• 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!

British anti-terror fighters demolish far-right propaganda after London attack.

Infinite Chaos said:
Very true.
Click to expand...

Of course they didn't. One of the more irritating things I've noticed about the far right is the level of cowardice. Very few of them are actually contributing to the fight against ISIS and other groups---unlike these individuals. Instead, the far right seems content to cower back at home and attack people fleeing from ISIS and other groups.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
From "across the pond", I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of the EU is rudimentary, but I always thought that it was a simple economic treaty/conglomerate, creating a loose combined economy to strengthen the economies of the individual nations and to make trade easier and more seamless. I also thought that it had nothing to do with governance, laws, or policies in any way shape or form that had nothing to do with economics.

How close am I?
Click to expand...

Close enough. The British right wing press is forever printing stories about straight bananas, trawler men being forced to wear hairnets, children wearing safety helmets in the playground. All nonsense.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
From "across the pond", I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of the EU is rudimentary, but I always thought that it was a simple economic treaty/conglomerate, creating a loose combined economy to strengthen the economies of the individual nations and to make trade easier and more seamless. I also thought that it had nothing to do with governance, laws, or policies in any way shape or form that had nothing to do with economics.

How close am I?
Click to expand...
Close enough, however that's not the whole story.

Where what you describe was the original set-up of the EEC (European Economic Community) founded in 1957, it has progressed into what we today call the EU. This Union indeed passes laws that are valid EU-wide.

BUT !!! ........................

The popular narrative (propagated by the disenchanted) bloats the three main bodies of the EU (EU parliament, EU commission and EU council) into something that they (singly or as a whole) are not, namely a foreign government, elected by nobody and waltzing all over the sovereignty of individual member states and their nations.

Because, to sum up in a general manner, there's nothing that the EU can do that does not meet the approval of ALL member states.

The whole thing is a complicated construction and to describe it all would explode the thread here. But just as an example, an important piece of criteria for being able to join is that the applicant country does not practice the death penalty (has abolished it) and convenes to the basic tenets of human rights that all members have agreed to adhere to.

Another pet peeve that the UK Brexiteers have exploited is the freedom of movement, both of goods and people within the EU. Where goods are concerned, those were hardly the issue, but where people come up, this meant that Spain (where I live) could not say "we want to control how many Brits live here" and the UK, of course, could not say the same wrt Spaniards. Applies to all other EU countries as well, naturally.

Everything peaked in the general xenophobia (not just a British phenomenon) against letting in refugees from war zones and, not to understate that issue, economic migrants from the poverty world outside the EU.

Well, one can see how mighty the all powerful EU was on that question in superimposing large numbers of refugees/migrants onto any given EU country. Exactly zilch in that every country decided for itself (as it could) with most saying "no thanks".

What is swept under the carpet by the malcontented is that the EU is not the faceless governing body of power that they like to make it out as being. It's everybody.

And if everybody doesn't agree on the important issues (unanimously), nothing will happen (nor can it).

Bit of an overly simplistic summary, no doubt, but that's the gist of it.

What London doesn't appear to be getting to this very day (IMO extreme cognitive dissonance born from some still existing affliction of empire nostalgia) is that it takes just one (1) EU member state to say that they don't agree with one condition of the negotiated Brexit (say London insists on no freedom of movement of people) and pow". Hard Brexit.
 
PeteEU said:
You cant have an economic zone without some sort of rule set that evens out the playing field. That means regulations.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Use a common currency and open trade. No need to go further.

Also the EU does not regulate "everything under the sun".. far far far far far from it. It regulates anything agreed on by the member nations, and that is all.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said everything under the sun, aka whatever they feel like.
 
Fishking said:
Sure you can. Use a common currency and open trade. No need to go further.
Click to expand...

Alone there you have two regulations... open trade requires regulations.
Yes, that's what I said everything under the sun, aka whatever they feel like.
Click to expand...

So the 27 members agree to harmonise regulations in an area, and suddenly it is the EU that is forcing regulations on everyone when they feel like it?

The EU can only regulate areas that the treaty allows and that the member states agree on.

The goal of said regulations is to create an even playing field for business in a common market.
 
PeteEU said:
ASo the 27 members agree to harmonise regulations in an area, and suddenly it is the EU that is forcing regulations on everyone when they feel like it?

The EU can only regulate areas that the treaty allows and that the member states agree on.

The goal of said regulations is to create an even playing field for business in a common market.
Click to expand...

That's quite obvious. We had the Brexit did we not?
 
Fishking said:
That's quite obvious. We had the Brexit did we not?
Click to expand...
Do you have anything besides non sequiturs?
Fishking said:
Sure you can. Use a common currency and open trade. No need to go further.
Click to expand...
Like maybe explanations of how you're going to have a common currency WITHOUT any rules (fiscal, for instance) governing it?
 
Chagos said:
Do you have anything besides non sequiturs?
Click to expand...

The point stands, gotcha.

Like maybe explanations of how you're going to have a common currency WITHOUT any rules (fiscal, for instance) governing it?
Click to expand...

Regulating monetary policy is what's called an implied power if you're going to have an economic zone. What isn't implied in said economic zone are things like regulating fishing or what kind of appliances you can use in your homes.

What the UK's fishing industry wants from Brexit

EU to ban high-energy hair dryers, smartphones and kettles - Telegraph
 
Fishking said:
~...............Regulating monetary policy is what's called an implied power if you're going to have an economic zone. What isn't implied in said economic zone are things like regulating fishing or what kind of appliances you can use in your homes.
Click to expand...
So you're shifting the goalposts from (NOT) explaining your original claim of "Sure you can. Use a common currency and open trade. No need to go further." when it comes to how that's supposed to be done without common regulations, to hair dryers and fishing.

Sure, those latter items can be discussed as well but how about dealing with the first one?

Before gish galloping off to the next?
 
Chagos said:
So you're shifting the goalposts from (NOT) explaining your original claim of "Sure you can. Use a common currency and open trade. No need to go further." when it comes to how that's supposed to be done without common regulations, to hair dryers and fishing.

Sure, those latter items can be discussed as well but how about dealing with the first one?

Before gish galloping off to the next?
Click to expand...

Sorry I had to explain something as basic as implied powers to such a basic level. I assume some level of political acumen here, but I'll not make that assumption again.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry I had to explain something as basic as implied powers to such a basic level. I assume some level of political acumen here, but I'll not make that assumption again.
Click to expand...
It's best not to go assuming anything at all. If you were however susceptible to such advice you wouldn't have been going on doing just that.

The initial question nevertheless remains unanswered. Do you want it repeated?
 
Chagos said:
It's best not to go assuming anything at all. If you were however susceptible to such advice you wouldn't have been going on doing just that.

The initial question nevertheless remains unanswered. Do you want it repeated?
Click to expand...

Which one? I've answered them all. The Brexit question? Do you think Brexit would have still happened if the EU had remained focused on merely being an economic zone and not delved into the realm of regulating all aspects of governance?
 
Fishking said:
Which one? I've answered them all. The Brexit question? Do you think Brexit would have still happened if the EU had remained focused on merely being an economic zone and not delved into the realm of regulating all aspects of governance?
Click to expand...
See post #32. Gish galloping off to posing questions of your own, where interesting perhaps, remains a lousy debate tactic.

So, tell us how one adopts a common currency without installing governance over it.

Then, maybe, we can move on to YOUR question(s).
 
Chagos said:
See post #32. Gish galloping off to posing questions of your own, where interesting perhaps, remains a lousy debate tactic.

So, tell us how one adopts a common currency without installing governance over it.

Then, maybe, we can move on to YOUR question(s).
Click to expand...

I got it. I thought I had explained that. That would be included in the implied powers. Implied powers are those which are not specifically stated but are required to implement said policy.

So, in the case of the monetary system, you would have regulations that surrounded the standardizing of the monetary system.

Do you not acknowledge that the EU has expanded well beyond regulating monetary policy?
 
Fishking said:
I got it. I thought I had explained that. That would be included in the implied powers. Implied powers are those which are not specifically stated but are required to implement said policy.

So, in the case of the monetary system, you would have regulations that surrounded the standardizing of the monetary system.
Click to expand...
So, to remain on that particular issue, "implication" would be an adequate substitute for writing the rules on a common currency in stone (laws)? Like fiscal laws (e.g. maintaining currency stability by, say, imposing rules on deficit spending etc.)

Do you not acknowledge that the EU has expanded well beyond regulating monetary policy?
Click to expand...
(I'm) Not there yet.
 
Chagos said:
So, to remain on that particular issue, "implication" would be an adequate substitute for writing the rules on a common currency in stone (laws)? Like fiscal laws (e.g. maintaining currency stability by, say, imposing rules on deficit spending etc.)
Click to expand...

To a very limited degree. For example, each state in the U.S. has their own budgets and the viability of the various budgets varies greatly from state to state and there are not very regulated by the federal government in how they run their state budgets. It's independent for the most part. Yet somehow the U.S. is the largest economy in the world.

(I'm) Not there yet.
Click to expand...

Waiting.
 
Fishking said:
To a very limited degree. For example, each state in the U.S. has their own budgets and the viability of the various budgets varies greatly from state to state and there are not very regulated by the federal government in how they run their state budgets. It's independent for the most part. Yet somehow the U.S. is the largest economy in the world.
Click to expand...
So, nevertheless, not simply just implied power?

Also bearing in mind that the US is a nation (state), something the EU is not.


Waiting.
Click to expand...
I know.
 
Chagos said:
So, nevertheless, not simply just implied power?

Also bearing in mind that the US is a nation (state), something the EU is not.
Click to expand...

Yes, yet they still have their own state budgets with almost no federal interference. So basically you have a EU central bank and that's nearly it. You'd have to have a few things to go with the common economic zone as well, like not putting tariffs on goods moving between the member countries. It's not nearly as complicated as people are making it out to be.

I know.
Click to expand...

So any of this has what to do with the EU expanding into regulating innumerable aspects of governance, that has nothing to do with maintaining the economic zone? Would Brexit have happened if these other regulations have not been present?
 
The EDL have no desire to go to Syria. They hate Muslims so are likely thrilled IS are murdering other Muslims. They much prefer to spread anti muslim propoganda and engage in hateful rhetoric safely at home.
 
Chagos said:
Close enough, however that's not the whole story.

Where what you describe was the original set-up of the EEC (European Economic Community) founded in 1957, it has progressed into what we today call the EU. This Union indeed passes laws that are valid EU-wide.

BUT !!! ........................

The popular narrative (propagated by the disenchanted) bloats the three main bodies of the EU (EU parliament, EU commission and EU council) into something that they (singly or as a whole) are not, namely a foreign government, elected by nobody and waltzing all over the sovereignty of individual member states and their nations.

Because, to sum up in a general manner, there's nothing that the EU can do that does not meet the approval of ALL member states.

The whole thing is a complicated construction and to describe it all would explode the thread here. But just as an example, an important piece of criteria for being able to join is that the applicant country does not practice the death penalty (has abolished it) and convenes to the basic tenets of human rights that all members have agreed to adhere to.

Another pet peeve that the UK Brexiteers have exploited is the freedom of movement, both of goods and people within the EU. Where goods are concerned, those were hardly the issue, but where people come up, this meant that Spain (where I live) could not say "we want to control how many Brits live here" and the UK, of course, could not say the same wrt Spaniards. Applies to all other EU countries as well, naturally.

Everything peaked in the general xenophobia (not just a British phenomenon) against letting in refugees from war zones and, not to understate that issue, economic migrants from the poverty world outside the EU.

Well, one can see how mighty the all powerful EU was on that question in superimposing large numbers of refugees/migrants onto any given EU country. Exactly zilch in that every country decided for itself (as it could) with most saying "no thanks".

What is swept under the carpet by the malcontented is that the EU is not the faceless governing body of power that they like to make it out as being. It's everybody.

And if everybody doesn't agree on the important issues (unanimously), nothing will happen (nor can it).

Bit of an overly simplistic summary, no doubt, but that's the gist of it.

What London doesn't appear to be getting to this very day (IMO extreme cognitive dissonance born from some still existing affliction of empire nostalgia) is that it takes just one (1) EU member state to say that they don't agree with one condition of the negotiated Brexit (say London insists on no freedom of movement of people) and pow". Hard Brexit.
Click to expand...

Very informative post, filling in many "blanks" I have around the EU. Sounds like to me, that beyond some overall economic unity, though there are some general rules and legal requirements that a nation-state needs to have/adhere to in order to become and remain a member, most governing decisions remain with the individual nation.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Very informative post, filling in many "blanks" I have around the EU. Sounds like to me, that beyond some overall economic unity, though there are some general rules and legal requirements that a nation-state needs to have/adhere to in order to become and remain a member, most governing decisions remain with the individual nation.
Click to expand...

A huge majority of governing decisions remain with individual nations. The most accepted report about exactly how much the EU meddles in, says around 15% of all laws. This makes sense, since the EU is primarily a customs and business union in a common market along with agriculture of course. It does not work on crime laws, social laws, and so on. In fact, if the UK wanted to block all Nigerians, Indians and Pakistanis from entering the UK, then the UK could do so without any meddling by the EU. Over 50% of all new migrants come from outside the EU. That is why the Brexit debate and the over all anti-EU debate has been hijacked by people who lie constantly on what the EU is and does.

Dont get me wrong, the EU is not perfect.. far from it. But knowing how petty European countries use to be when it comes to trade and economics, and how many wars this has caused.. then thank god for the EU and the common market. I like having choice when I buy stuff.. that is something that we did not have before the EEC/EU forced through liberalisation of our economies. I remember when we had one phone company, one power company, and maybe 2 types of coffee on the supermarket shelves.

Now what does this have to do with the far right... they are the anti-EU types that are promoting lies about the EU and so many other things.... facts seem to be the main enemy of the far right across the world. For example, Nigel the Liar Farage has stated that 75% of laws are made in the EU...where did he get that? From a far right think tank, that basically pulled the number out of its ass. And yet many anti-EU types still believe this, despite the evidence and facts.
 
PeteEU said:
A huge majority of governing decisions remain with individual nations. The most accepted report about exactly how much the EU meddles in, says around 15% of all laws. This makes sense, since the EU is primarily a customs and business union in a common market along with agriculture of course. It does not work on crime laws, social laws, and so on. In fact, if the UK wanted to block all Nigerians, Indians and Pakistanis from entering the UK, then the UK could do so without any meddling by the EU. Over 50% of all new migrants come from outside the EU. That is why the Brexit debate and the over all anti-EU debate has been hijacked by people who lie constantly on what the EU is and does.

Dont get me wrong, the EU is not perfect.. far from it. But knowing how petty European countries use to be when it comes to trade and economics, and how many wars this has caused.. then thank god for the EU and the common market. I like having choice when I buy stuff.. that is something that we did not have before the EEC/EU forced through liberalisation of our economies. I remember when we had one phone company, one power company, and maybe 2 types of coffee on the supermarket shelves.

Now what does this have to do with the far right... they are the anti-EU types that are promoting lies about the EU and so many other things.... facts seem to be the main enemy of the far right across the world. For example, Nigel the Liar Farage has stated that 75% of laws are made in the EU...where did he get that? From a far right think tank, that basically pulled the number out of its ass. And yet many anti-EU types still believe this, despite the evidence and facts.
Click to expand...

That is the populist muck that the EU and their lobby are now trying to sell. It is quite the opposite to much of the tune they were tutting earlier and to a great extent to the content of the Lisbon Treaty and its preamble as well as to their interpretation up to this point.

But say. Why would you want to believe the same people this time around that have been obviously lying or misinforming you for two decades? Seems naiv.
 
As so often, presentation of at least some facts being met with the usual emotive rant one has long since come to expect.

And, just as usual, actual percentages of laws that the EU "meddles" in, even where being estimates, addressed as little as the lies told about those percentages.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
That is the populist muck that the EU and their lobby are now trying to sell. It is quite the opposite to much of the tune they were tutting earlier and to a great extent to the content of the Lisbon Treaty and its preamble as well as to their interpretation up to this point.

But say. Why would you want to believe the same people this time around that have been obviously lying or misinforming you for two decades? Seems naiv.
Click to expand...

Bla bla bla the usual bs from you. Will you ever prove your argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom