• 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. Please read this Americans

Now said:
GOTCHA!

If we're so crappy 'cos we're a leg iron, here in the UK where we have the London Stock Exchange and better economic conditions for foreign investment, why do Euronuts make such emotional fusses all the time about our staying in??
Click to expand...

It benefits the big banks and corporations as they have their un elected friends in their back pocket in the EU commission.
 
Carjosse said:
Ia ms till correct the UK has a permanent opt out for certain things and so do other countries. I would also like to bring up that the UK is represented within the EU and agreed to join it.
Click to expand...

I believe that is debateable. If you accept that the UK is a democratic country then you must also accept that every MP without exception derives its power from the people. The people elect MPs to be their voice in Parliament, and the government do not own the country but are elected as caretakers to govern and not cede any powers to any foreign power or nation. Note that UK did not join the EEC (now EU) in 1975, it joined in 1973. The British people were never even asked, though in 1975 they were given a referendum on whether or not they would like to remain in EEC (Common Market). They were also told that NO sovereign powers would be surrendered. Note the original documents are still avail for examination on net for any who may be interested.
 
It benefits the big banks and corporations as they have their un elected friends in their back pocket in the EU commission.
Click to expand...


And also because the European Commission and other bellyaching drains will lose so many billions in gravy train money each year.

You don't really need those frauds to run a true, common market EU. Each nation already has all the civil servants it needs to draft the treaty proposals for common co-operation. And the businesses themselves are the ones who are the money movers and shakers. The EC doesn't make the jobs, not real jobs.
 
The EU is exactly what some of the self described conservatives think the US should be, a loose confederation of independent states cooperating as long as they want to stay in the union and governed by a central power with very limited authority.
 
PeteEU said:
You do know that the US is a federal system of states.. so technically they all are submitting to "foreign rule" by being in that federal system. Each state has less independence than EU member states... like the UK. Ironic no?
Click to expand...

Actually, no, the States here don't have less independence. Each and every State here can fully ignore the Federal Government if it really wanted to. The fact that most don't does not discount the possibility that they can. One example of some of our States ignoring the Federal Government is Sanctuary States/cities. They're supposed to follow federal rules/guidelines where it concerns immigration (both illegal and legal) but these sanctuary states are blatantly ignoring the federal government, and nothings being done about them.

Can the EU states do this? (I really don't know so yes, serious question)
 
it's up to the British voters, and if Britain is anything like America, it's mostly up to those with enough money to purchase the outcome.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The EU is exactly what some of the self described conservatives think the US should be, a loose confederation of independent states cooperating as long as they want to stay in the union and governed by a central power with very limited authority.
Click to expand...

It has the authority to over-rule any national law it doesn't like, with one hell of a bitch fight to get that power back.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Each and every State here can fully ignore the Federal Government if it really wanted to ~

Can the EU states do this? (I really don't know so yes, serious question)

PakPuk said:
~ Here just for your closed mindedness ~
EU law is a principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To Kal'Stang - if you read further than "PakPuk's" cherrypicked example you would see the bits he left out because they don't support his claim.

The doctrine of the supremacy (sometimes referred to as primacy) of EU law is a principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states. Although national courts generally accept the principle in practice, most of them disagree with this extreme interpretation and reserve the right, in principle, to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.[1]
Click to expand...

And then -

Many countries' highest courts have stated that Union law takes precedence provided that it continues to respect fundamental constitutional principles of the member state, the ultimate judge of which will be the member state (more exactly, the court of that member state), rather than the European Union institutions themselves.
Click to expand...

And then you have to look at the extension of claims made that we are "ruled from Brussels" - I've repeatedly asked those making the claim to provide evidence of this rule from Brussels -

You would expect military / legal / tax / financial / examples readily to hand that member states are subjugate to the EU but there are none. The argument, like the OP are fictional. I respect the right of Brexit supporters to make their decision from the heart and from inner faith but when they claim facts and actual figures then I have a right to question and point out the falsehoods in their claims.

The OP makes this same claim about "reclaiming freedom" when that is utterly false. We have a referendum coming and I hope people have a lot more than inner gut instinct to make their decision on that day.
 
Helix said:
it's up to the British voters, and if Britain is anything like America, it's mostly up to those with enough money to purchase the outcome.
Click to expand...

The EU Commission is making unlimited funding available to the Remain campaign. They get £50 million a day from UK taxpayers alone so money really is no object.
 
joG said:
That is a creative interpretation of political systems, but distorts the relationships of sovereignty and legitimacy to fit your purpose.
Click to expand...

It is an accurate interpretation. Each US state has its own leader and legislative and judicial branches. It has its own election systems and so on and so on. But it has ceded sovereignty to the federal system in many areas including money, military, trade and so on and so on. It is a very accurate interpretation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, no, the States here don't have less independence. Each and every State here can fully ignore the Federal Government if it really wanted to.
Click to expand...

Good luck on that.. oh btw so can EU member states. Look at the migrant crisis.

The fact that most don't does not discount the possibility that they can.
Click to expand...

Same with the EU. Italy is know for not following EU directives via not implementing them in law. Of course the directives are still valid in Italy, but the Italian system does not exactly care in many cases.

One example of some of our States ignoring the Federal Government is Sanctuary States/cities. They're supposed to follow federal rules/guidelines where it concerns immigration (both illegal and legal) but these sanctuary states are blatantly ignoring the federal government, and nothings being done about them.
Click to expand...

Same with Greece and Italy not following EU migration agreements (which are outdated). The EU cant do much about it. Now the US federal system could send in the troops/police to deal with it.. the EU does not have that ability since it does not have troops/police.

Can the EU states do this? (I really don't know so yes, serious question)
Click to expand...

See above..
 
PeteEU said:
It is an accurate interpretation. Each US state has its own leader and legislative and judicial branches. It has its own election systems and so on and so on. But it has ceded sovereignty to the federal system in many areas including money, military, trade and so on and so on. It is a very accurate interpretation.
Click to expand...

The big difference is that in a federal system sovereignty is legitimately distributed. This is one bad failure of the EU construct. The builders hurried union and used subterfuge and tricks to sneak power to EU centers in Belgium, Luxembourg and Strasburg. Instead of establishing legitimacy the populations were lied to and the europhiles resorted to smoke and mirrors persuasion populisms. It is really rather shabby and the seems are splitting badly.
 
joG said:
The big difference is that in a federal system sovereignty is legitimately distributed. This is one bad failure of the EU construct.
Click to expand...

LOL you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The builders hurried union and used subterfuge and tricks to sneak power to EU centers in Belgium, Luxembourg and Strasburg.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Lets do an example. Obamacare. Would never be able to happen in the EU. Why? Because it would require a treaty change first, but also that all member states leaders and governments to agree to do something similar. Now in the US, Obamacare was forced on the states and some states have rebelled and yet still cant keep it out of the state. So here we have US federal system taking sovereignty away from the states and they cant do anything about it. Now in the EU, since the states are the drivers behind the EU, then this would never be able to happen.

So there has been no "sneaking power" to Brussels.. it has been open and transparent according to the treaties that member states have agreed too and signed. And lets not forget that any "power moving to Brussels" is limited to the common market.

Instead of establishing legitimacy the populations were lied to and the europhiles resorted to smoke and mirrors persuasion populisms. It is really rather shabby and the seems are splitting badly.
Click to expand...

More horse manure. You have no idea what you are talking about. How about for ONCE prove your accusations.
 
PeteEU said:
LOL you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



Bull****. .....
Click to expand...

That about sums it up. You say you don't understand and use four letter expletives to sound like a grown-up.
 
Sweden said:
The EU Commission is making unlimited funding available to the Remain campaign. They get £50 million a day from UK taxpayers alone so money really is no object.
Click to expand...

ah. not surprising. it's usually about who will make money off of it and how much influence they can afford to buy. don't feel too bad, though. at least Britain skipped the Euro and was smart enough to pass a real universal health care bill back when we should have done the same. to give him credit, though, Truman tried.
 
joG said:
That about sums it up. You say you don't understand and use four letter expletives to sound like a grown-up.
Click to expand...

In other words.. yet again you deflect and dont back up your claims.
 
Helix said:
ah. not surprising. it's usually about who will make money off of it and how much influence they can afford to buy. don't feel too bad, though. at least Britain skipped the Euro and was smart enough to pass a real universal health care bill back when we should have done the same. to give him credit, though, Truman tried.
Click to expand...

Helix, you can be forgiven by being fooled by a partisan poster who has zero interest in telling the truth as you are not in Europe and not familiar with the rules for the campaigns.

What are the rules for campaigning?
The Electoral Commission is in charge of making sure it's a fair contest. It will select a designated lead campaign for both the "leave" and "remain" sides. The official campaigns will get access to a grant of up to £600,000, an overall spending limit of £7m, campaign broadcasts, free mailshots and free access to meeting rooms. Other groups are free to run their own campaigns but they will be limited to a spend of £700,000 if they register with the Electoral Commission and will have to report the source of donations. If they don't register with the Commission they will be limited to spending less than £10,000. Link.
Click to expand...

http://www.electoralcommission.org....oming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum
 
Sweden said:
The EU Commission is making unlimited funding available to the Remain campaign. They get £50 million a day from UK taxpayers alone so money really is no object.
Click to expand...

And where the hell did you get this bull****?
 
PeteEU said:
And where the hell did you get this bull****?
Click to expand...

Same place where we're being told the EU sets our taxes, financial policy, military rules etc etc etc. I usually wipe my bottom after going there.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Helix, you can be forgiven by being fooled by a partisan poster who has zero interest in telling the truth as you are not in Europe and not familiar with the rules for the campaigns.



Electoral Commission | Referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union
Click to expand...

so you're telling me that this is the one issue in which those with money don't have a better chance of buying the outcome? call me jaded, but i don't really believe that. as for the issue itself, i don't really care if Britain stays in the EU or leaves. it's up to British voters, at least in theory.
 
Peter King said:
I read it and I think it is nonsense and ignores all the benefits the UK has from Europe (and the cost that will come when it leaves the UK). I also disagree that the European economy (or anything else) is in its death throes. I think that if the UK leaves the EU, we maybe will form a better and more perfect union.
Click to expand...

I see no benefits at all in being shackled to an anti-democratic and corrupt failed experiment.
 
Helix said:
so you're telling me that this is the one issue in which those with money don't have a better chance of buying the outcome? call me jaded, but i don't really believe that. as for the issue itself, i don't really care if Britain stays in the EU or leaves. it's up to British voters, at least in theory.
Click to expand...

No, I was answering the lie by another poster that the EU Commission is donating vast sums to the remain campaign.

European Commission won?t campaign for Britain to remain in EU | euronews, Europe

Business and businessmen on both sides are collaborating in different ways - we mainly hear from Brexit interviews on the street, very few people openly on the street talk of why we should remain and I think the same thing as happened in the Scottish referendum will happen when people are alone in the voting booths. Rhetoric will be forgotten and people will make their decisions on their own - one way or another.

PeteEU said:
Why bring facts into this debate all of a sudden.. the no campaign's heads will explode :)
Click to expand...

I haven't decided which way I would vote yet, but I'm not voting "no" based on lies. I have much more self belief than that.
 
PeteEU said:
In other words.. yet again you deflect and dont back up your claims.
Click to expand...

There are a number of you that strategically demand proof of the general known.
 
Orly? said:
"""""""'
NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to overreaching small arms initiatives for two decades.
.........
The most pressing international threat to U.S. gun owners is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among its most egregious provisions, the treaty encourages national recordkeeping requirements for “end users” of covered arms (including firearms), and suggests that national governments share such records. Further, the ATT compels countries to make arms import and export decisions based upon a trading partner’s willingness to abide by the treaty’s requirements, which could isolate the United States from legitimate trade in arms or force it to adopt restrictions detrimental to Second Amendment rights.
""""""
https://www.nraila.org/issues/internationalun-gun-control-issues/
Click to expand...

Huh? For the record I support gun rights and oppose ATT, but that has nothing to do with the EU. Nothing in the ATT gives foreign powers the right to regulate domestic possession of firearms in accordance with the internal laws of that country, it was intended to provide a framework to prevent large scale arms dealing to non governmental entities in the third world.

and even if we ratified ATT, congress would need to pass additional laws to implement it, the US Government cannot enforce a treaty without implementing legislation, and finally foreign treaty agreements do not supercede our constitutional rights per the US Supreme Court, see Ried v Covert.

So no, this is a distraction issue you're bringing up that is unrelated to the rest of the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom