gone manuel barrosso. This is normal form for you in your anti everything state of mind so not unexpected. The fact is we do have a veto, and you know it, your just not able to admit you’re wrong again.
Oh no, I’ve admitted its a federal state! The cats out of the bag now this vital news has surfaced. Get a grip you clown, we retain a veto so that we don’t become involved in a bigger federal state, that’s the whole point of it.
We’re already involved in a Federal Union and government which has supreme decision making powers over the seperate member states’ governments covering at least 80% of those decision making powers.As I said the right of VETO over just 20% of that decision making process isn’t the right of VETO.
While in typical dictatorial Federalist style you’re saying that anything which disagrees with your bs ideology means anti everything.When I’ve clearly stated that I’m in favour of a ‘Confederal’ Europe in which the seperate member states retain a 100% sovereign right of VETO and/or opt out and nation state supremacy over the decision and law making process of the union.
On that note which part of the word ‘sovereignty’,IE seperate state supremacy over all of the decision and law making process of the union,not vice versa,don’t you understand.
P.S. He is going to talk with our PM about his desire to change migrants benefits in UK for the first 4 years. As you know all EU members has to agree on Cameron proposal.
Yet more proof that we need to leave the federalist scam.On that note the issue isn’t about benefits it’s the whole issue of free movement.Within a governmental system in which foreign governments not our own decide our national immigration policy among others.Which in this case takes advantage of the free movement clause to justify massive unsustainable levels of economic migration.
Well get out on the streets of Britain and demand that from your politicians, in front of the PC screen its not going to happen, neither Cameron nor Corbyn/Osborne/Farage etc. will hear you on the internet.
And yes its about free movement and we all in continental EU want it to remain. When you don’t like a club, you leave it instead of forcing a fundamental change.
UK refuses Schengen, refuses the euro, refuses equal rights for all EU citizens living in UK, does want to change the rules, not because they are bad, but because UK benefit system is an outdated nanny state. Well GTFO, stop telling us how bad EU is, Federalist this, Federalist that, its great and I hope with more work and cooperation we can make it even better for our kids.
Firstly the UK benefit system is what it is because we don’t have an economy run on Fordist capitalist lines.IE it’s only there to subsidise the resulting low wage economy in terms of social,health and housing costs and under employment.
As for ‘free movement’ it’s only those who benefit from it,in the form of economic migration or cheap labour employment,who want it to remain.It’s certainly not in the interests of German,or Brit or French etc workers.Nor is it in the long term interests of those less economically developed states that are losing their own people to economic migration.
P.S. He is going to talk with our PM about his desire to change migrants benefits in UK for the first 4 years. As you know all EU members has to agree on Cameron proposal.
Yet more proof that we need to leave the federalist scam.On that note the issue isn’t about benefits it’s the whole issue of free movement.Within a governmental system in which foreign governments not our own decide our national immigration policy among others.Which in this case takes advantage of the free movement clause to justify massive unsustainable levels of economic migration.
Well get out on the streets of Britain and demand that from your politicians, in front of the PC screen its not going to happen, neither Cameron nor Corbyn/Osborne/Farage etc. will hear you on the internet.
And yes its about free movement and we all in continental EU want it to remain. When you don’t like a club, you leave it instead of forcing a fundamental change.
UK refuses Schengen, refuses the euro, refuses equal rights for all EU citizens living in UK, does want to change the rules, not because they are bad, but because UK benefit system is an outdated nanny state. Well GTFO, stop telling us how bad EU is, Federalist this, Federalist that, its great and I hope with more work and cooperation we can make it even better for our kids.
Firstly the UK benefit system is what it is because we don’t have an economy run on Fordist capitalist lines.IE it’s only there to subsidise the resulting low wage economy in terms of social,health and housing costs and under employment.
As for ‘free movement’ it’s only those who benefit from it,in the form of economic migration or cheap labour employment,who want it to remain.It’s certainly not in the interests of German,or Brit or French etc workers.Nor is it in the long term interests of those less economically developed states that are losing their own people to economic migration.
Why do you have low wage economy in first place, something Germany and France don’t have■■? And don’t use EE as scapegoats again. Why UK is subsidizing slave wages instead of abolishing them?
Stop putting UK with Germany and France, it is you who don’t want free movement of people, not France of Germany. Yes but France and Germany have a lot strict laws, regulations and benefit systems, you don’t. How many time we herd about illegals living and working in Germany or France and how many time in UK? Of course you will refuse Schengen, when someone enters EU they can go pretty much everywhere, but they can not work and live legally, hens the ID and mandatory council registration.
I have read stories where people could work 10-15hrs and live on benefits, or foreign patients who get non emergency medical procedures in NHS for the expense of the British tax payer or people buying alcohol with birth certificate.
Your whole mindset is not up to date is my opinion, you wouldn’t have the problems you have if you had followed French/German experience in protecting the labor force (with minimum wage, trade certificates and language skills); benefit system; healthcare system; id docs etc.
P.S. Why don’t you go to Spain or France and try claiming benefits?
BillyHunt:
No, the issue is you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked so, in that situation could we veto any proposed changes to the constitution, yes or no.
I have answered your question.
You’re talking about trying to justify your obviously pro EU agenda.By dressing up the extremely limited EU member state VETO over an equally limited range of decision making criterea,as ‘a VETO’.Within what you’ve admitted is a Federal system of government.
While I’m talking about the ‘total’ retention,of individual nation state sovereignty and sovereign right of VETO/opt out,over ‘all’ of the decision making process,within a Confederal type of ‘Union’.The difference is chalk and cheese.
No, you haven’t answered the question, preferring your usual method of making up things to suit your agenda. You stated we don’t have a veto, going so far as to post a link to an article, an old one obviously, telling us we will all be part of a bigger federal state according to the long gone manuel barrosso. This is normal form for you in your anti everything state of mind so not unexpected. The fact is we do have a veto, and you know it, your just not able to admit you’re wrong again.
Oh no, I’ve admitted its a federal state! The cats out of the bag now this vital news has surfaced. Get a grip you clown, we retain a veto so that we don’t become involved in a bigger federal state, that’s the whole point of it.
We’re already involved in a Federal Union and government which has supreme decision making powers over the seperate member states’ governments covering at least 80% of those decision making powers.As I said the right of VETO over just 20% of that decision making process isn’t the right of VETO.
While in typical dictatorial Federalist style you’re saying that anything which disagrees with your bs ideology means anti everything.When I’ve clearly stated that I’m in favour of a ‘Confederal’ Europe in which the seperate member states retain a 100% sovereign right of VETO and/or opt out and nation state supremacy over the decision and law making process of the union.
On that note which part of the word ‘sovereignty’,IE seperate state supremacy over all of the decision and law making process of the union,not vice versa,don’t you understand.
Ive taken a leaf out of your book and put in a link for you, odd you never picked this up on google, and it’s a couple of years old, just as you prefer. It explains in simple terms the types of veto we have, no mention of percentages though. Enjoy. independent.co.uk/news/world … 38345.html
BillyHunt:
Ive taken a leaf out of your book and put in a link for you, odd you never picked this up on google, and it’s a couple of years old, just as you prefer. It explains in simple terms the types of veto we have, no mention of percentages though. Enjoy. independent.co.uk/news/world … 38345.html
Ironically I’ve actually posted that previously and I think it backs my comments more than yours.
Carryfast:
As for ‘free movement’ it’s only those who benefit from it,in the form of economic migration or cheap labour employment,who want it to remain.It’s certainly not in the interests of German,or Brit or French etc workers.Nor is it in the long term interests of those less economically developed states that are losing their own people to economic migration.
Why do you have low wage economy in first place, something Germany and France don’t have■■? And don’t use EE as scapegoats again. Why UK is subsidizing slave wages instead of abolishing them?
Stop putting UK with Germany and France, it is you who don’t want free movement of people, not France of Germany. Yes but France and Germany have a lot strict laws, regulations and benefit systems, you don’t. How many time we herd about illegals living and working in Germany or France and how many time in UK? Of course you will refuse Schengen, when someone enters EU they can go pretty much everywhere, but they can not work and live legally, hens the ID and mandatory council registration.
I have read stories where people could work 10-15hrs and live on benefits, or foreign patients who get non emergency medical procedures in NHS for the expense of the British tax payer or people buying alcohol with birth certificate.
Your whole mindset is not up to date is my opinion, you wouldn’t have the problems you have if you had followed French/German experience in protecting the labor force (with minimum wage, trade certificates and language skills); benefit system; healthcare system; id docs etc.
P.S. Why don’t you go to Spain or France and try claiming benefits?
You’re contradicting yourself.How does ‘protecting’ our labour market from the pressures of over supply caused by economic migration fit your ideas of ‘free movement’ within the EU which facilitates economic migration from the less developed East Euro states.
On that note trying to dismantle the social security and NHS systems,before putting that cost burden onto the wage structure,in the form of full employment and a massively increased minumum wage,is obviously a case of putting the cart before the horse.
It’s equally obvious that existing claimants can’t be shifted from the previous system to a wage based one.
While in all cases there’s no way that we’ll be able to create that higher wage environment unless we close the doors to both immigrant labour and cheap imports which under cut that high wage domestic workforce.
Dolph:
. . . the whole idea of EU is Federal state, why British people don’t know that I have no idea, but it’s obvious.
I’ve stated it many times before and I’ll say it again; the only way the EU can work properly is as one state. ie one parliament, one financial institution, one currency, one border, one defence policy, no veto’s, no opt-out’s etc etc. If that’s what the rest of Europe wants then good luck to them, implement it, but as the maoster says it’s not what the British people were sold 40 years ago and it’s not what we want.
Dolph:
When you don’t like a club, you leave it instead of forcing a fundamental change.
But that’s the rub, Dolph - we want to leave, the british public actually want to leave! We have been wanting a vote on EU membership for years. The only reason we are getting one now is because Cameron thought it would bring more voters to the Conservatives at the GE, but that in another coalition government he wouldn’t be beholden to it. It backfired and here we are.
But the powers that be will still try their damnedest to keep us in the club, regardless of what we want. The nearer to the election date we get the dirtier the tactics will become. The fear and misinformation that will be generated will make the treatment of the Irish re-election on the Lisbon treaty back in 2009 seem like a kids tea party.
On that note the UK had no motorways at all before 1958.While if you check out the old time trucks forums you’ll see that there was plenty of cross border road inter connectivety in the form of motorways or non motorway throughout Western and Eastern Europe long before any East Euro state was in the EU and still in the soviet/warsaw pact/sphere of influence.Or for that matter before us,Switzerland or Austria were EEC/EU member or EU affiliate member states.To the point where ‘roads’ as we know them didn’t run out until at least the borderlands with Asia while obviously still providing cross border ‘inter connectivety’ even in that case.