Can those voting for the UKIP explain why? Each to their own, but I'd be interested in hearing exactly why they want to withdraw from the EU. You certainly cannot claim it would benefit our economy. Even if you don't want to join the Euro, withdrawing comlpetely from the EU could, and probably would, seriously damage our economy.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Who will you vote for in the next election(next is EU)
- Thread starter looney
- Start date
alan partridge
Active member
Dandyman said:
i agree. people seem to think we have more in common with the yanks just cos we speak (kind of) the same language. well we share language with europe too, along with architecture, religion, culture and the most important thing of all
we all like football
alan partridge
Active member
bnp up to second
anyone on nsc got family from abroad? technically you could qualify for repatriation, cos you just aren't as english as them bnp boys
anyone on nsc got family from abroad? technically you could qualify for repatriation, cos you just aren't as english as them bnp boys
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
- Thread starter
- #26
Dandyman said:
sorry but your weak attempts to smear UKIP as a US poodle wont wash. Nafta is a free trade zone not a superstate.
EU Human rights standard? What the f*** is that? The right to be a member of a Union? What about the right not to be a member? Why not just call it freedom of association? Oops I forgot you dont beleive in free choice.
As for the rest of that bunk compare employment growth in the EU with the USA. Thats the way out of poverty not the tried and failed statist policies of the EU.
"2 million in prison"? does that help to explain why on a lot or most of the measures US crime is lower than the UK. Are you saying prison works?
Never mind the pro-US argument, I'm not claiming the UKIP are pro-US in that way. Why do you want to withdraw from the EU though? Please do tell...
Sorry, had to edit his. Read it back and realised it made pretty much no grammatical sense at all
Sorry, had to edit his. Read it back and realised it made pretty much no grammatical sense at all
Last edited:
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
- Thread starter
- #28
HampshireSeagull said:
I will claim it will benefit the economy, for the following reasons.
1 I beleive in world trade, there is far 2 much protectionism by 1st world countries against 3rd world. Independence would help us develope bi-lateral trade agreements with 3rd worls countries and help put a lot of pressure on the EU and the USA to play ball. Trade benefits both countries thats why the general trend has been to liberalise trade and reduce tariffs and other barriers. Here Bush is as much a prisoner to small minded patriots as the frog president is.
The EU does not AND SHOULD NOT constitute the majority of our trade. Trading with a block of 300 million out of 6.5 billion is by any measure bad business.
2. Ther is the second problem of "one size fits all", this is often sited with reference to intrest rates but in the long term it also applies to tax rates. The funniest thing in labours 97 election campaign was the claim that tories would put VAT on food and childrens cloths etc. No, it will be the party that caves in and signs up for it, so who would that be?
Put simply a level playing feild for EU trade would mean the removal of "distortions in the tax rates" between countries.
Would they level up or down? Dont know but I doubt anyone here will have a say in it. The EU is very undemocratic.
It is also very corrupt, this includes the commission and especially Eurostat. Anyone who's had dealings with them will vouch for their incompetence and inefficiancy as well.
fatbadger
New member
looney said:
Ooh, the naivety. I agree that NAFTA is not a superstate, but it is certainly superstate. Given your statist leanings, I am really surprised at you, looney.
fatbadger
New member
Brovian said:
Sorry, mate, but (assuming you are British) you ARE a european, and there is bugger all you can do about it. If you want to become an American, you are more than welcome to emigrate.
alan partridge
Active member
looney said:
do you live in the states loonster?
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
- Thread starter
- #32
fatbadger said:
Given my statist what? You obviously haven't bothered reading ANY of my posts.
sorry but the words Lost and the plot spring to mind reading your post.
Oh and if your getting technical Europe is a continent ,UK is an Island/s. Beyond geography its all politics.
alan partridge
Active member
looney said:Here refers to the topic I am talking about and not my location, and no I do not live in a compound in Idaho.
ahh i see...
Dandyman
In London village.
sorry but your weak attempts to smear UKIP as a US poodle wont wash. Nafta is a free trade zone not a superstate.
EU Human rights standard? What the f*** is that? The right to be a member of a Union? What about the right not to be a member? Why not just call it freedom of association? Oops I forgot you dont beleive in free choice.
As for the rest of that bunk compare employment growth in the EU with the USA. Thats the way out of poverty not the tried and failed statist policies of the EU.
The Human Rights I was specifically refering to was the application of the Death Penalty (which if I recall correctly you do not support) and by extension its use against the mentally ill and those who were children when they committed their offences.
The link below also gives some more details on those international human rights agreements that the US has either failed to sign up to and/or ratify.
The USA and Human Rights (http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/USA.asp#USAandInternationalHumanRights)
You assertion that removing the welfare safety net for people moves them out of poverty seems to belong to the same addled dogma that George Bush Snr described as "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980's.
Finally no one is saying that the UKIP is a formal front for US interests, rather that their "Little England" rhetoric hides a far more wide ranging economic, social and political agenda.
EU Human rights standard? What the f*** is that? The right to be a member of a Union? What about the right not to be a member? Why not just call it freedom of association? Oops I forgot you dont beleive in free choice.
As for the rest of that bunk compare employment growth in the EU with the USA. Thats the way out of poverty not the tried and failed statist policies of the EU.
The Human Rights I was specifically refering to was the application of the Death Penalty (which if I recall correctly you do not support) and by extension its use against the mentally ill and those who were children when they committed their offences.
The link below also gives some more details on those international human rights agreements that the US has either failed to sign up to and/or ratify.
The USA and Human Rights (http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/USA.asp#USAandInternationalHumanRights)
You assertion that removing the welfare safety net for people moves them out of poverty seems to belong to the same addled dogma that George Bush Snr described as "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980's.
Finally no one is saying that the UKIP is a formal front for US interests, rather that their "Little England" rhetoric hides a far more wide ranging economic, social and political agenda.
fatbadger
New member
looney said:
Er, if you're getting technical, then you need to separate continental landmasses (e.g. Eurasia) and Islands.
As for your statist leanings, I thoroughly accept that you are happy trotting out good anti-statist rhetoric, but your approach to the military, law and order and immigration can only exist in the statist mindset. You are a classic example of the pugnat ergo est school of political thought.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
- Thread starter
- #37
The Human Rights I was specifically refering to was the application of the Death Penalty (which if I recall correctly you do not support) and by extension its use against the mentally ill and those who were children when they committed their offences
Correct, I am against it. But itse existance in the US is a reflection of there greater level of Democracy rather than any interpretation of Human Rights.
If the DP is a HR issue where does abortion stand? Just Curios.
You assertion that removing the welfare safety net for people moves them out of poverty seems to belong to the same addled dogma that George Bush Snr described as "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980's.
Thats not what I said. You seem to prefer to make up what I beleive rather than ask or read.
As for your statist leanings, I thoroughly accept that you are happy trotting out good anti-statist rhetoric, but your approach to the military, law and order and immigration can only exist in the statist mindset. You are a classic example of the pugnat ergo est school of political thought.
Again, who's posts are you actually reading?
Law and Order.
The only points Ive posted on this topic are that I am against the death penalty(I veiw it as state sanctioned murder). I am in favour of the equal right to choose, yes this would require state arbitration but any other stance would require state co-ersion.
How is the arguement for a sensible immigration policy statist?
I would like a world ware people can come and go as they please but the relative scale of populations, relative levels of wealth and relative populations and their densities make this as viable at present as a Car owning democracy. Put simply, their aint any room. Thats consistant
Military
Well you may be on stronger ground here, except you overlook the point I continually make that we are ar war. peacetime requires de-militarisation which is good. And true wars make the state more centralised and authoritarian But Ive spelt out why this is necerssary. The risks of doing nothing would lead to our anialation.
Correct, I am against it. But itse existance in the US is a reflection of there greater level of Democracy rather than any interpretation of Human Rights.
If the DP is a HR issue where does abortion stand? Just Curios.
You assertion that removing the welfare safety net for people moves them out of poverty seems to belong to the same addled dogma that George Bush Snr described as "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980's.
Thats not what I said. You seem to prefer to make up what I beleive rather than ask or read.
As for your statist leanings, I thoroughly accept that you are happy trotting out good anti-statist rhetoric, but your approach to the military, law and order and immigration can only exist in the statist mindset. You are a classic example of the pugnat ergo est school of political thought.
Again, who's posts are you actually reading?
Law and Order.
The only points Ive posted on this topic are that I am against the death penalty(I veiw it as state sanctioned murder). I am in favour of the equal right to choose, yes this would require state arbitration but any other stance would require state co-ersion.
How is the arguement for a sensible immigration policy statist?
I would like a world ware people can come and go as they please but the relative scale of populations, relative levels of wealth and relative populations and their densities make this as viable at present as a Car owning democracy. Put simply, their aint any room. Thats consistant
Military
Well you may be on stronger ground here, except you overlook the point I continually make that we are ar war. peacetime requires de-militarisation which is good. And true wars make the state more centralised and authoritarian But Ive spelt out why this is necerssary. The risks of doing nothing would lead to our anialation.
HampshireSeagull said:
You really shouldn't get me started but here goes some reasons :-
- the British public, back in the early 70's, voted for membership of a Common Market. The idea was to do away with trade barriers thus allowing free and fair trade between members. Since then the Common Market has evolved into the EU which is able to create laws that override member country laws. This has never been approved by the British electorate. It has since been admitted by Edward Heath that the original overall aim was to create a superstate of Europe. This could not be put to the voters at the time as they would have certainly rejected joining.
- the "membership fees" ( protection money ? ) the UK pays far exceeds any benefit we get back. For example, if 5 years of memberships were spent on the NHS instead every city and major town in the UK ( 100k+ people ) could have a new, fully equiped, fully staffed hospital !!!! Or if you prefer income could be reduced to 14p in the £.
- membership of the EU has made criminals of honest, hard working people. The weights and measures act was forced upon the UK - since then a number of traders have been prosecuted for selling in measures that a majority of us actually prefer - pounds and ounces.
- that lastest attempt to reform the consituation makes the EU even less democratic that it is now. Smaller countries will have to share votes on important issues. This will enable the large powerful nations such as France and Germany to impose their will even more than now. With tax harmonisation you will eventually have the EU setting your tax rates. Fine if you want the high socialist taxes that most EU countries have but it hard gives us the democratic option of choosing the style of taxing government we want !
I could go on but I think that's enough for now.
LEAVE THE EU NOW !!!!!
fatbadger
New member
looney said:
No it wasn't! Or if it was, it was all confused. It was about geographical entities (islands, for instance). We live in the UK, in the continent of Europe. Those are, I accept, geopolitical identifiers, but since when was an island a geopolitical identifier?