Gmarthews
You seem unable to accept that the world does not begin and end at the borders of the EU, so your argument falls apart when based on your claim that the EU protects us from corporatism, UNLESS you can offer evidence to support your claim that the EU protects workers from it in the face of an abundance of evidence that it does anything but. And I do think a British government, working in the interests of the people, should control our employment and trade laws, etc.
I couldn't help but notice that rather than accept that the European Directives have helped to save lives through guiding regulations in the UK, you decided to introduce another sceptical thread on a different subject but which happens to also be about trains (very clever!). This reluctance to accept even a minor positive point about the EU system does indeed label you as an out and out ANTI, and also puts you into the category of unreasonable and extremist. A reasonable person would have accepted the positive point but probably gone on to say that this did not mean that the EU system was good, just that the UK system would have let us down without it.
So a source who's a long way from the Tories, Brian Denney of Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution and Head of Communications for the RMT, says
This EU 'liberalisation' model has proved disastrous in many ways.
The privatisation of rail infrastructure maintenance directly led to the catastrophic deterioration of track causing the deaths of many passengers and rail workers. Private train operators' record profits are siphoned from public subsidy, there is a perpetual squeeze on rail workers' pay and ticket fares continue to rocket, making Britain's railways the most expensive in Europe.
Same link
... and you don't think it's relevant, and even insist that the EU has helped to save lives?! Whilst I'm quite happy to be thought of as an "
out and out anti", how does wanting to live in a democratically run country, with a government working for its people, put me in the "
unreasonable" and "
extremist" category?
Consequent elected governments have concluded that the EU is a good idea. They know, as you have also accepted, that they could get out if they wanted to, and so your problem is not that it is undemocratic, but that your representatives have all come to a different conclusion to you.
goneforlunch said:
... but you can't get away from the fact that past and present British politicians have done so without the informed consent of the people. How many times does this need saying - can’t you see how dishonest they have been in acting on a mandate they were never elected on? It might be that the voters would agree with what past and present governments want, but we should have an honest debate to find out. [Post # 179]
That we have never had an honest public debate is my main problem with membership. Wouldn't you agree that the past and present governments have deliberately deceived the public, and have been helped in this by the mainstream media? THEY don't want to get out because it suits THEM, but they refuse to say how it suits the PEOPLE, only that we should believe the benefits are self-evident. Well they aren't to anyone who looks for the details.
As for the French and Dutch votes against the Constitution, those votes were generally against unpopular governments, and the fact remains that any organisation needs to be set up well for it to work well, otherwise it will NOT work well.
As the French and Dutch governments signed the Constitution, it is reasonable to assume that this was an anti-government vote as well as an anti-Constitution vote. The Dutch may well have been against the Constitution because of dissatisfaction with the Euro after steep price rises, being the largest contributor per head to the EU, large scale immigration and the prospect of Turkey's accession. And the French, apart from losing respect for their own political classes seem to have been against it because they think its commercial policies are being built on British lines. I think losing respect for the political class is something we in Britain have in common with the French.
Now we have discussed many decent ways to reform it, but you aren't interested really, you just wish that everyone would agree with you and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit with your view (see above).
I'm not in favour of the politicians plans to reform it, and they are not interested in my views, and therefore discussion between you and I is merely hypothetical. And a very similar point was made by another poster, and answered, earlier in the thread.
goneforlunch said:
It sounds more like you are afraid that other EU citizens would out-vote those who agree with you.
Oh really? It seems plenty of EU citizens agreed with me on their referendums on the Constitution at least, and others have been denied referendums altogether. And I think a majority of Britsh citizens would agree with me if the government agreed to hold a free and fair referendum on the euro, the Constition, or even on leaving the EU altogether, which is why the government will never agree to hold these referendums. If they did and my side lost, I'd accept it, absolutely, no quibbling! Your side takes the opposite view. Who is the greater supporter of democracy? [Post # 74]
The reason that everyone is getting into a union is that they recognise that they are stronger TOGETHER.
No, that's the public view of europhile politicians with whom you happen to agree, and you are delusional if you think "
everyone" thinks that way. With its current policies, the EU is not stronger than the other trading blocs to which it is losing ground.
The Barroso comment was basically put up or shut up. If you have a good case to change European law then make it, persuade your trade partners. Seems fair enough if the Tories really feel that the Social Chapter is bad for Europe. But what they really want is to trade worse rights for workers in exchange for investment from big business into the UK. You doubt this? They ARE the Tories remember, and your spreading of fear about Europe is playing into their hands. They want us OUT of Europe because Europe is stopping them from doing this.
So you now accept that the EU is not a union of nations that can choose after all? In the case of the Social Chapter it is extremely unlikely that we would gain the required agreement as this would allow more "unfair" competition. And the Social Chapter affects almost every employer and is an often crippling small businesses, and this suits big business - less competition for them.
The Tories do NOT want us out of "Europe". Is that what you REALLY think? Your theory is not based on facts. Why would they not want an open public debate about membership, and why do they ridicule anyone who thinks we should leave if they want us out?
By the way the train story you gave is not that bad really. Do you REALLY think that 500 million people are going to accept the tripling of fares which has happened in the UK, just to get cleaner, safer trains. They're bound to do things different, learning from experience and more importantly having a decent debate between all parties involved. Like adults do.
Some national governments have so far rejected the EU's liberalisation plans. Sensibly, they have so far protected their own industries. Good for them, but it's certainly not the EU way of doing things. And for how much longer they can continue to do this is debateable. EU transport ministers (ie, national transport ministers) have agreed that member states should liberalise their railways by 2010. The directives along which this liberalisation will take place are the same as those under which railways have been liberalised in Britain, although interpretation in individual states might be different.
I'm pleased to see that you want an adult debate (although you did sort of slip up there with the NF comment) so let's hope we get one that engages the wider public.
Edits: to change tenses
. 
