replace governing politicians with more governing politicians ?
Replace them with different governing politicians that are more amenable to the idea of a possible exit from the EU, obviously. If people feel strongly enough about the issue, they can elect Parliamentarians of appropriate stripes in sufficient numbers to make it happen. The notion that governing politicians are not interested in leaving the EU is not a necessary eternal truth. It may be true of existing mainstream establishment parties, but it is not true of all parties, and does not even have to remain true of establishment parties if voters ensure that secessionist politicians retain their seats whilst proponents of continued membership lose theirs. Or if people rejoined mainstream political parties again in sufficient numbers to influence the Parliamentary candidate selection processes. These options are all theoretically possible.
Replace them with different governing politicians that are more amenable to the idea of a possible exit from the EU, obviously. If people feel strongly enough about the issue, they can elect Parliamentarians of appropriate stripes in sufficient numbers to make it happen. The notion that governing politicians are not interested in leaving the EU is not a necessary eternal truth. It may be true of existing mainstream establishment parties, but it is not true of all parties, and does not even have to remain true of establishment parties if voters ensure that secessionist politicians retain their seats whilst proponents of continued membership lose theirs. Or if people rejoined mainstream political parties again in sufficient numbers to influence the Parliamentary candidate selection processes. These options are all theoretically possible.
and thats just some of the cars vans and wagons, wich probably make sup about 80/90% of the veichles on our roads.
When we leave the EU noting will change.
Really? I would see serious long term problems for the likes of Airbus and BAe Systems who rely on pan european partnerships. if there are any kind of trade restrictions in place then these partnerships will be unworkable and there would be a distrinct possibility of them dissolving to the detriment of UK jobs.
Given that the UK's home based mass car manufacturing no longer exists (all foreign owned) i see no logical reason why we should risk reducing the market for our foreign owned car company exports.
With the move to trading blocks such as NAFTA etc then it would be pretty silly, IMO, to isolate ourselves more.
=Davser;63434420]Really? I would see serious long term problems for the likes of Airbus and BAe Systems who rely on pan european partnerships. if there are any kind of trade restrictions in place then these partnerships will be unworkable and there would be a distrinct possibility of them dissolving to the detriment of UK jobs.
And for the same reason EU jobs......why would they do that?
Given that the UK's home based mass car manufacturing no longer exists (all foreign owned) i see no logical reason why we should risk reducing the market for our foreign owned car company exports.
Yea me neither! Like I allready said wy would they restrict sale of their stuff here?
With the move to trading blocks such as NAFTA etc then it would be pretty silly, IMO, to isolate ourselves more.[/QUOTE]
Do Japan, Taiwan, Australia suffer in any way, from not being in some Trading blok?
Basically you say we need to spend billions and billions to be in a club - to save money
Interesting idea! It wasnt a Nigerian prince on email who came up with this by any chance was it
Everything it has achieved was agreed amongst or negotiated by its independent country constituent members And a great deal of the waste and loss is down to those same independent country constituent members. The EU is an international organisation made up of independent country constituent members.
I rest my case. If they could and did it amongst themselves, there was no need to create another layer of government at all, or pay any subscription to it. The functions were already there within national governments, although I would agree that they too are extremely wasteful.
Right from the outset, the UK accepted that as a cost of doing business - as do the other wealthier nations in the EU, save perhaps France which does disproportionately well out of CAP.
No the UK didnt accept it. It was the UK politicians that did so. The UK voting population itself has never been asked about it, because the politicians very well know what the answer would be from polling the UK population, and turkeys dont vote for Christmas.
If they could and did it amongst themselves, there was no need to create another layer of government at all, or pay any subscription to it.
Why stop there? There's no need for Government at the level of what we presently call the State. Each city and county could hold its own elections, pick a President or other Head of State, judges, legislators, make its own laws, set up its own currency, train its own military and security forces, manage its own borders, create its own welfare system (or not), and so forth.
People created international organisations because they believed there were mutual benefits to having a forum for making mutual agreements that bound all parties in certain areas. But it's not exactly true to say that they're duplicating the functions of national governments. Sure, one could reach such agreements without setting up institutions to act as conduits for those agreements, but - taking the EU as an example - you'd only be able to do so without those institutions if you devoted considerable Foreign Office resources (and resources in counterpart ministries in allied states) to reaching such agreements, and it's not immediately obvious that tying up (26*27) = 702 different embassies with such matters would be any more efficient than setting up permanent offices for the purpose.
The functions were already there within national governments,
It does not follow that supranational institutions exactly duplicate those functions. Generally, they do not.
although I would agree that they too are extremely wasteful.
That's a subjective measure, too. People get hung up on Government waste because they don't understand big numbers or fractions all that well or really have much sense of perspective or context, and get hung up on headlines decrying "billions of waste" without adequate understanding that "billions" isn't all that much when it's in the context of Government expenditure as an annualised figure. The Gershon report a few years back, as I recall, identified some £20bn of cost savings that could potentially be made across Whitehall. A lot of waste, you'd think; but that's £20bn out of a total expenditure of more than £600bn, so the waste is only around 3% of the total, which is probably no more wasteful than your local Wetherspoon's - and doesn't really warrant the moniker "extremely wasteful".
So the EU doesnt employ lawyers, politicians and bureacrats. Funny, I had the distinct impression it did.
I didn't say otherwise. What you actually said previously, however, didn't stop at that, and you're not doing yourself any credit by pretending that that's all you said.
No the UK didnt accept it. It was the UK politicians that did so. The UK voting population itself has never been asked about it, because the politicians very well know what the answer would be from polling the UK population, and turkeys dont vote for Christmas.
The CAP was a feature of the Common Market when we joined in 1973, and was therefore a factor that was covered by the 1975 referendum. As such, your assertion does not appear to be in accord with reality in this case.
And besides, we live in a Parliamentary democracy: as such, it is entirely within reason to say "the UK agreed to X" if our Parliament did so. It is valid to refer to the organs of State by the name of the State; you don't get to declare such usage invalid by fiat by way of invoking some notion of direct democracy that is at best nitpickery, and at worst alien, inapplicable and invalid in its own right. If I were to say the UK agreed and is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, such usage is entirely valid, even if you and I and the other 60 million people in this state haven't personally put pen to paper to sign it, or ratify it by plebiscite, or whatever. Same goes for the EU Treaties. If people have a problem with Parliament's decisions, they can elect different Parliamentarians to reverse them.
The CAP was a feature of the Common Market when we joined in 1973, and was therefore a factor that was covered by the 1975 referendum. As such, your assertion does not appear to be in accord with reality in this case.
.
1975 was nearly 40 years ago, and things change.
The common market is one thing this present EU is very different.
Also in 75, the huge majority peoples access to information was limited to the BBC news and the press...
Doesn't negate the point that Superwomble was wrong to claim that people were never asked about the CAP.
The common market is one thing this present EU is very different.
That's arguable, and it's interesting to note that it appears not to have been a change in the rules but in the membership that has most agitated people against the EU - but not relevant to the point at hand. The point was about the CAP, and that is not all that different.
Also in 75, the huge majority peoples access to information was limited to the BBC news and the press...
And now they have access to an Internet where every tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob can build a Web site claiming all sorts of bollocks with impunity. It's not immediately obvious that people in '13 are at a significant advantage in terms of being able to distinguish sound, good quality information from the dross.
and thats just some of the cars vans and wagons, wich probably make sup about 80/90% of the veichles on our roads.
When we leave the EU noting will change.
You're right that the idea of some sort of hamfisted trade blockade being imposed on us if we left the EU is nonsense. What matters though are the rules through which we trade with Europe. Regulations and legislation governing trade aren't neutral, they're structured in such a way that they benefit some countries more than others. At present we benefit from being able to make EU rules that are in our interest, whereas our businesses will lose out if we give up that influence and leave the rest of Europe to decide the rules without us.
To use a football comparison, it's a bit like leaving UEFA/FIFA and all the other countries playing in the Champions League deciding to come up with rules that punish hard tackles, or long balls, or any of the other things we tend to use as strategies in British football. They wouldn't stop our teams playing in the Champions League/Europa League, but we'd have much less chance of success when we got there due to the rules being shaped in such a way as to benefit those on the continent. In actual fact it's a lot worse than this because while football is relatively simple and only has a few rules that could be altered in some way, regulations in the single market are incredibly complicated and numerous (giving plenty of opportunities for our businesses to encounter difficulties).
Would that be the same US of A that wanted us to go into Vietnam, advised us to abandon the liberation of the Falklands and led us by the nose into Iraq and Afghanistan?
In spite of looming cast iron gaurantees of refferendums from the buisness minded Conservative party The Confederation Of British Industry says that Britain must remain at the heart of the EU banging the drum for British industry and that British buisness leaders are pragmatic and embrace the emerging Europe. They also favour the upcoming EU-US Free trade agreement. http://telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9772519/Britain-must-embrace-EU-to-bang-drum-for-business-says-CBI.html
That the tories have not got one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country on side esspecially one that promotes the interest of big buisness is interesting to say the least.
In the sense that being in the EU helps British business, of course they would.
That does seem to be a standard response in these threads - anyone that supports the EU can be safely dismissed by implying they're some sort of compulsive liar living off the EU budget.
Come to think of it, Farage fits that description pretty well himself.
That's because a Eurosceptic UK inside the EU makes the US's job easier when discussing international crises with its European partners. We act as a useful bridge.
The fact is this diplomat should keep his nose out of potential referenda abroad as it's a matter for the British people to decide.
We, the people of Britain, should decide on our relationship with Europe based on our interests. Not based on the interests of US diplomats - we want to improve our lives not make life easier for some foreign pen pusher.
That's because a Eurosceptic UK inside the EU makes the US's job easier when discussing international crises with its European partners. We act as a useful bridge.
The fact is this diplomat should keep his nose out of potential referenda abroad as it's a matter for the British people to decide.
We, the people of Britain, should decide on our relationship with Europe based on our interests. Not based on the interests of US diplomats - we want to improve our lives not make life easier for some foreign pen pusher.
Bridges tend to get walked over a lot, and in both directions.
If the Americans are so keen on the EU, maybe they should join.
Indeed. I do find it amusing that the Europhiles think being in something because it is valuable to the US is a positive reason. When you factor in they normally are hardly what you would call pro-American it makes it even funnier.
The US position is about its interests not the UK's and as such is largely irrelevant.
The US and UK have special relationship. If the US want us to stay in the EU, then in the interest of the special relationship, the UK remain a member.
The US and UK have special relationship. If the US want us to stay in the EU, then in the interest of the special relationship, the UK remain a member.
No they don't, it is a figment of some deluded people in the UK that we do which the US let them think is the case. If that is a reason they put forward for staying in it they must be rather short of bona fide ones.
The US and UK have special relationship. If the US want us to stay in the EU, then in the interest of the special relationship, the UK remain a member.
It's all playing at politics unless you can give us enough compelling reasons.
Comments
Replace them with different governing politicians that are more amenable to the idea of a possible exit from the EU, obviously. If people feel strongly enough about the issue, they can elect Parliamentarians of appropriate stripes in sufficient numbers to make it happen. The notion that governing politicians are not interested in leaving the EU is not a necessary eternal truth. It may be true of existing mainstream establishment parties, but it is not true of all parties, and does not even have to remain true of establishment parties if voters ensure that secessionist politicians retain their seats whilst proponents of continued membership lose theirs. Or if people rejoined mainstream political parties again in sufficient numbers to influence the Parliamentary candidate selection processes. These options are all theoretically possible.
You seriously think EU companies wouldnt be allowed to sell their stuff to us?
BMW, Volkwagen, Audi, Fiat, Renault, Mercedes, Peugeot, Citroen
and thats just some of the cars vans and wagons, wich probably make sup about 80/90% of the veichles on our roads.
When we leave the EU noting will change.
"Dreamland" would have been a better word.
Fingers crossed.
Really? I would see serious long term problems for the likes of Airbus and BAe Systems who rely on pan european partnerships. if there are any kind of trade restrictions in place then these partnerships will be unworkable and there would be a distrinct possibility of them dissolving to the detriment of UK jobs.
Given that the UK's home based mass car manufacturing no longer exists (all foreign owned) i see no logical reason why we should risk reducing the market for our foreign owned car company exports.
With the move to trading blocks such as NAFTA etc then it would be pretty silly, IMO, to isolate ourselves more.
Probably. There's an awful lot of inertia involved in overthrowing the established political order, so it's very difficult to achieve in practice.
And for the same reason EU jobs......why would they do that?
Given that the UK's home based mass car manufacturing no longer exists (all foreign owned) i see no logical reason why we should risk reducing the market for our foreign owned car company exports.
Yea me neither! Like I allready said wy would they restrict sale of their stuff here?
With the move to trading blocks such as NAFTA etc then it would be pretty silly, IMO, to isolate ourselves more.[/QUOTE]
Do Japan, Taiwan, Australia suffer in any way, from not being in some Trading blok?
Basically you say we need to spend billions and billions to be in a club - to save money
Interesting idea! It wasnt a Nigerian prince on email who came up with this by any chance was it
I rest my case. If they could and did it amongst themselves, there was no need to create another layer of government at all, or pay any subscription to it. The functions were already there within national governments, although I would agree that they too are extremely wasteful.
So the EU doesnt employ lawyers, politicians and bureacrats. Funny, I had the distinct impression it did.
No the UK didnt accept it. It was the UK politicians that did so. The UK voting population itself has never been asked about it, because the politicians very well know what the answer would be from polling the UK population, and turkeys dont vote for Christmas.
That would be premature.
Why stop there? There's no need for Government at the level of what we presently call the State. Each city and county could hold its own elections, pick a President or other Head of State, judges, legislators, make its own laws, set up its own currency, train its own military and security forces, manage its own borders, create its own welfare system (or not), and so forth.
People created international organisations because they believed there were mutual benefits to having a forum for making mutual agreements that bound all parties in certain areas. But it's not exactly true to say that they're duplicating the functions of national governments. Sure, one could reach such agreements without setting up institutions to act as conduits for those agreements, but - taking the EU as an example - you'd only be able to do so without those institutions if you devoted considerable Foreign Office resources (and resources in counterpart ministries in allied states) to reaching such agreements, and it's not immediately obvious that tying up (26*27) = 702 different embassies with such matters would be any more efficient than setting up permanent offices for the purpose.
It does not follow that supranational institutions exactly duplicate those functions. Generally, they do not.
That's a subjective measure, too. People get hung up on Government waste because they don't understand big numbers or fractions all that well or really have much sense of perspective or context, and get hung up on headlines decrying "billions of waste" without adequate understanding that "billions" isn't all that much when it's in the context of Government expenditure as an annualised figure. The Gershon report a few years back, as I recall, identified some £20bn of cost savings that could potentially be made across Whitehall. A lot of waste, you'd think; but that's £20bn out of a total expenditure of more than £600bn, so the waste is only around 3% of the total, which is probably no more wasteful than your local Wetherspoon's - and doesn't really warrant the moniker "extremely wasteful".
I didn't say otherwise. What you actually said previously, however, didn't stop at that, and you're not doing yourself any credit by pretending that that's all you said.
The CAP was a feature of the Common Market when we joined in 1973, and was therefore a factor that was covered by the 1975 referendum. As such, your assertion does not appear to be in accord with reality in this case.
And besides, we live in a Parliamentary democracy: as such, it is entirely within reason to say "the UK agreed to X" if our Parliament did so. It is valid to refer to the organs of State by the name of the State; you don't get to declare such usage invalid by fiat by way of invoking some notion of direct democracy that is at best nitpickery, and at worst alien, inapplicable and invalid in its own right. If I were to say the UK agreed and is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, such usage is entirely valid, even if you and I and the other 60 million people in this state haven't personally put pen to paper to sign it, or ratify it by plebiscite, or whatever. Same goes for the EU Treaties. If people have a problem with Parliament's decisions, they can elect different Parliamentarians to reverse them.
1975 was nearly 40 years ago, and things change.
The common market is one thing this present EU is very different.
Also in 75, the huge majority peoples access to information was limited to the BBC news and the press...
Good.
Because Twitter, YouTube and Facebook often strike me as ways of spreading existing news or existing gossip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961651
Doesn't negate the point that Superwomble was wrong to claim that people were never asked about the CAP.
That's arguable, and it's interesting to note that it appears not to have been a change in the rules but in the membership that has most agitated people against the EU - but not relevant to the point at hand. The point was about the CAP, and that is not all that different.
And now they have access to an Internet where every tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob can build a Web site claiming all sorts of bollocks with impunity. It's not immediately obvious that people in '13 are at a significant advantage in terms of being able to distinguish sound, good quality information from the dross.
You're right that the idea of some sort of hamfisted trade blockade being imposed on us if we left the EU is nonsense. What matters though are the rules through which we trade with Europe. Regulations and legislation governing trade aren't neutral, they're structured in such a way that they benefit some countries more than others. At present we benefit from being able to make EU rules that are in our interest, whereas our businesses will lose out if we give up that influence and leave the rest of Europe to decide the rules without us.
To use a football comparison, it's a bit like leaving UEFA/FIFA and all the other countries playing in the Champions League deciding to come up with rules that punish hard tackles, or long balls, or any of the other things we tend to use as strategies in British football. They wouldn't stop our teams playing in the Champions League/Europa League, but we'd have much less chance of success when we got there due to the rules being shaped in such a way as to benefit those on the continent. In actual fact it's a lot worse than this because while football is relatively simple and only has a few rules that could be altered in some way, regulations in the single market are incredibly complicated and numerous (giving plenty of opportunities for our businesses to encounter difficulties).
Would that be the same US of A that wanted us to go into Vietnam, advised us to abandon the liberation of the Falklands and led us by the nose into Iraq and Afghanistan?
Well they would say that wouldn't they.
In the sense that being in the EU helps British business, of course they would.
That does seem to be a standard response in these threads - anyone that supports the EU can be safely dismissed by implying they're some sort of compulsive liar living off the EU budget.
Come to think of it, Farage fits that description pretty well himself.
The US position is about its interests not the UK's and as such is largely irrelevant.
That's because a Eurosceptic UK inside the EU makes the US's job easier when discussing international crises with its European partners. We act as a useful bridge.
The fact is this diplomat should keep his nose out of potential referenda abroad as it's a matter for the British people to decide.
We, the people of Britain, should decide on our relationship with Europe based on our interests. Not based on the interests of US diplomats - we want to improve our lives not make life easier for some foreign pen pusher.
If the Americans are so keen on the EU, maybe they should join.
Bridges tend to get walked over a lot, and in both directions.
Indeed. I do find it amusing that the Europhiles think being in something because it is valuable to the US is a positive reason. When you factor in they normally are hardly what you would call pro-American it makes it even funnier.
The US and UK have special relationship. If the US want us to stay in the EU, then in the interest of the special relationship, the UK remain a member.
No they don't, it is a figment of some deluded people in the UK that we do which the US let them think is the case. If that is a reason they put forward for staying in it they must be rather short of bona fide ones.
It's all playing at politics unless you can give us enough compelling reasons.