• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU referendum: Barack Obama to urge Britons to back remain vote on UK visit

Sweden said:
I think that just the one statement of yours: "There is only one treaty that matters. The Treaty of Rome.", renders all your comments on the EU worthless.
Click to expand...

You are quite right. That is an off the wall statement.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
:lamo

What a fail. You stated it was common sense and fact so why is there no evidence of your facts anywhere?

Better and more honest for you to simply state you are anti-EU from an emotional stand rather than one backed by any facts. I would respect that.
Click to expand...

If you started to respect my views I would start looking for where I had gone wrong.
 
Sweden said:
I think that just the one statement of yours: "There is only one treaty that matters. The Treaty of Rome.", renders all your comments on the EU worthless.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Rome is the basis of the EU. The fact that you dismis this shows how little you know about the EU and Europe in general. Try reading the Treaty of Lisbon.. does that read like a new spanking treaty or an amendment treaty?
 
joG said:
I don't know your definition of sovereignity, but decision making rules are certainly a central factor of it in political science and practice.
As for the proportion that realized that was happening or even what the old rules were, I think you would be lucky to find 1 percent that did. But I would be happy to look at contradictory evidence. As a matter of fact, I will call 20 to 30 acquaintances in media, politics, managers and universities tomorrow and ask them. That isn't representative, but it should yield a high estimate. How should I formulate the questiin, do you think?
Click to expand...

There is only one definition of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Click to expand...

Now in this case, the areas where the new voting system applies too, are areas that each country during the previous voting system (which you seem to like) had agreed to let the EU regulate. Hence the change of the voting system had absolutely no change in any sovereignty since that was already moved from the national level to EU level, long before the changes.

The sovereignty argument is horse**** because every country is effected by others so they cant do what they want without any influence from the outside. So the UN treaty, NATO treaty, Post treaty and so on , all infringe on the sovereignty of a nation. But you dont care about them do you? Do you really think that the Bank of England can act totally independent of the Eurozone or the US? Of course it cant. It is forced to follow what they do up to a point and hence its sovereignty is automatically limited.
 
PeteEU said:
1) There is only one definition of sovereignty.



2) Now in this case, the areas where the new voting system applies too, are areas that each country during the previous voting system (which you seem to like) had agreed to let the EU regulate. Hence the change of the voting system had absolutely no change in any sovereignty since that was already moved from the national level to EU level, long before the changes.

The sovereignty argument is horse**** because every country is effected by others so they cant do what they want without any influence from the outside. So the UN treaty, NATO treaty, Post treaty and so on , all infringe on the sovereignty of a nation. But you dont care about them do you? Do you really think that the Bank of England can act totally independent of the Eurozone or the US? Of course it cant. It is forced to follow what they do up to a point and hence its sovereignty is automatically limited.
Click to expand...

1) In a child's world that might be the case.
2) Did I say that I liked the old voting system?

PS: I find expletives like "horse****" not only do not help a conversation, but make the user thereof sound unbalanced. This would not be so bad, if your other arguments were more interesting.
 
PeteEU said:
The Treaty of Rome is the basis of the EU. The fact that you dismis this shows how little you know about the EU and Europe in general. Try reading the Treaty of Lisbon.. does that read like a new spanking treaty or an amendment treaty?
Click to expand...

The Treaties of Rome established the European Economic Community, a customs union, in 1957. The European Union came into being, in its original form, with the Treaty of Masstricht in 1992.

I think it would be best if you learnt a few basic facts before making further contributions.
 
joG said:
No. Not really. If one wants to debate a topic, one should know the basics or at least be willing to look them up. A quick Google would find a Wikipedia article that at least shows the question is there and real. Try "eu law precedence" for a beginning.
Click to expand...

OK, you know the basics or can look them up -

  1. "give me some examples of how actual power lies in the EU and not the UK court then please? What is it the UK court cannot do that shows the power lies in the EU court.
  2. Do the UK set out its own taxes / military policy / foreign policy / education policy / interest rates or does the EU do it for the UK?
  3. Re courts and law - give me some example of how EU law prevails over UK law."

Should be easy for two of you.

Sweden said:
If you started to respect my views I would start looking for where I had gone wrong.
Click to expand...

How can I back up what is claimed as a fact yet you cannot substantiate that fact? There's the hint for where you went wrong; you made a claim - back it up.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
OK, you know the basics or can look them up -

  1. "give me some examples of how actual power lies in the EU and not the UK court then please? What is it the UK court cannot do that shows the power lies in the EU court.
  2. Do the UK set out its own taxes / military policy / foreign policy / education policy / interest rates or does the EU do it for the UK?
  3. Re courts and law - give me some example of how EU law prevails over UK law."

Should be easy for two of you.



How can I back up what is claimed as a fact yet you cannot substantiate that fact? There's the hint for where you went wrong; you made a claim - back it up.
Click to expand...

You seem to be learning resistant. You haven't read the links in the thread. But, no. I am not going to look it up again. I posted it earlier in the thread.
 
joG said:
You seem to be learning resistant. You haven't read the links in the thread. But, no. I am not going to look it up again. I posted it earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

And you seem resistant to honesty. Your link does not respond to what I asked.

I asked three simple questions in response to claims made. I cannot rephrase that any more simply for you to understand.
 
Sweden said:
The Treaties of Rome established the European Economic Community, a customs union, in 1957. The European Union came into being, in its original form, with the Treaty of Masstricht in 1992.
Click to expand...

No.... The Treaty of Rome established all the principles of what we have today and they are still followed. The Treaty of Masstricht did change the name from the European Economic Community to the European Union yes, but holds almost everything of the original Treaty of Rome and its principles. The common market, freedom of movement and yes even the Euro are part of the Treaty of Rome. Go read it again..

Article 3, C, F, G, and H, while not directly calling for a common currency, all clearly hint to it. Why? Take part F

the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not
distorted
Click to expand...

Yes having different currencies does distort the market in a common market. Hence here the idea of the common currency is clear but yes not directly written down.. my guess that was political.

I think it would be best if you learnt a few basic facts before making further contributions.
Click to expand...

Actually you need to learn basics....Pretty much all the basic principles set out in the Treaty of Rome were carried over to the Maastricht treaty and its later amendments including the Lisbon Treaty. When we got the Lisbon Treaty, we finally consolidated a lot of other treaties that had been running parallel to the Treaty of Rome... including law and justice treaties, Schengen, and Common Foreign Policy.

But fundamentally, the ideas of the Treaty of Rome in Article 2 and 3 have been continued with every single update since.

Like it or not, you can not have a common market with multiple currencies, as that distorts the market. The US would not be the US, if it had 50 different currencies. The UK would not be the UK, if it had 4 different currencies now, or god knows how many during its empire days.

You can not have a common market if you restrict movement of goods, people and capital based who the member nation is. You can not have a common market if the laws and rules of commerce and even labour are drastically different. And you certainly can not have a common market if nations or anyone are allowed to discriminate based on nationality, race, sex, sexuality or religion.

Listen, I am for a common market, but I am dead against a federal Europe under the current conditions. I want to do what is best... if an area is best handled nationally.. like taxes, social issues and so on.. then do it so. But I want things that need to be done on an EU level to be done there. That is negotiating with other nations/groups when needed and certainly a common external migration policy and refugee policy. The last two need to happen but countries are blocking change for domestic nationalistic reasons and yes it is a serious problem that could tear Europe apart and put us back in the dark ages when we were fighting each others over petty insults. That is why people on the far right who are against anything European are so damn dangerous, because they WANT to go back to the dark ages, where nationalism ruled everything.. when people thought they were better than other nationalities and all that egotistical nationalistic bull****. I dont want to live like my parents lived or their parents and so on.

You claim to be "old".. so you should remember when traveling required a visa.... do you really want to go back to that?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I'll answer my own question otherwise I might never get a reply.

UK Tax - biggest influence comes from Corporations, Companies and OECD bigger than EU influence on UK tax policy.

Now, do Jog and Sweden want to step up with UK defence policy? EU? NATO? Little green men?
Click to expand...

Hope you do not mind my jumping in here. Multi-national corporations have a great deal of influence with governments, including USA (note how much it costs for any USA Presidential candidates). The EU is no different in this respect, and is reason why most multi-national corporations want UK and other member states to stay in EU. Note that when I state multi-national corporations I am including BANKS. The EU as it stands favours multi-national corporations, and if you surf the net you will note many became involved in second Irish referendum to influence the Irish people to vote for Lisbon Treaty, which included the Intel Corporation.

The following extract may also interest:


Obama coming to Europe to campaign for Project Fear

Barack Obama is planning to use a visit to Europe to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU.

The US president is coming to the end of his second term and isn't allowed to stand again according to the US constitution so has plenty of time on his hands for interfering in other peoples' business.

There are a number of reasons why Obama is keen for the UK to stay in the EU, primary of which are the devastating effect the EU has on the UK economy, fear of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area and the value of UK public services in the TTIP agreement being drawn up in secret between the US and EU.

Membership of the EU suppresses the UK economy and prevents us from rising up the league table and challenging the US at a time when it is under pressure from China and other fast growing economies such as India and Brazil. The reams of red tape originating from the EU and burden of over-regulation harms our competitiveness and keeps us in our place. Leapfrogging France last year was more of a reflection on France than the UK.

A Commonwealth Free Trade Area would include India, Canada and Australia - three major and growing economies in the top 12 economies in the world. Combined with the UK those four economies are worth well over $8tn - almost as much as China. The combined value of Commonwealth economies is over $11tn which is larger than the Chinese economy and is second only to the US.

The TTIP treaty being concluded in secret by the EU and the US will give American companies access to markets in the EU and open up the public sector to private ownership. American companies will be allowed to sue governments that don't allow them to privatise parts of public sector services such as the NHS or introduce measures that harm their profits. TTIP is tipped well and truly in America's favour and Obama is desperate to keep it on track.
Click to expand...

The following should also interest, and is a repeat post that I made many months ago with regard EU and Commonwealth:

Written evidence from Ruth Lea, Economic Adviser, Arbuthnot Banking Group

Parliament LINK: House of Commons - Foreign Affairs Committee: Written evidence from Ruth Lea, Economic Adviser, Arbuthnot Banking Group
Click to expand...
 
Phoenix One UK said:
Hope you do not mind my jumping in here.
Click to expand...

Please do, I'd given up waiting for the others to find anything substantive.

I see those points, I see that the EU has influence on UK laws and that big corporations have an influence through the EU but I also see that the sovereignty argument fails where you throw in defence policy vis a vis NATO; tax and fiscal policy vis a vis OECD / World Bank / G7 / G8 / G20 and many other organisations. The EU is just one body that affects UK policies so to argue we have given away sovereignty and pulling it back from one institution only and not the others makes no sense to me.

That applies to other areas the Brexit camp advocates. I am not convinced by such emotive claims which ignore other elements where the same argument can be made.


Phoenix One UK said:
with regard EU and Commonwealth:
Click to expand...

I just posted this on another thread to a Canadian who asked about the UK making links with the commonwealth again -

"Those days are long gone, I thought we could develop the commonwealth a while ago - however I have come to suspect the best way to develop ties with the commonwealth is from within the EU. Australia has developed huge exports of minerals & beef to China and soon to India, New Zealand also looks to the US and China. The former colony of India is more interested in German products than UK services. Canada and China are growing in their own right and not so interested in the UK unless to export to us.

I can't see the successful former colonies wanting or needing any kind of deal with the UK. I don't see us succeeding as a trading hub outside the EU either - we are often told we are a nation of shopkeepers - how could we trade with the EU from outside without having to agree to EU conditions like free movement of workers (as Norway and Switzerland do) and those colonies are agreeing trade deals in their own right so they don't need us for that.

What would convince me on "Brexit" or "Bremain" would be a more cohesive strategy on redeveloping British Industry - then we could truly stand up independently outside the EU or become a real force within. It doesn't just need investment but a sea change in the training and development from senior managers down to the workforce.

Having worked in British Industry in the 80's and early 90's, I saw how bad some of the decisionmaking was and the 70's factory strikes and disruption showed me just how bad the UK workforce could be at "working hard." The Nissan factory and more recently the Jaguar and Mini factories have showed the best of UK workforce but they still have overseas trained managers or actual foreign managers.

Germany invests in technical training and upholds it - I work with teenagers and find them really difficult to talk to about taking good honest jobs, many seem to think things will fall into place despite the minimal effort they can put in and this is getting more and more pervasive - or I'm getting older and less tolerant of students who try and shirk putting effort into their own future."

I agree the Commonwealth is potentially huge - India certainly proves that but successive UK governments have let opportunity slip by. Germany started long term industrial export policy negotiations with China in the 70's - we are 40 years behind them and we don't even make enough of the things China might want for us to develop our exports there.

We do have specialist industries which are among the best in the world in their sphere so yes, we have manufacturing but do we manufacture the kind of things the Commonwealth needs? I think not. Certainly not right now.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Please do, I'd given up waiting for the others to find anything substantive.
Click to expand...

[1] I believe we agree that large multi-national corporations possess a great deal of influence and often lobby for what is in their best interest, but I am not sure if you would agree that contrary to belief of many, it is the small and medium size businesses that are the backbone of any economy. It is they who pay the most taxes and employ the most people. Further, unlike a number of large corporations like banks they do not receive any bailouts if they fail. They simply go bust.

[2] There are many who fail to understand the British Commonwealth no longer exists. It is just the Commonwealth, and unlike the EU, the Commonwealth does not require any of its members to surrender any sovereign powers. It also possesses twice the membership of EU, and four times the population. Further, if you used the Parliament link supplied in previous post, I trust you noted this part


The UK’s trade with other Commonwealth countries is already significant. But more could, should, be done. The establishment of a Commonwealth FTA would provide such a stimulus, but Britain would almost certainly need to withdraw from the EU’s Customs Union in order to participate.
Click to expand...

The EU is an outdated Custom Union (surf net for details on Custom Unions), and you should further noted that as such, and despite the UK possessing its own seat at WTO (as do all member states), it is not free to make its own trade deals. A visit to WTO website will confirm the EU represents all member states. You should further note that EU involvement within UK China trade deal attracted headlines, which presented UK with number of problems. The UK could not negotiate a trade deal for itself, but as a member state of EU.

I should further point out that I had resided in Australia (a Commonwealth country) for 30 years, and even operated my own business there, which included exporting to world, including China via India (back door). I would further point out, given your mention of Canada, that the UK imports a great deal of raw materials from Canada, and that Canada would not like to see this trade deal dry up. Note the mention of "raw materials". Materials that are used to manufacture products, including such products used in exports.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
And you seem resistant to honesty. Your link does not respond to what I asked.

I asked three simple questions in response to claims made. I cannot rephrase that any more simply for you to understand.
Click to expand...

The answers are not as simple as the simpleton questions. I pointed to where you can start reading in an earlier post. If that is too much work, why should I let you waste my time?
 
joG said:
The answers are not as simple as the simpleton questions. I pointed to where you can start reading in an earlier post. If that is too much work, why should I let you waste my time?
Click to expand...

That's a long winded way of saying you failed to answer my questions. :lamo
 
Phoenix One UK said:
[1] I believe we agree that large multi-national corporations possess a great deal of influence and often lobby for what is in their best interest, but I am not sure if you would agree that contrary to belief of many, it is the small and medium size businesses that are the backbone of any economy. It is they who pay the most taxes and employ the most people. Further, unlike a number of large corporations like banks they do not receive any bailouts if they fail. They simply go bust.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I would agree.

Phoenix One UK said:
[2] There are many who fail to understand the British Commonwealth no longer exists. It is just the Commonwealth, and unlike the EU, the Commonwealth does not require any of its members to surrender any sovereign powers. It also possesses twice the membership of EU, and four times the population. Further, if you used the Parliament link supplied in previous post, I trust you noted this part.
Click to expand...

I did - but the question of what we would export still remains. I found a good interactive trade visualiser from MIT or Stanford a while ago - will have a look to see what manufactured goods we export to commonwealth countries as it is now (beyond pharmaceuticals and chemicals). How we can grow that if not develop more of an industrial base - I don't know.

Phoenix One UK said:
~ The UK could not negotiate a trade deal for itself, but as a member state of EU ~
Click to expand...

Yes, this is one of the things I feel is always on my mind regarding Brexit. Put quite nicely here in this article.
 
Helix said:
how is this any of our business? stay the **** out of it.
Click to expand...

The U.S. controls the EU, therefore they want its stranglehold over Europe maintained.
 
Cavendish said:
The U.S. controls the EU, therefore they want its stranglehold over Europe maintained.
Click to expand...

my view is that it's their country and their choice. we should focus more on our own country. i mean, FFS, look at our current political debacle.
 
Helix said:
my view is that it's their country and their choice. we should focus more on our own country. i mean, FFS, look at our current political debacle.
Click to expand...

The U.S. views a united EU as an important bulwark against a supposed threat from Russia. I'd like to see the EU blown to smithereens.
 
Phoenix One UK said:
My personal view on this is simple. Attn President Obama. BUTT OUT. :roll:
Click to expand...
As someone who hates it when other contries stick their noses in our business, I have to agree with this sentiment completely/
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I did - but the question of what we would export still remains. I found a good interactive trade visualiser from MIT or Stanford a while ago - will have a look to see what manufactured goods we export to commonwealth countries as it is now (beyond pharmaceuticals and chemicals). How we can grow that if not develop more of an industrial base - I don't know.



Yes, this is one of the things I feel is always on my mind regarding Brexit. Put quite nicely here in this article.
Click to expand...

Britain exports a great deal to not only EU member states but other countries round the world, though it could do more and better if it was able to negotiate its own trade deals without EU interference or being shackled by EU rules/regulations/laws. Contrary to common belief, the UK industries are much larger than most people are aware. Please note that the UK does export a great deal to EU member states, but those same EU member states exports much more to UK, which includes Germany (UK being one of their largest export markets) and France. Hence, I trust you can see the absurdity of any claim that Brexit would damage trade relations, especially with those member states in EZ given they cannot afford a trade war given they already possess financial problems.

For broad summary of UK summary see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom

For list of some of UK export manufacturers see Welcome to the British Exporters Database

Note even UK agriculture industry export to EU member states and other countries in world. The following is just one example, and I chose it because it is to China.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-pigs-will-flyto-china

Note I live in Swindon England where Honda has a major manufacturing plant. They export to not only EU member states but other countries in the world from here, including USA. Note they had just invested £200 million here and are expanding operations, and they had made it clear they would continue such operations regardless of whether or not the UK remains an EU member state or not. Link: https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/honda-pours-200-million-investment-into-swindon-plant

We then also have Avon who are moving their HQ from USA to UK regardless of whether or not the UK terminates its EU membership or not. This had just made headlines these past couple of days. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35808678

The lists supplied are far from complete, and I trust you can see why I believe that any suggestion that UK could not survive on its own as a free independent state is absurd.

There is another one, a very big one, and one I spent the best part of 30 years in, and that is software research and development. This alone is a £ multi-billion a year industry.

The UK does not need to be a member of EU, and never did with one of the biggest beneficiaries of a Brexit being the UK fishing industry, which had been decimated by EU rules/regulations/laws (surf net for full scope of destruction the EU caused this industry).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom