EU Brexit thread

[fromageGB]

"Residual suspicion"? The initial suspicion has been consolidated and enlarged by subsequent events, so hardly residual. They want us in so we can help bail out Greece, then Spain, and I'm not sure which next, Italy or Turkey?

[Zelandakh]

They want us in so we can help bail out Greece, then Spain, and I'm not sure which next, Italy or Turkey?

Statements like this are taken straight from the Farage handbook and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU represents for countries like Germany. Could you provide any evidence at all other than basic xenophobia supporting the statement?

[Cyberyeti]

Statements like this are taken straight from the Farage handbook and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU represents for countries like Germany. Could you provide any evidence at all other than basic xenophobia supporting the statement?

 

Britain is a major cash cow for the EU, but we've already negociated optouts for having to put right issues with the Euro zone.

[mike777]

Britain is a major cash cow for the EU, but we've already negociated optouts for having to put right issues with the Euro zone.

 

 

What so wrong with Rich brits helping out the poor of Europe..I thought that was the whole point...

 

 

Now if the Brits dont have the cash...the issue is moot...they should get the cash from Germany or france.

[Cyberyeti]

What so wrong with Rich brits helping out the poor of Europe..I thought that was the whole point...

 

 

Now if the Brits dont have the cash...the issue is moot...they should get the cash from Germany or france.

 

France doesn't have the cash either, they're grossly mismanaging their economy, and the unions are in revolt, striking if the government does anything to bring employment law and conditions into the modern age.

 

The Brits are prepared to help out the poorer countries, but not to pay for the fraud that got them into the Euro.

[mike777]

France doesn't have the cash either, they're grossly mismanaging their economy, and the unions are in revolt, striking if the government does anything to bring employment law and conditions into the modern age.

 

The Brits are prepared to help out the poorer countries, but not to pay for the fraud that got them into the Euro.

 

You do know that history tells us you cannot have one without fraud, massive fraud.... it is the cost of doing it.

 

 

Blame people choosing to act in their own private self interest.

[Zelandakh]

Blame people choosing to act in their own private self interest.

What people seem to be forgetting is that helping the developing countries of Europe is in the self-interest of the larger ones. As the smaller countries become richer, they buy more products from Germans, France and the UK. This is the point. The EU is worth a huge amount for Germany because it provides a cheap export market that grows through the EU investment. The currency effect of the Euro is an additional, and very lucrative, bonus. The UK people need to understand that if "Project Europe" fails, so does the UK economy. The economy does not operate in a vacuum, or even, paradoxically, on an island. The whole debate seems very much to be on an "us and them" level, whereas we really need to be seeing Europe as our customers.

[Winstonm]

France doesn't have the cash either, they're grossly mismanaging their economy, and the unions are in revolt, striking if the government does anything to bring employment law and conditions into the modern age.

 

 

If this is accurate, it points to an interesting paradox from a U.S.A. point of view. Over here, the Right Wing tries to sell the idea that France is the most socialistic of the European countries, and socialism is the enemy of democracy; yet, democracy is all about the government following the will of the people, so "socialist" France is actually displaying the greatest degree of democracy.

[Cyberyeti]

If this is accurate, it points to an interesting paradox from a U.S.A. point of view. Over here, the Right Wing tries to sell the idea that France is the most socialistic of the European countries, and socialism is the enemy of democracy; yet, democracy is all about the government following the will of the people, so "socialist" France is actually displaying the greatest degree of democracy.

 

Not really, the unions know that they can hold the country to ransom with acts of violence and the government will cave in. This is not democracy, it is the hard left unions bullying the elected government.

[Winstonm]

Not really, the unions know that they can hold the country to ransom with acts of violence and the government will cave in. This is not democracy, it is the hard left unions bullying the elected government.

 

Let me ask this: in a true democracy, to what factions does the government respond with policy?

[Al_U_Card]

Let me ask this: in a true democracy, to what factions does the government respond with policy?

Habitually, the only one that will accept their policies, ie the public. Everything else is revenue "distribution".

 

Rule, by, of and for the people ideally includes the respect and protection of individual rights. This is co-opted by the influence of special interests that are involved in benefiting from the revenue "distribution" mentioned above. It all comes back to producing wealth which can then be harvested and distributed to ...

[Cyberyeti]

Let me ask this: in a true democracy, to what factions does the government respond with policy?

 

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

[Al_U_Card]

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

That would imply that it keeps its election promises and that, is the exception rather than the rule.

[Winstonm]

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

 

You view the ruling body as did Madison, then, an upper echelon, or tiered society with rulers and the ruled. In true democracy, policy reflects the will of the masses.

[Cyberyeti]

You view the ruling body as did Madison, then, an upper echelon, or tiered society with rulers and the ruled. In true democracy, policy reflects the will of the masses.

 

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

[onoway]

If I had a vote, which I don't, I'd be voting to leave as the bigger the government, the less accountable it is.Governments already are becoming a sort of expensive game where politicians - with a very few exceptions- pretend they give a rats' ass about anything that their constituents want, until they're elected. At that point they settle in to make themselves as comfortable as possible by cooperating with lobbyists who have access to the politicians that ordinary citizens can only fantasize about. The only government which has a sniff at being accountable is a small government and that's the least likely to be found anywhere anymore.

 

Just what is it that can be done as a member of the EU that can't be done otherwise? There've been trade deals since time immemorial, people didn't need to be in the same group to trade.If they do belong to the same group, then of necessity there will be rules about who can do what , where, and this is beginning to sound more and more like an ant colony rather than a diverse, vibrant, innovative and exciting collection of human " tribes". People who study such things as human history tell us that's what humans gravitate towards, and that those tribes are limited in size.

 

It is interesting that it seems the idea of cooperation is unthinkable unless it is codified and legalized and that won't stand up over time, it never has before so no reason to think it will now. People have broken signed agreements before, and they undoubtedly will again, so what exactly is all this serving except to try to concentrate power in an ever smaller, ever less approachable and ever less accountable group of people?

[Zelandakh]

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

[Winstonm]

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

 

So, it is not the fault of the unions but of the masses that elected the government, wouldn't you say?

[Winstonm]

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

 

Yes, but even in a republic there can be variations in the amount of democracy.

[fromageGB]

yet, democracy is all about the government following the will of the people, so "socialist" France is actually displaying the greatest degree of democracy.

Mais non, pas du tout. The will of the people is to keep guaranteed employment (if you can get it) that is for life or until retirement. Then the pension is index linked to 50% of your full earnings in your best earning years (adjusted for inflation). That's what the people want, but the government is contrarily trying to move them into the 20th century. That is NOT democracy.

[mike777]

I notice Germany had to cancel its military training with other countries. The reason was its soldiers were running into overtime and Germany did not want to pay them because it was too expensive.

 

htl

[fromageGB]

Statements like .. "They want us in so we can help bail out Greece, then Spain, and I'm not sure which next, Italy or Turkey?" .. this are taken straight from the Farage handbook and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU represents for countries like Germany. Could you provide any evidence at all other than basic xenophobia supporting the statement?

I could provide plenty of evidence that I am not xenophobic, nor is it the issue that we should care what the EU represents for Germany (though I read that there is a rapidly increasing number of Germans that want "out"). What is the issue is that the UK has no control or indeed influence on what the EU is spending our money. The initial fix for Greece has been exposed as a worthless con, and probably immediately after the referendum the EU is about to give them more billions and write off the previous loans that were promised to be repaid.

 

Can we stop it? No. Can we prevent it being repeated for other countries? No. Can we stop the EU in future deciding that current membership fees are insufficient to cover the outlay and need to be increased? No.

[mike777]

I could provide plenty of evidence that I am not xenophobic, nor is it the issue that we should care what the EU represents for Germany (though I read that there is a rapidly increasing number of Germans that want "out"). What is the issue is that the UK has no control or indeed influence on what the EU is spending our money. The initial fix for Greece has been exposed as a worthless con, and probably immediately after the referendum the EU is about to give them more billions and write off the previous loans that were promised to be repaid.

 

Can we stop it? No. Can we prevent it being repeated for other countries? No. Can we stop the EU in future deciding that current membership fees are insufficient to cover the outlay and need to be increased? No.

 

Very confusing..the UK does not control and influence the people it appoints to the EU. It does not tell them what to do? It cannot fire them at will? If true can the UK at least impeach and remove them?

---------------

 

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason by the PResident and the President can be fired via impeachment(complicated)

[Zelandakh]

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason

And the Supreme Court judges...?

[mike777]

And the Supreme Court judges...?

 

 

OK yes they can be fired via the same process, impeachment(complicated).

 

It is important to note the Supreme Court is an Equal branch of the government, it is equal to Congress and the President. Here in the USA we break up the government with competing branches (3) of limited power which are in constant conflict with each other. So for example the Supreme Court is given limited power over what it can and cannot do and yes we can fire them though it is complicated if the member fights to the death which in practice they do not do.

 

 

Again I am just asking about the EU and how people are fired and who can tell them/order them what to do...we here in the USA basically know nothing or less than nothing when it comes to the Eu. :)