A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
CyberRose said:
Disingenuous argument. Advantages to the UK of it's membership of the EU pretty much all stem from the EU's policy on "free movement of labour and capital".
Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released
- Thread starter gosub
- Start date
Disingenuous argument. Advantages to the UK of it's membership of the EU pretty much all stem from the EU's policy on "free movement of labour and capital".
CyberRose said:
I'm not capaigning against the EU. As a matter of fact, I've never even expressed opposition to it. But there should have been a referendum on the EU because it takes power away from the UK parliement with little hope of the country getting it back.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Technically you're wrong. The Constitution would have replaced all the previous Treaties with a single document, the Reform Treaty does just that, inserts a load of reforms into the existing treaties so we're still left with four treaties on European Union.Cadmus said:
It's a mute point. Labour promised a referendum on the Constitution. We're now having a reform treaty like we've had many times before with no referendum. No matter how similar the two documents are, they are not identical, so Labour has the "get out clause"
I still find it very angering that there has been no public debate over the merits of the Reform Treaty for the benefits of the UK, because instead, the eurosceptics and their allies in the right-wing media have instead chosen to concentrate on the irrelevant debate over whether or not we should have a referendum...
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Ok, whatever, my point still stands - the treaty is not the same as the constitution. Either way, the ONLY reason eurosceptics are calling for a referendum is because they can't think of any valid arguments against the treaty...it's much easier to play on people's fears and prejudices to get what you want than actually address the issueCadmus said:
CyberRose said:
If being in the EU is a benefit, it's your opinion. It might be mine. But we are supposed to be living in a free and democratic society. I could get together some rather dodgy people, take over this country and you could agree that everything I do, is a benefit, but would it make me right?
We could force everyone to marry their perfect partner, with a computer operated service, that would ensure the best genetic matches to ensure the children of tomorrow are superior. It would benefit the country, but would it be morally the right thing to do?
An empire benefited Britain. It was good for Britain. Was that right?
Where's the line drawn? When is it not OK? When you think it doesn't benefit the country?
CyberRose said:
How else then do we benefit?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I think you're stretching it a bit there!YoursTruely said:
The fact that there were no significant calls for referendums on our membership (or continued membership) of the UN or NATO negates, imo, any calls for a referendum on our membership of the EU (or for any reforms to the structures of the EU). If people want to play the democracy card, then they need to call for ALL decisions to be made by referendum, otherwise by singling out the EU, they appear nothing more than opportunist and hypocritical.
In fact, the amount of lies being spread by the eurosceptics about the UK losing its seat in the UN's Security Council shows just how highly they regard that particular international institution, and strangely enough the calls for a referendum on that issue seem none-existent.
So if the UN is seen as a benefit to the UK by the euroesceptics, and they do not call for a referendum to let the people decide whether or not our foreign policy should be dictated by that institution, then what exactly is their justification calling for a referendum over the EU?
Sounds to me like they are suggesting that if they consider something to be a benefit to the UK, there's no need for a referendum...
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well lets not forget that even if I agree with you that the free movement of goods and people is the only benefit of EU membership, that is one whole pillar out of the three (the other two being Justice and Home Affairs and Foreign and Security policy). So even if you are right, that is a hell of a lot of benefits right there.YoursTruely said:
However, like I said, I disagree because I see benefits to the UK in the other two pillars as well.
In JHA, we have increased police cooperation. Considering the rise in cross-border, serious, organised crime, cooperation between police forces is crucial and is extremely advantageous to have these regimes in place.
In Foreign and Security policy, the EU quite simply gives each of the individual states a bigger voice in the international arena. Look at the recent hostilities between the UK and Russia. Altho it didn't really achieve much, to have the EU come out and back the UK is extremely significant and would certainly make Russia think twice about inflaming things further.
You'll probably ask me eventually why we can't just enter into a trade negotiation like Norway does - well Norway pays approx £1bn for its membership in the EEA. The UK pays around £14bn for its membership in the EU (which includes the EEA). The UK receives a rebate of approx £4bn (now that it's been reduced by 20%) and also receives around £4.5bn in net receipts (spent on places like sunny South Yorkshire for example!). The average net contribution from now until 2013 is around £5bn.
So we pay £4bn more than Norway, but Norway has no say whatsoever in any rule changes to the EEA and it is legally bound by our decisions. It also receives nothing back from the budget (like we do for helping our poorer regions).
CyberRose said:
I've already explained why he EU is so special. It's the sheer amount of sovreignty which is handed over. It's nothing like the NATO or UN agreements.
I don't think there are too many Eurosceptics running around saying that we are going to lose our seat on the UN security council. There is however quite a few more, who believe that later on, if we keep going the way we are going towards a federal state, then yep, our seat in establishments in the UN could be in danger.
However, if you can cliassify such claims as "lies", then what do you think of the scaremongering shite pumped out by the other side, namely that "Europe would descend into war without the EU." ?
The UN is an institution which only a few small states are not a member of and the UK is right in the centre of it with a veto and no one member feels like that have given away any sovereignty to be a member of it.
I was questioning your logic. You was the one who implied that we did not need a referendum on something which you deem a benefit to the UK. I disagree strongly.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Hmmm...I think being obliged to go to war should a third country be attacked is a HUGE erosion of our sovereignty, don't you think?YoursTruely said:
Erm yep, all the eurosceptic groups claim the Treaty will lead to us losing our seat on the UN Security Council
Link
I think you're twisting things slightly. Sure europhiles claim that European integration has lead to an unprecedented period of peace in Europe, but I don't think any of them are claiming that war would break out if the EU ceased to exist...
Whereas in the EU, the UK is not right in the centre with a veto over the most contentious issues? Oh and the UN dictates every aspect of our foreign policy (when we chose not to ignore it!). Yet the EU has no say over individual member's foreign policy, because it is the most contentious policy area. So imo, you excuses about why we should not have a referendum over the UN but one for the EU is more evidence of your's and fellow eurosceptic's opportunism...
And I in turn was pointing out the hypocrisy of the eurosceptics for demanding a referendum over the EU, but not for organisations that dictate every aspect of our foreign policy or oblige us to go to war...
As an aside, which aspects of the Reform Treaty do you oppose and why? (This, after all, is the debate we should be having, rather than technicalities over when it is right to have a referendum. I also notice that eurosceptics seem to shy away from this particular debate to concentrate on their opportunist calls for a referendum...)
gosub
~#
That caseis still available, this site has strong views on over long cut and paste, if you were actually prepared to read and comprehend things before spouting it would reduce the likelyhood of an infringment. Also InternetLabourIcon there is quite a good column in today's Guardian you might want to read.
I can't tell what UKIP would say or do, they are nothing to do with me.
Do you have an opinion on the Kaczyński brothers struggle with the EU?
I can't tell what UKIP would say or do, they are nothing to do with me.
Do you have an opinion on the Kaczyński brothers struggle with the EU?
CyberRose said:
We've been signing defence treaties with other countries for centuries. It's an elected UK government which makes the decision. If you want a system where defence policy is changed outside the UK, then surely it should be put the UK electorate as a referendum.
Now you throw in the word "groups" with an article that quotes William Hague.
They say that the EU is needed for peace...it's obvious what they are implying.
If the UN dictates every aspect of our foreign policy then what do we need the EU for?
There is no oppotunism for me. I don't have to be a eurosceptic to believe that we should have a referndum. Where do you draw the line? What if Brown stood up tomorrow and said that he was commited to a European superstate, the rest Europe bricked it and agreed, sending us in to federal superstate?
I'm very happy with the way a lot of things have turned out. What I resent is the way that smaller states and even sometimes Britain are told that they will be worse of than they are now, if they don't agree to go further into Europe.
The most sickening bit of blackmail has been the "Britain will be punished trade wise if she pulls out of the EU."
Bollocks. People forget that we are the 4th largest economy in the world. If I was PM of this country and got wind of any threat, I would be smiling at my counterparts, telling them, that if they want to cut trade ties with the 4th largest economy in the world, they'll lose as well.
On case you have forgotten. We have a veto at the UN and when it comes to defence, we've been deciding what we sign up to and what we veto. Ironically, the EU is the biggest threat to all of that.....
For the fun of it. I'm going to say, that I support every single last word of it 200% and that it's the best thing since the Magna Carta.
But I still think that we should have a referendum on it.
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose said:
UKIP would have been in a stronger position because the Constitution would have become a much bigger election issue, instead of the muted debate it turned out to be, and Labour would I imagine have lost votes to the Lib Dems.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
(1) Making it harder to fight crimegosub said:
They make no reference to the fact that under the Treaty, the UK will not be participating in this and have negotiated an “opt out” meaning the UK will not be obliged by any policy decisions in this field
(2) Weakening our ability to say “no” to EU laws we don’t want
They make no reference to the fact that our voting strength in the Council will be increased by the Reform Treaty. They also fail to mention that the 60 policy areas the veto will be abolished are pretty insignificant. The only significant one being JHA – which the UK has obtained an “opt out”.
(3) Less control over asylum and migration
Oh look! Eurosceptics in anti-asylum seeker rant shocker! Tell me what exactly is wrong with giving asylum seekers and workers more rights? Since when did human rights become something to be opposed?! Besides, the “case” is out of date as it refers to the Constitution not to the Reform Treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been consigned to the annex of the Treaty and does not apply to the UK – now even if that were the only difference between the two documents it’s a pretty significant difference yes?
(4) More EU powers over our foreign policy and defence
Sure two EXISTING departments (and their powers/competencies) will be merged, but to suggest they are taking foreign policy away from the member states is just rubbish. Foreign policies have to be decided by unanimity by the national governments. Only then can the EU speak on our behalf. Failing that, each member state is free to pursue its own individual foreign policy. The article regurgitates the lies about the EU taking our seat at the UN – even if they wanted to they couldn’t because only states can sit on the Security Council (and why on Earth would they give up two seats for one seat?!). As for the Euro-Army, I’m not aware of anything in the Reform Treaty that will make any changes to ESDP. In fact, the Constitution only made moderate changes – simply reaffirming what had been agreed at Helsinki in 1999.
(5) New EU powers over our public services
Not sure how to answer this as it all relates to the Constitution…
(6) It doesn’t sort out the EU’s chronic problems: cost and waste continue
Cost: According to FCO figures, EU membership costs each person in the UK £50 but is worth £300 for everyone.
High prices: Giving more powers to the Parliament eh? Who would’ve thought that those democracy loving referendum seeking Europhobes would be complaining about increasing democracy in the EU?! LOL!
Fraud: Erm the DWP’s accounts have not been written off for 18 years. The reason the EU’s accounts have never been written off is because of the stringent rules they apply to themselves whereby if an individual department failed, the whole EU fails. If these rules were applied to the UK, we would NEVER have written our accounts off! (And we all know the biggest threat to fraud in the EU is UKIP MEPs!)
Hurting poor countries: Erm what has that got to do with the UK’s membership?
Waste: Aye, only the French want the Strasbourg seat, but that’s a piss poor reason for leaving the EU, pretty much like all the reasons from the Eurosceptics…
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose said:Oh yea and we all know why the Lib Dems called for a referendum on the EU, what with them being the most pro-EU party there is
What's your theory on the Lib Dem's motivation?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That makes no sense. Defence is the most important and most contentious policy there is, yet your happy for the UK to be obliged to going to war should a third country be attacked in a war we had nothing to do with, yet you demand a referendum for a treaty that will amend voting procedures in the EUYoursTruely said:
Open Europe, the Tories, iwantafukingreferendum, UKIP - all the Eurosceptic groups have made the same claim - that the EU will take away our UN Sec Coun seat - a complete load of bullshit designed to spread fear about the EU by lyingNow you throw in the word "groups" with an article that quotes William Hague.
More evidence of the opportunism of the Eurosceptics. It's pretty obvious they are referring to the past. Either way, it's an irrelevant argument, as even if that is what they were saying, it'd be pretty easy for both of us to argue for or against.
Erm because the EU affects domestic law. Do you even know what the EU is?
You're asking the wrong person!
Aye, shame we lost the Empire too but oh well, at least you got summat to cheer about still! Did you see the Football, Rugby and Cricket on saturday!?
Besides, I'm not sure who exactly is telling you we would be punished economically if we left. Surely we'd still be in the EEA like Norway and Liechtenstein? Besides, we might be 4th in the world now, but that's hardly a trend that would continue in the future is it?
Explain to me how exactly? Or are you just repeating the lies you've read in the Red Tops?
What else do you think we should have a referendum on? And what do you think we shouldn't have a referendum on?
gosub
~#
I got as far as (1) then I remembered that Bramshill (about 3 miles form my Mum's house) has been the main training centre and will be an important op's centre since the UK government first signed up for this in the Treaty of Nice and thought what's the point.
You could have argued that they are being slightly sneaky and are campaigning about stuff that has already been agreed. I certainly think you are cynical enough to (if this goes through) then argue that some of the proposals are so right they have been agreed twice. Neither time will there have been any public consultation in this country. Despite the last election being won by a party with the manifesto commitment of public consultation. That and the ideas having already been voted off the table by the French and Danish electorates.
You could have argued that they are being slightly sneaky and are campaigning about stuff that has already been agreed. I certainly think you are cynical enough to (if this goes through) then argue that some of the proposals are so right they have been agreed twice. Neither time will there have been any public consultation in this country. Despite the last election being won by a party with the manifesto commitment of public consultation. That and the ideas having already been voted off the table by the French and Danish electorates.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Do you honestly think the major concern of the British people when going to the polls is the European Union?! Come off it! Hardly anyone I know even knows what an MEP is, so how can you try and tell me that a great deal of the public actually care about the EU to the extent they know what it is? The only time people develop strong feelings about the EU is when there's an article in the Sun making some racist reference to World War II and how the EU is Hitler
gosub
~#
CyberRose said:
Those sensible chaps in BritaininEUrope spent quite a lot of time explaining how all the large multinationals would leave Britain if we didn't join the EUro, did those reckless scaremongering sceptics listen? No. How very awkward then that since the introduction of the EUro, Britain's economy has overtaken France.
E2A :
Wales played on SundayCyberRose said:That makes no sense. Defence is the most important and most contentious policy there is, yet your happy for the UK to be obliged to going to war should a third country be attacked in a war we had nothing to do with, yet you demand a referendum for a treaty that will amend voting procedures in the EU
OK. Let me explain it for the 3rd time. When we make a defence treaty with another country there is nothing in it that passes power over to another completly foreign body forever more armen..etc.
Noooooooooooo. Pack it in. You mean a faction of the tories. I don't think all of those groups would have said we would lose our seat as a direct result of the EU consititution.
*Besides* both the sceptics and the europhiles are guilty of scaremongoring *and* whatever either side say, it still doesn't negate the democratic need for a referundum.
Why?
But it isn't for both of us to decide though is it? I'm quite happy for the people to speak on the issue in the form of a referendum.
Erm because the EU affects domestic law. Do you even know what the EU is?
Yup. And domestic law is important. Domestic law takes into consideration local culture.
You're asking the wrong person!
Why am I asking the wrong person? Are you incapble of telling me what you think is an acceptable balance of power between London and Brussels? For someone so outspoken on the issue, you seem to be pretty ambigous on such an important part of the issue..IE where the axis of power should lie between London and Brussels. Most strange.
Shame we lost the empire? I was talking about the way things have turned out since we the inception of the Europea Union, not British history. I'm puzzled why you would bring up the British empire. Perhaps you like to potray that people have more hangups about Europe, to hide a load of hangups that you have about Britain?
Why not? Would you be gutted if we ended up being 3rd? If we continue being soft in the head and signing away without asking Europe, "Yeah but what's in it for us..." though gritted teeth and fist clenching, then no, we won't be the 4th largest economy in the world. We should take a leaf out of Frances book for negotiating. We walk in, we don't shake hands, we tell them to fuck off and we storm out of the meetings.
I *never* read the red tops, it most have been the late 80s the last time I even picked up a redtop. If we end up with a federal superstate our place on the UN security council *will* go South. Ask Japan and a few other countries who've been lobbying for a seat on the security council.
I've already answered that question.
I've already told you that I think we should have had a referendum on the EU and that we should have on the EU constitution.
Thing is, you've already admitted point blank that you won't answer the same question, because you can't even tell me what you think is an acceptable balance of power between London and Brussels.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
When the US was attacked on 9/11, it evoked article 5 of the NATO, obliging us to go to war because they were attacked.YoursTruely said:
But that faction of the Tories make up one group of many Eurosceptic groups - all of which have claimed the EU will steal our seat at the UN
I'll agree with that (altho unsurprisingly I say there are more lies spread about the negative aspects of the EU than positive...)
Not according to the way the UK has always implemented policies like this in the past...
Because Eurosceptics have a habit of avoiding debates over the pros and cons of the EU in order to concentrate on irrelevant details like you just did
Firstly, my quote had nothing to do with a referendum and secondly, if there is no referendum on the Reform Treaty, then the electorate can vote Labour out at the next election can't they? What's that? Nobody will give two shits about the lack of referendum at the next election and vote for Labour anyway?
Eh? You implied the EU was only concerned with foreign policy (hence you comments about the UN).
You're asking the wrong person because I am a huge supporter of the EU project and don't particularly see the problem with a federal Europe as long as what needs to stay local does stay local.
You're arguing from a right-wing perspective. I don't have any time for right-wing arguments against the EU as they seem to centre around the notion that being told what to do by foreigners is fundamentally a bad thing, but haven't quite worked out why that is. Perhaps it's because the EU is trying to finish off what Hitler started?!?!
Perhaps the most convincing anti-EU argument I ever heard!!!
Oh will it? Where did you get that from? And what on earth makes you think the EU would give up two voices for one? And what makes you think France or the UK would accept that? And how can an international organisation sit on the Sec Coun when the UN charter specifically states only countries can? It's a load of crap designed to scare people into being anti-EU like all the rest of the scaremongering is
I don't particularly think anything should be decided by a referendum. And sorry I didn't see where you wrote all the other policies you think we should have a referendum on (or was it just the EU?)
Here's a question for you: How has membership of the EU had a negative effect on your life, on the lives of people in the UK, and how has it had a positive effect...?
CyberRose said:
And?
No they said we would "lose" the seat on the UN and it's more to do with the very strong arguments being put together by other countries, namely Japan.
Because it's easier to talk about the negative aspects.
You're missing what the difference is. When we make a defence treaty with nato there are conditions that are met which would lead us to war. With the EU it's..."OK...run along.....you make the rules up...you know...any new legislation...you dream it up...you set the agenda....involve people that we don't even vote for if you wish"
Now if a British government wants to hand over it's job to Europe, it should at least hold a referendum on the subject, because this might come as a surprise to you, but many people simply don't want to vote Tory just to say no to all of that.
I haven't brought up any irrelevant details and please stop trying to link my actions to those of eurosceptics. You've done this at least twice now. I've benefited quite well from the Common Market / European Union over the years , but I can't be passionate because regardless of it's objectives, I don't like the way the EU is being built as an institution. They could be promising me everything that I want. I could easily be a bigger Euro fan than you, but hey if I'm left the impression that there is not enough accountability for when those promises aren't delivered, then it's all rather pointless and that's why the foundations and the EU constitution is important. Too important for our government (One I doubt you trust in the first place) to just rubber stamp without our consent.
Basically, if you ask both or national and EU representatives to knock up the rules, the foundations, they are going to load it all up so that it's they how have the power without the accountability. Referendums are all about the people telling the politicians and the lawyers to fuck off and to come back with a constitution that is.
If the UK government doesn't want to put a constitution to the people. Then it's shit. No one has to read a fucking word of it. It's shit. The only good constitution is one that most of us have voted for.
I refuse to waste my time reading something which I know is going to be s h i t. A constitution that is being put to the British people? Now that's a document worth reading!
There are no policitical parties claiming to reverse such a treaty, because it's not likely that they will be able to, or have the mandate to.
Face it. You're against a referendum, because people will vote no and you're ignorant of enough facts, to actually believe that everyone who voted no, is a eurosceptice, when there would be many Europhiles in that camp.
You brought up the UN first not me.
What needs to stay local?
You're simply wrong. I am not argueing from a right wing perspective and besides right wingers aren't constrained but such by any notion that "being told what to do by foreigners is fundamentally a bad thing".
I've rubbed shoulders with better europhiles than you and they'll agree with me, that just as a national government can become corrupt by it's own power, so can something much bigger.
The European Union has to involved it's citizens more. If she doesn't, her citizens will keep saying no to the project and won't have a say in that project.
The best advertisment for the EU is a referendum, because one day, the constitution will be wordered right and the people will say yes.
That's actually what happened a fisheries meeting involving the French. It's not about what nationality the people involved are. It's about the fact that people will look after their national interests. So you can't just blindly say to them, "yeah you sort it out". Things still turn nasty in Strasbourg and Brussels and the cocktails and the food starts flying. So sorry, no, we ain't ready for kisses and huggies yet.
What on Earth makes you think the rest of the planet (Including America which would love to kick France off the council) will put up with 2 representatives from 1 federal state?
Anything which hands over *LEGISLATIVE* powers to a foreign body. The UN doesn't count, because if we really don't want to play ball, we have the veto.
I think the European Union is the best thing sliced bread. I can't wait till we have a superstate. As it is right now, I dream of having a European passport that doesn't mention anything about the UK. All my dreams are blue and yellow. I'd love to work in the European parliement. I think it's super. Why I could post up what's so fucking great about the EU to cover the next 25 pages.
But I still think the British people should have a referendum so that we can pressurised into producing perfect legislation.
CyberRose said:
I feel the same way about the Scottish rag the "Daily Record". I found that I was a lot happier in life if I didn't read the paper. I suggest that you stay well away from The Sun and give people some credit. Also, you are forgetting that "No" to the constitution is different to "No" to the EU.
Similar threads
