The K M Links Game - October 2024 Week 2
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Has Uk Once Again Saved Europe From Tyranny?
41 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To answer the question, in the eyes of some people yes. Garaman, if you are old enough to remember the years before the UK's entry into the European Common Market you will know that the UK was passionately committed to joining and very frustrated (if you accept what the papers/tabloids said at the time, yes the same Mail, Express, Sun, etc.) when kept out. Then when the UK did get in it rejoiced in the certainty that now the ECM would finally be worth taking seriously and that it would now take its cue from the UK's ability and wisdom. When the UK did not succeed in taking the ECM over as a new-found empire it threw a series of fits and is now leaving. The impression I am getting is that while there is some puzzlement/incredulity over the UK's conduct, there is also a substantial air of relief that the UK is no longer going to be an unpleasant preoccupation.
Zacs, Do you actually understand the structure of the EU? Do you know the difference between the Parliament and the Commission and why there has been such concern and outrage at Junker's undemocratic appointment of Martin Selmayr to such a powerful position?
There is unbridled tyranny within the EU structure itself, let alone on the Europe it is supposed to be serving, and whose citizens pay such a high price for it.
There is unbridled tyranny within the EU structure itself, let alone on the Europe it is supposed to be serving, and whose citizens pay such a high price for it.
“How come we pay £565million a year more, to treat uk citizens abroad, than the other 27 EU spongers pay us?”
Could it be that they set about collecting it with a little more vigour than we do? Just a thought.
"Do you have any concrete reasons for describing the EU as tyrannical?"
“Tyranny” has various interpretations. I don’t think we can confine modern day tyranny to the slaying of all first-borns, raping the local women and razing their villages to the ground. In today’s atmosphere (and certainly as far as this question goes) it might be useful to look at the “tyrants’” attitude to democracy and the wishes of the people whose lives they are said to be in place to improve.
The arch-Euromaniac-in-Chief, Jean-Claude Juncker is well known for his views on keeping the “little people” in their place. When quizzed about the French Referendum on the ill-fated (but hastily resurrected) European Constition, he uttered this immortal response: “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
Well it was a “no” and they did continue. A little while later the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) was born. When asked about its possible influence on national sovereignty, he said this: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
As far as the European Constitution goes, ten nations planned to hold a referendum in 2005 on its adoption. However, following voters in France and the Netherlands rejecting the plan, six of the ten (including the UK) were abandoned. The EU “continued” nonetheless (as prophesied by Mr Juncker) and drafted the Lisbon Treaty (which involved, basically, crossing out the title “European Constitution” and substituting it with “Lisbon Treaty”). This time only Ireland (bound by its own constitution to do so) held a referendum (other governments, fearful of a repeat, made various excuses to explain why no plebiscite was necessary) and in 2008 Irish voters rejected the Treaty. By 2009 a few meaningless guarantees were woven in and Ireland finally succumbed, so the Treaty could be signed.
In 2015 A referendum in Greece was held on the bailout conditions for their debt crisis (which was largely caused by their adoption of the euro).Voters rejected those conditions by two to one. However, shortly afterwards the government accepted a bailout (under threat of bankruptcy) with even harsher conditions than the ones rejected by the voters.
The EU has a lengthy history of obliging its members to vote again on matters which, if rejected, would halt the “European Project”. My view is that is modern day tyranny. No substantial changes were secured by these rejections and the Project ploughed on regardless. Anyone believing that a vote to remain in the EU was a vote for the status quo wants their bumps felt. You don't have to raze villages to the ground to be tyrannical and the tyrannical EU does not do the “status quo”.
Could it be that they set about collecting it with a little more vigour than we do? Just a thought.
"Do you have any concrete reasons for describing the EU as tyrannical?"
“Tyranny” has various interpretations. I don’t think we can confine modern day tyranny to the slaying of all first-borns, raping the local women and razing their villages to the ground. In today’s atmosphere (and certainly as far as this question goes) it might be useful to look at the “tyrants’” attitude to democracy and the wishes of the people whose lives they are said to be in place to improve.
The arch-Euromaniac-in-Chief, Jean-Claude Juncker is well known for his views on keeping the “little people” in their place. When quizzed about the French Referendum on the ill-fated (but hastily resurrected) European Constition, he uttered this immortal response: “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
Well it was a “no” and they did continue. A little while later the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) was born. When asked about its possible influence on national sovereignty, he said this: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
As far as the European Constitution goes, ten nations planned to hold a referendum in 2005 on its adoption. However, following voters in France and the Netherlands rejecting the plan, six of the ten (including the UK) were abandoned. The EU “continued” nonetheless (as prophesied by Mr Juncker) and drafted the Lisbon Treaty (which involved, basically, crossing out the title “European Constitution” and substituting it with “Lisbon Treaty”). This time only Ireland (bound by its own constitution to do so) held a referendum (other governments, fearful of a repeat, made various excuses to explain why no plebiscite was necessary) and in 2008 Irish voters rejected the Treaty. By 2009 a few meaningless guarantees were woven in and Ireland finally succumbed, so the Treaty could be signed.
In 2015 A referendum in Greece was held on the bailout conditions for their debt crisis (which was largely caused by their adoption of the euro).Voters rejected those conditions by two to one. However, shortly afterwards the government accepted a bailout (under threat of bankruptcy) with even harsher conditions than the ones rejected by the voters.
The EU has a lengthy history of obliging its members to vote again on matters which, if rejected, would halt the “European Project”. My view is that is modern day tyranny. No substantial changes were secured by these rejections and the Project ploughed on regardless. Anyone believing that a vote to remain in the EU was a vote for the status quo wants their bumps felt. You don't have to raze villages to the ground to be tyrannical and the tyrannical EU does not do the “status quo”.
“JD, the 20% rate was set by HM Govt.”
Quite true, Zacs. But the imposition of VAT is requirement of our membership of the EU. The goods and services upon which it must be levied and the minimum rates to be charged are the subject of EU directives. The UK was compelled to replace Purchase Tax with VAT upon joining the EEC in 1973. As an important aside, the amount of VAT collected by an EU member is used as part of the formula to calculate the member's contribution to the EU budget. A nation cannot be in the EU and opt out of VAT.
You keep on asking (as if it matters) how the EU influences the daily life of people who oppose our membership. People on here keep on telling you. All you do is dismiss their reasons as trivialities. Many of them, taken alone, are trivialities. But taken together they form a regime which people see as interference by a foreign and unelected cabal of people of whom most have never heard, over whom they had no say in appointing to their powerful posts and whom they have no opportunity to dismiss. I keep telling you that it is that which people dislike about the EU. I’ve even said that I would not care if the EU did not effect my life but that I saw the referendum as a clear choice between governance by unelected foreign civil servants or UK politicians. You keep on saying that that doesn’t really matter either because UK politicians are just as distant and/or corrupt.
In short, you don’t understand the viewpoint of Leavers in much the same way as they don’t understand the viewpoint of Remainers. To continually ask the same questions, to be greeted with the same or similar replies and then either pick holes in those replies or rubbish them is utterly pointless.
Quite true, Zacs. But the imposition of VAT is requirement of our membership of the EU. The goods and services upon which it must be levied and the minimum rates to be charged are the subject of EU directives. The UK was compelled to replace Purchase Tax with VAT upon joining the EEC in 1973. As an important aside, the amount of VAT collected by an EU member is used as part of the formula to calculate the member's contribution to the EU budget. A nation cannot be in the EU and opt out of VAT.
You keep on asking (as if it matters) how the EU influences the daily life of people who oppose our membership. People on here keep on telling you. All you do is dismiss their reasons as trivialities. Many of them, taken alone, are trivialities. But taken together they form a regime which people see as interference by a foreign and unelected cabal of people of whom most have never heard, over whom they had no say in appointing to their powerful posts and whom they have no opportunity to dismiss. I keep telling you that it is that which people dislike about the EU. I’ve even said that I would not care if the EU did not effect my life but that I saw the referendum as a clear choice between governance by unelected foreign civil servants or UK politicians. You keep on saying that that doesn’t really matter either because UK politicians are just as distant and/or corrupt.
In short, you don’t understand the viewpoint of Leavers in much the same way as they don’t understand the viewpoint of Remainers. To continually ask the same questions, to be greeted with the same or similar replies and then either pick holes in those replies or rubbish them is utterly pointless.
That's it, people have given their reasons and they have been dismissed - it becomes boring to keep repeating them (although there are champions who keep on going)
I would like to advance the changes which I noticed first in France, but which were proposed to happen here. Despite fierce local opposition, local amenities such as Water were relocated to a larger administrative area, causing unemployment and inconvenience (no public transport to speak of so many people could not visit to sort out problems). There was then proposed a new European Region of S.W. France - huge in area - which further removed local accessibility/accountability. This turned out to be part of the E.U 'Regionalisation Plan' and a map was published in the local paper - to the horror of the people I knew. We were about to move back to the UK at the time and I felt relieved.
On visits to UK we had noticed signs in Devon which carried words to the effect that it was the EU designated S.W. Holiday Region. I did further research and discovered a map in Brussels (also a copy I found in the UK Parliament Library, but I can't remember how I found it now). The first thing that struck me was that Kent and the S.E. of England were included in the 'Trans-Manche' region, which included parts of Northern France and would have its administrative centre in Calais. Don't know about Remainers, but that is completely unacceptable to me.
Next thing I found was that my beloved Yorkshire would cease to exist. A large chunk back from the East coast would be included in the 'North Sea Region' - which included a very large part of Denmark. I could guess where the power-base would be.
I cannot think that Z-M, a proud Yorkshireman, would find this break-up of our ancient county and identity acceptable, so I assume he didn't know about it.
I call disposing of peoples' languages, loyalties and identities in favour of an imposed, beaurocratic, administrative simplification by one word 'Tyranny'.
I would like to advance the changes which I noticed first in France, but which were proposed to happen here. Despite fierce local opposition, local amenities such as Water were relocated to a larger administrative area, causing unemployment and inconvenience (no public transport to speak of so many people could not visit to sort out problems). There was then proposed a new European Region of S.W. France - huge in area - which further removed local accessibility/accountability. This turned out to be part of the E.U 'Regionalisation Plan' and a map was published in the local paper - to the horror of the people I knew. We were about to move back to the UK at the time and I felt relieved.
On visits to UK we had noticed signs in Devon which carried words to the effect that it was the EU designated S.W. Holiday Region. I did further research and discovered a map in Brussels (also a copy I found in the UK Parliament Library, but I can't remember how I found it now). The first thing that struck me was that Kent and the S.E. of England were included in the 'Trans-Manche' region, which included parts of Northern France and would have its administrative centre in Calais. Don't know about Remainers, but that is completely unacceptable to me.
Next thing I found was that my beloved Yorkshire would cease to exist. A large chunk back from the East coast would be included in the 'North Sea Region' - which included a very large part of Denmark. I could guess where the power-base would be.
I cannot think that Z-M, a proud Yorkshireman, would find this break-up of our ancient county and identity acceptable, so I assume he didn't know about it.
I call disposing of peoples' languages, loyalties and identities in favour of an imposed, beaurocratic, administrative simplification by one word 'Tyranny'.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank33 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
ChatterBank59 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.