• 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!

Brexit voting evidence ~ I was wrong.

PeteEU said:
What on earth are you babbling about?



Justify? LOL what on earth are you babbling about here? You really want to explain why we have CAP and why we have a common market, and why the EU has spent money in improving infrastructure in areas that have been negleged by national governments? You really want "us" to justify such things?

Listen, I will make you a deal.. I will justify most of the spending, if you finally come with the proof I have been asking about in multiple threads over years... still waiting.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that you haven't even realized, what happened? That is really sad, but fits the EU to a T.
 
joG said:
Are you telling me that you haven't even realized, what happened? That is really sad, but fits the EU to a T.
Click to expand...

No I am telling you that no one understand what the hell you are babbling about..
 
PeteEU said:
No I am telling you that no one understand what the hell you are babbling about..
Click to expand...

Really? You think so? But it is quite simple. The EU politicians were not capable of justifying the EU and making it seem worth its salt. I don't understand, where the rocket science is in that statement. Unless, of course, one has not understood, what went wrong for the EU lobby.
 
William Rea said:
It is unfortunate but inevitable that the EU has to act as a wealth redistribution agent like this but, in my opinion only, reducing inequality within member states is one way of ensuring conflicts don't happen. It is a price we pay for having stable nations around us and seriously for those laissez-faire economists, free trade did nothing to stop conflict in the preceding centuries, did it?

In the regions of the UK I believe that the EU has taken over a job that our South East and London focused national government was politically incapable of doing. Sure they thought up some nice catch phrases like 'Northern Power House' and commenced with HS2 but, just fell back onto the crappy Barnett every time.
Click to expand...

It is not at all inevitable that the EU should act as a redistributor of wealth. At least not economically and certainly not as a result of the European Charter of Human Rights, though it seems incredible that the level of state programs for the needy be so far apart as those say of Romania and Germany or the medical support so incomparable as that of Holland and Greece within an area of a single set of human rights. The dishonesty reeks so badly, that in an age of internet it remains an enigma that the populations do not rebel. But sense it cannot be these two reasons, Why should the EU be allowed to redistribute the wealth of the citizens of different nations?
 
joG said:
It is not at all inevitable that the EU should act as a redistributor of wealth. At least not economically and certainly not as a result of the European Charter of Human Rights, though it seems incredible that the level of state programs for the needy be so far apart as those say of Romania and Germany or the medical support so incomparable as that of Holland and Greece within an area of a single set of human rights. The dishonesty reeks so badly, that in an age of internet it remains an enigma that the populations do not rebel. But sense it cannot be these two reasons, Why should the EU be allowed to redistribute the wealth of the citizens of different nations?
Click to expand...

What is the, 'European Charter of Human Rights'?
 
LowDown said:
I'm wrong? But you just confirmed what I'd said. The UK pays into the EU, and then the EU pays for selected projects in the UK. Those projects is where you'll find white hot support for Remain. No surprise there.

God forbid that the UK should decide where the money, its own money, should go.
Click to expand...

Well now they can be like Norway and pay the same $ per capita as GB for their EU trade agreement and have no say in the rules and get nothing back at all. That will take care of that won't it? Or they can just negotiate separate agreements with EVERY EU nation which will take years.

Norway receives access to most of the bloc’s internal market through membership of the European Economic Area. That means goods, services and labor flow freely between Norway and the EU. In return, however, Norway has to adopt a large number of EU laws without having a formal say in how they are shaped. Norway also has to pay about the same amount of money into the EU budget on a per capita basis as the U.K., according to OpenEurope, a think tank that has declared itself neutral in the debate.
Click to expand...
Norway to Britain: Don’t leave, you’ll hate it – POLITICO
 
joG said:
Well, there are two charters/treaties/conventions involved. One is specifically for the EU, while the other serves somewhat wider purpose. It has been a long time since I did any work involving them, so I am a little rusty on details. But there is a page on the EU site that explains them here:
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - European Commission
Click to expand...

I know about those, I just did not recognise what you typed and wondered what you were referring to.
 
William Rea said:
What is the, 'European Charter of Human Rights'?
Click to expand...

There is no European Charter of Human Rights.

There is the the European Convention on Human Rights, which is from 1953. It was based on British law and tradition mostly and written primarily by David Maxwell Fyfe, a British Conservative politician. This convention established the European Court of Human Rights. This is the court that has been bitch slapping the British government the last 15+ years over human rights violations.

In 2000 the EU decided to have its own EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which had many of the aspects of the European Convention of Human Rights in it. Basically it meant that to be a member of the EU, you would have to agree with the European Convention of Human Rights from 1953, which all already did.

The Brexit guys have been mixing these 2 up for years because it was in their interest to blame the EU for actions of the European Conventions on Human Rights... a convention that their own ancestor wrote and based it off British law.. ironic no?

EDIT: Bah did not see the response above! My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom