Lettuce Lady's Lawyers Trying To...
News7 mins ago
Ukip Question
I have been under the impression that Nigel Farage’s aim is to bring us out of the European Union. Why then is he so pleased to have (as reported) 23 MEPs?
The European Union was formed after two world wars to bring the nations of Europe closer together, create prosperity and prevent further wars - and there hasn’t been another major European war for nearly 70 years. I’m all for member states making changes if they wish, but not for leaving the EU.
The European Union was formed after two world wars to bring the nations of Europe closer together, create prosperity and prevent further wars - and there hasn’t been another major European war for nearly 70 years. I’m all for member states making changes if they wish, but not for leaving the EU.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Coldicote. 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.
"The European Union was formed after two world wars to bring the nations of Europe closer together". Well that worked well then, in many countries large portions of the population of each disliking the EU with an intensity. and does anyone really think the EU has done anything to bring the citizens together more than if it didn't exist ? Or claim there would have been a major war after the lessons from the previous ones ? IMO they are very naïve if they do.
If Nigel has his folk in there that means fewer EU sycophants doing its bidding. And if it transpires the whole of the EU member states do similar all the faster it's demise. Or possibly an acceptance that it should be as the UK public were told at the start, an economic arrangement rather than a gradual takeover of sovereignty.
But this is all obvious surely ?
If Nigel has his folk in there that means fewer EU sycophants doing its bidding. And if it transpires the whole of the EU member states do similar all the faster it's demise. Or possibly an acceptance that it should be as the UK public were told at the start, an economic arrangement rather than a gradual takeover of sovereignty.
But this is all obvious surely ?
Kromovaracun
/// UKIP's MEPs, incidentally, very seldom turn up or vote in favour of
anything. ///
They are not alone, there are some in our own Parliament that don't turn up to vote.
*** The most shameful fact is that 10 of Scottish Labour’s 41 MPs at Westminster – 25% of them – did not vote to support their own party’s motion. ***
*** The former Labour, now Independent MP for Falkirk, Eric Joyce, also did not vote. ***
http://
/// UKIP's MEPs, incidentally, very seldom turn up or vote in favour of
anything. ///
They are not alone, there are some in our own Parliament that don't turn up to vote.
*** The most shameful fact is that 10 of Scottish Labour’s 41 MPs at Westminster – 25% of them – did not vote to support their own party’s motion. ***
*** The former Labour, now Independent MP for Falkirk, Eric Joyce, also did not vote. ***
http://
If you speak to your foreign friends dannyk13 I suspect they may tell you that in their country the EEC was known to be a step towards a complete union. At least that was what they tell me. It was here we were lied to when asked if we wanted to remain in an economic agreement we were never asked if we wanted to join.
Yes, there never has been an institution officially known as the "Common Market". The EEC (European Economic Community) was formed in 1957. This mentioned a "Common Market" (among other things) but if you read the Treaty of Rome (which formed the basis of the 1957 agreement) you will see that there was never any doubt that the ultimate aim was political union across Europe.
However, when Britain was given its own "in/out" referendum in 1975 (two years after we had joined) the government was a little sparing with the truth. In its pamphlet sent to every household to help them decide how to vote, among the concerns it addressed was this:
"Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels."
The pamphlet then want on to fail to directly answer that question but one of the things it did say was this:
"The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests."
Whilst that may have been true in 1975 it certainly is not now and for that very reason alone the UK electorate should have been asked for its permission before such a fundamental right was given away.
"The European Union was formed after two world wars to bring the nations of Europe closer together, create prosperity and prevent further wars"
I suppose one out of three main goals achieved in fifty-seven years is not bad. Of course it is highly unlikely that a major war would have erupted in Europe had the EU never been formed, but you never know. What is certain is that friction between some member states is now far greater since the introduction of the single currency (the EU's proudest achievement) saw half a dozen of its users slide into penury. I'm sure they were more than pleased to see unelected officials sent from Brussels to usurp the powers of their duly elected governments.
Member states will not be able to "make changes as they wish". It is a club of 28 diverse and disparate nations and they all have to agree to any major changes. Because they are so different there is not a cat in heel's chance of them agreeing to any meaningful changes and that is why Mr Cameron's promise to "renegotiate" the UK's relationship is so disingenuous. We're stuck with it the way it is and we're either in or we're out.
Mr Farage sees his party's recent success to be not the number of seats they have in the European Parliament (which has very little power). He sees the vote as a critical expression of the electorate's view on the EU. Not only in the UK, but elsewhere it is quite clear that huge numbers of people want to see radical change and they will not get that with any of the three (now possibly only two) main parties.
However, when Britain was given its own "in/out" referendum in 1975 (two years after we had joined) the government was a little sparing with the truth. In its pamphlet sent to every household to help them decide how to vote, among the concerns it addressed was this:
"Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels."
The pamphlet then want on to fail to directly answer that question but one of the things it did say was this:
"The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests."
Whilst that may have been true in 1975 it certainly is not now and for that very reason alone the UK electorate should have been asked for its permission before such a fundamental right was given away.
"The European Union was formed after two world wars to bring the nations of Europe closer together, create prosperity and prevent further wars"
I suppose one out of three main goals achieved in fifty-seven years is not bad. Of course it is highly unlikely that a major war would have erupted in Europe had the EU never been formed, but you never know. What is certain is that friction between some member states is now far greater since the introduction of the single currency (the EU's proudest achievement) saw half a dozen of its users slide into penury. I'm sure they were more than pleased to see unelected officials sent from Brussels to usurp the powers of their duly elected governments.
Member states will not be able to "make changes as they wish". It is a club of 28 diverse and disparate nations and they all have to agree to any major changes. Because they are so different there is not a cat in heel's chance of them agreeing to any meaningful changes and that is why Mr Cameron's promise to "renegotiate" the UK's relationship is so disingenuous. We're stuck with it the way it is and we're either in or we're out.
Mr Farage sees his party's recent success to be not the number of seats they have in the European Parliament (which has very little power). He sees the vote as a critical expression of the electorate's view on the EU. Not only in the UK, but elsewhere it is quite clear that huge numbers of people want to see radical change and they will not get that with any of the three (now possibly only two) main parties.
Not quite, modeller. Farage et al don't want to be MEPs so that they can affect decisions in Brussels - if they did, they'd tun up when votes were happening!
Rather, they have used the opportunity of the European elections to send a clear signal to the government that there is a huge desire from the populace for a referendum on EU membership. The fact that they have become representatives of an organisation that they would dearly love to leave is just an unfortunate side-effect.
Rather, they have used the opportunity of the European elections to send a clear signal to the government that there is a huge desire from the populace for a referendum on EU membership. The fact that they have become representatives of an organisation that they would dearly love to leave is just an unfortunate side-effect.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Should The Pasengers Also Sue....?
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
News15 mins ago
Is It True That 364 Mps Think That It...
News29 mins ago
The Traitors - Beware Spoilers
Film, Media & TV39 mins ago
