President Blair

[-:Undertaker:-]

President Blair? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8152099.stm)


Tony Blair will be the UK's official candidate for EU president, Baroness Kinnock has apparently confirmed. The post will only be created if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all EU states - Ireland is to hold a second referendum in October. There has long been speculation that the former PM would go for the post but he has not confirmed he will do so. It is the first time a UK government minister has publicly announced Tony Blair is a candidate for the job. Previously, ministers have said it was premature to talk of supporting any particular candidate when the job itself did not exist.

'Strength of character'

But at a briefing in Strasbourg, Europe Minister Lady Kinnock said: "The UK government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for president of the Council [of EU governments]." Asked if it had been discussed with Mr Blair, currently a Middle East envoy, she said: "It is the government's position. I am sure they would not do that without asking him." Lady Kinnock went on to say Mr Blair had the "strength of character" and "status" to take on the job.Another great example of the link between the Labour Party and the European Union, also known as 'jobs for the boys'. Tony Blair helped the Kinnocks' get on to the European Union gravy train and now they are helping Tony Blair get on to it. Hopefully the governments of Europe will oppose this as they all opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq.


"Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies. In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty. He should be let nowhere near the job." - William Hague, former Conservative leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary
"He is intelligent, he is brave and he is a friend. We need him in Europe. How can we govern a continent of 450 million people if the President changes every six months and has to run his own country at the same time?" - President Nicholas SarkozyThe answer is Mr Sarkozy, no one has the right to govern all of Europe (especially when unelected) hence why two world wars were fought along with a cold war. The last person who came close to governing the whole of Europe was Adolf Hitler.

Thoughts? - I have noticed strangely though how Blairs reputation has had a comeback with someone as low as Brown, despite the fact he was the one who let Brown sell off pension schemes, let Brown spend all this countrys cash and he was the one who lied to us all about the invasion of Iraq which has cost over one million people their lives.

http://www.stopblair.eu/

Thread closed by invincible (Forum Moderator) to prevent further arguements.
I suggest people read this thread (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=5933731#post5933731) to assist them in preventing further arguements across this forum.

[Sammeth.]

Aww bless him, I hope he gets it.

[alexxxxx]

I hope he gets in when the lisbon treaty is passed in ireland with an overwhelming majority. ;)

[GommeInc]

I don't get why world leaders in Europe want him in, what exactly has he done? Oh well, I guess this can only be good. Why fight the EU when you can get someone to go in, beggar it up and destroy it internally by making invalid points and being a berk? :P

[LuketheDuke]

Sensational and ludicrous thread full of bias opinions and facts which have been twisted to support your anti-Labour agenda.

Can you please try and post neutrally to give people who do not know what this is about some sort of grounds on which they can gather an individual opinion?

From reading your post I know nothing about what the President of the EU would do, how he/she would be elected into such a position and for how long this person would be in office for. All I know is that you dont like Blair, Labour or the EU in which case write an article with that as the title, as it stands this is not an article on Current Affairs so much as your biased slant on what you dont like.

In which case start post something like this on the debating forum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its amazing how only one country is getting a vote on the Libson Treaty isn't it, but then again it only goes to support and prove what I have been saying all along and you actually cannot argue with it, they are not giving any referendums because it will lose across Europe. The point I made about the Kinnocks has been ignored, perhaps because they have proven yet again that Labour and the European Union are just the left wing ladder for the 'socialists' such as Neil Kinnock, who are on salaries of hundreds of thousands yet have the cheek to say the Conservatives are all rich s****.

As for biased slant, i'm giving my opinion on it and i'll continue to be biased towards my opinion just like the BBC and Guardian are biased towards Labour, yet are portrayed as the angels of the media. It is infact news though that the United Kingdom government appears to be backing Tony Blair for the role of EU President and i'm just giving my take, seeing as I was the one who was bothered to post this news and I have every right to.

I think the word 'President' gives you some clue as to what his role is to be, surely?

[Sammeth.]

Just cus it says president doesn't mean we should instantly know what his roles and powers are limited and not limited to. Like as president what can he and can't he do I think is what he meant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

President is usually the head of something, such as head of state which means Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union. They are trying to centralise the European Union at the moment so the European Union becomes more powerful, removing sovereign state independance even more than it has been eroded now.

[xxMATTGxx]

President is usually the head of something, such as head of state which means Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union. They are trying to centralise the European Union at the moment so the European Union becomes more powerful, removing sovereign state independance even more than it has been eroded now.

I wouldn't be surprised if we are called the "United States of Europe" sooner or later.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't be surprised if we are called the "United States of Europe" sooner or later.

At least you can see what it coming, that is the European Union aim and always has been, they are pushing for a European military and wish to centralise more and more, over 75% of our laws are made in Brussels at this moment in time, sooner or later Westminister won't even need to exist and then ends hundreds of years of democracy.

[LuketheDuke]

I think the word 'President' gives you some clue as to what his role is to be, surely?

No it doesnt actually, the President of the United States and the President of France have some completely different powers. Therefore I cannot assume what the President of the EU's power would be.

If you want to post some conspiracy theory that the EU is some sort of evil, socialist club for satan worshippers (i can be OTT too!) then go on the debating section and post whatever facts youve found and start a debate on it.

Your welcome to your opinions but your not entitled to post them as facts.

[Catzsy]

Oh that's great news! He would be brilliant. :D

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it doesnt actually, the President of the United States and the President of France have some completely different powers. Therefore I cannot assume what the President of the EU's power would be.

If you want to post some conspiracy theory that the EU is some sort of evil, socialist club for satan worshippers (i can be OTT too!) then go on the debating section and post whatever facts youve found and start a debate on it.

Your welcome to your opinions but your not entitled to post them as facts.

If you'd like me to post the hundreds of thousands of pages of exactly what the job would include then you have another thing coming, just like when we elect the Prime Minister we dont look through the thousands of pages which would be a indication of what powers the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has/does not have - then again at least we get to vote for the Prime Minister, well in most cases.

I have posted how the European Union is to the left of politics by giving a clear example of the Kinnocks, you however have chosen to ignore this.

I haven't made anything up about the job he is being offered and I gave my opinion and the news in question, so which part did I make up?

[ifuseekamy]

I've just never seen the point of the EU anyway without getting into how autocratic and socialist it is. They seem to run on the basis that we couldn't possibly coexist with other European countries if a union didn't exist... why aren't they enticing America to join and take on the euro too? Surely they won't be able to open trades and run a smooth economy unless they are one with Europe! Heaven forbid they're consuming asymmetrical vegetables.

Obviously they'll want Blair as he's the EU's biggest fanboy.

[alexxxxx]

Undertaker doesn't even understand what the EU does, nor what a free market is or how the Schengen area works, so I wouldn't bother trying to debate with him on this subject as he believes that Thatcher (the PM who raised unemployment to 3.6million and sold out much of our national services out to her rich mates) was the best PM ever.

It's not worth your time, he's already been brainwashed by the daily fail mail.

[LuketheDuke]

Ok my problem here is that you post saying Blair would have rule over Europe with some sort of never seen before unprecedented power.

This will be the first such role so who knows what this person will do or what powers he will be allowed to have? Youve jumped to conclusions totally in answering this question in a way which would suit your anti EU views so Id say thats making something up. We also all know what the PM does because we're familiar with the role so I think thats a poor counter argument.

As for your Kinnock argument well thats a total matter of opinion isnt it? Youve taken the fact he was a member of the Labour party and twisted it to mean that just because hes served as the Commisioner of the EU than this automatically means its a left of centre establishment. Other people who have served in the role have been right leaning politicians so I dont see where your points coming from. The role requires a good politician, not a politician of a certain ideology

You dont have to publish pages and pages of what a President would do but it wouldnt help to establish some facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

[Sammeth.]

President is usually the head of something, such as head of state which means Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union. They are trying to centralise the European Union at the moment so the European Union becomes more powerful, removing sovereign state independance even more than it has been eroded now.

Yeah I know what a president is, but that isn't remotely related to what I had said. Anyway, moved on now. But jeez.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've just never seen the point of the EU anyway without getting into how autocratic and socialist it is. They seem to run on the basis that we couldn't possibly coexist with other European countries if a union didn't exist... why aren't they enticing America to join and take on the euro too? Surely they won't be able to open trades and run a smooth economy unless they are one with Europe! Heaven forbid they're consuming asymmetrical vegetables.

Obviously they'll want Blair as he's the EU's biggest fanboy.

Oh indeed your one hundred and twenty percent correct, people such as alexxxxx and LukeTheDuke believe and tell us the world would come crumbling down if the European Union didn't exist, despite the fact Europe has governed itself for the past one thousand+ years without the European Union. They may make the point of the Daily Mail (which is all they can seem to say about me nowadays) but i'll just bring up the Guardian now, of which they all buy but the rest of the country does not, because I find it quite funny how the left-wing Guardian newspaper has to be subsidised because not enough people buy it anymore - I think that is telling us what people think of socialism in this country.


Undertaker doesn't even understand what the EU does, nor what a free market is or how the Schengen area works, so I wouldn't bother trying to debate with him on this subject as he believes that Thatcher (the PM who raised unemployment to 3.6million and sold out much of our national services out to her rich mates) was the best PM ever.

It's not worth your time, he's already been brainwashed by the daily fail mail.

I can't believe i'm hearing this rubbish about Thatcher yet again, is that why Tony Blair is after power in Europe and why he, Peter Mandelson and Neil Kinnock (all so called true Labour supporters/socialists) have cashed in on the European gravy train?

Thatcher wasn't the one who ran this country into the ground, she wasn't the one who set Russia and eastern europe back one hundred or so years, she wasn't the one who let millions starve in the 1970s and she wasnt the one who has imposed cameras all across this country and has stripped away civil rights - who did?, the left.

You can employ people based on debt as Labour and James Callaghan did which made this country bankrupt, but it never works and as shown in the USSR, PROC under Mao and North Korea - socialism failed and Thatcher and Reagan put it out of its slow and painful decline.


Ok my problem here is that you post saying Blair would have rule over Europe with some sort of never seen before unprecedented power.

This will be the first such role so who knows what this person will do or what powers he will be allowed to have? Youve jumped to conclusions totally in answering this question in a way which would suit your anti EU views so Id say thats making something up. We also all know what the PM does because we're familiar with the role so I think thats a poor counter argument.

As for your Kinnock argument well thats a total matter of opinion isnt it? Youve taken the fact he was a member of the Labour party and twisted it to mean that just because hes served as the Commisioner of the EU than this automatically means its a left of centre establishment. Other people who have served in the role have been right leaning politicians so I dont see where your points coming from. The role requires a good politician, not a politician of a certain ideology

You dont have to publish pages and pages of what a President would do but it wouldnt help to establish some facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

I never said he would ' rule over Europe with unprecedented power' - do not put words in my mouth.

[alexxxxx]

i can't believe you are linking to that website , that is left-wing and pro-eu. contradicts the 'no to european union' bit on your sig. infact, it sort of is against what you are all about. it doesn't want the UK to have these opt-outs, which 'the left' got us.

the torys left those without relevant skills to rot in decaying towns and villages without helping them find new employment or reskill them. they pulled the plug so fast that sparks came out of the socket. it's not even like the people WANTED the tories in, they got 43.5% of the popular vote when they were elected, yet you have the cheek to say that gordon brown is 'unlected.'

[ifuseekamy]

Blair will be a great president in the sense he's everything the EU wants - what would be the point in a president who opposes the EU? However, I am not a fan of the EU at all. They put pressure on countries to totally integrate by making mitigated threats suggesting that a nation would collapse economically and socially because the rest of Europe would cut all ties. Essentially the EU is the modern day Napoleon/Habsburg/Soviet Union/Third Reich , all of which were about centralising power in a European superstate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i can't believe you are linking to that website , that is left-wing and pro-eu. contradicts the 'no to european union' bit on your sig. infact, it sort of is against what you are all about. it doesn't want the UK to have these opt-outs, which 'the left' got us.

the torys left those without relevant skills to rot in decaying towns and villages without helping them find new employment or reskill them. they pulled the plug so fast that sparks came out of the socket. it's not even like the people WANTED the tories in, they got 43.5% of the popular vote when they were elected, yet you have the cheek to say that gordon brown is 'unlected.'

If its helping stop Tony Blair then good look to it, i'm against Blair and the European Union and the first step it to stop the Lisbon Treaty and Tony Blair, the second step is to withdraw.

Hang on, why is it that the right-wing papers in this country sell better than the left-wing papers?. Infact the Conservatives got more votes nationally in 1979 than Labour did in 1997, despite a higher population in 1997. As for the elections; Labour only got 43.2% of the vote apparently in the 1997 general election - that is how our electoral system works. People did want the tories in, because they were sick of black outs, trade unions in control of the government and the United Kingdom being named the 'sick man of Europe' - our country had to go to the IMF it was that bad, a country which defeated Hitler and which once had the largest Empire on Earth reduced to shame and defeat by our own politicians - Thatcher fixed that.


Blair will be a great president in the sense he's everything the EU wants - what would be the point in a president who opposes the EU? However, I am not a fan of the EU at all. They put pressure on countries to totally integrate by making mitigated threats suggesting that a nation would collapse economically and socially because the rest of Europe would cut all ties. Essentially the EU is the modern day Napoleon/Habsburg/Soviet Union/Third Reich , all of which were about centralising power in a European superstate.

The last person who nearly became the head of state for the whole of Europe was Adolf Hitler, now Tony Blair is going to get the role Hitler was after, and even then - Hitler was at least elected.

[ifuseekamy]

I guess if Hitler had known all he had to do was tell people the Third Reich was for the greater good of Europe he'd have had more success.

On a serious note, I don't see it as a case of right vs left wing which kind of strays from the argument. The EU is about authoritarian bureaucracy. The cons far, far outweigh any pros. The biggest seems to be the euro-- nice to know the Irish, Spanish and Greek economies are falling faster than ever due to having no control over them.
It's ironic that it is seen as left wing and thus libertarian, despite the fact it is about the removal of personal freedom with ID cards, internet/phonecall monitoring and surveillance as well as the financial strangling of farmers both within the EU and countries in Africa and Asia where the majority earn their living through agriculture, all because of the EU's tariffs and regulations.

[alexxxxx]

If its helping stop Tony Blair then good look to it, i'm against Blair and the European Union and the first step it to stop the Lisbon Treaty and Tony Blair, the second step is to withdraw.

Hang on, why is it that the right-wing papers in this country sell better than the left-wing papers?. Infact the Conservatives got more votes nationally in 1979 than Labour did in 1997, despite a higher population in 1997. As for the elections; Labour only got 43.2% of the vote apparently in the 1997 general election - that is how our electoral system works. People did want the tories in, because they were sick of black outs, trade unions in control of the government and the United Kingdom being named the 'sick man of Europe' - our country had to go to the IMF it was that bad, a country which defeated Hitler and which once had the largest Empire on Earth reduced to shame and defeat by our own politicians - Thatcher fixed that.


ahh yes, but in 1979, the liberal democrat party wasn't formed, so the votes were more polarised. ;) there were only 2million votes different in 1979, whilst in 1997, there were 4million votes difference.

i don't argue against that going to the IMF was bad, nor do I blind my eyes from seeing that there were problems. however, i would say that actually Britain's history is actually quite shameful (before WW2). Why is 'the empire' seen as a symbol of great power and how good we were when actually we were destroying different countries' cultues, land, crops taking their resources etc, ruling them, they had no say. Why is this something to be proud of. No doubt it has attributed to our success today but that doesn't make it right, not now and not then.



The last person who nearly became the head of state for the whole of Europe was Adolf Hitler, now Tony Blair is going to get the role Hitler was after, and even then - Hitler was at least elected.
So Tony's gonna send the Jews to the gas chambers and reserve the right to say who is british and who isn't by their skin colour. Sounds more like Nick Griffin is trying to take Hitler's role. The EU is democratic. If you try to educate yourself on it, maybe you'll understand.

Get a grip on life.

[Fehm]

My honest opinion is that for all british citizens, it could only mean good!

[Describe]

Aww bless him, I hope he gets it.

with a brick in the head..

[Monopoly]

i liked blair.
scottish parliament. :')

[ifuseekamy]

It's on a more political basis rather than Hitler's ridiculous personal beliefs. His plans for a European superstate and the EU are exactly the same, from having the same currency and a single bank to labour policies. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the idea of the EU was conceived in Germany during Hitler's reign.
They're undemocratic for a number of reasons, mainly because they have a minority support, which kinda defeats the point of democracy lol. Also they run technocratic regulations without the say so of the people that will be affected.

[Alkaz]

Dissolve the EU and have done with it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

ahh yes, but in 1979, the liberal democrat party wasn't formed, so the votes were more polarised. ;) there were only 2million votes different in 1979, whilst in 1997, there were 4million votes difference.

i don't argue against that going to the IMF was bad, nor do I blind my eyes from seeing that there were problems. however, i would say that actually Britain's history is actually quite shameful (before WW2). Why is 'the empire' seen as a symbol of great power and how good we were when actually we were destroying different countries' cultues, land, crops taking their resources etc, ruling them, they had no say. Why is this something to be proud of. No doubt it has attributed to our success today but that doesn't make it right, not now and not then.


So Tony's gonna send the Jews to the gas chambers and reserve the right to say who is british and who isn't by their skin colour. Sounds more like Nick Griffin is trying to take Hitler's role. The EU is democratic. If you try to educate yourself on it, maybe you'll understand.

Get a grip on life.

The Conservatives were democratically elected in both 1979 and their successive terms in office, to start questioning their election is hypocritical of you, as a European Union supporter as the European Union has not got the guts nor the support to hold a referendum/election over its future. The only people still against the reforms of Thatcher are 'socialists' (dwindling numbers, Labour has all since abandoned most of its socialism) & the subsidised Guardian newspaper which hardly anybody reads.

The British Empire was the best thing that occurred in the modern world; it civilised to a degree a vast majority of nations across the world, created nations which before didn't exist and spread wealth across the world - the British Empire started the industrial revolution and the medical science revolution, if the Empire was never to of existed then then world would be a very different place. I am proud of it, and its a shame you aren't, but then again the left have never been proud of the achievements of this country and would gladly hand over the keys to this country, just as they wanted to cuddle up close to the Soviet Union rather than the United States in the twentith century.

We did not exploit these countrys as you are making out, before we arrived these countrys had no idea of what iron ore was, they had no methods to cultivate crops like we did and they were basically the same as they were thousands of years ago, without us, the majority of these nations would not have populations like they do today, as a country would be unsustainable without the methods we introduced to them.

The political system, you know bloody well I mean that. I did not mention once the ethnic cleansing policy of the Third Reich did I? - no, so why even mention it?

I cannot understand how the European Union is democratic when public opinion appears to be against it across Europe, and the most important point which you and no one else has yet answered to my satisfaction; why will the European Union and the governments of Europe not give the people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or even the European Union itself?


Dissolve the EU and have done with it.

It will end eventually as it has no place in Europe, it was never chosen, just as the failed states of the Soviet Union ended as centralisation never worked and will never work, for some it seems, the ruling socialist elite - that message still hasn't sunk in.

[Ramones]

I haven't made anything up about the job he is being offered and I gave my opinion and the news in question, so which part did I make up?

So everyones pretty much arguing about your opinion on what you are assuming blairs powers are going to be. Sounds like a pretty pointless boring left v right debate current affairs thread to me :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

So everyones pretty much arguing about your opinion on what you are assuming blairs powers are going to be. Sounds like a pretty pointless boring left v right debate current affairs thread to me :rolleyes:

Well the fact remains I still haven't assumed what Tony Blairs powers would be in a European President role, whether hes ceremonial or has real power i'm opposed to it both ways.

[Alkaz]

Bring back Tony Blair as PM. Cant be doing much wrong to be the queens 2nd favourite PM.

[Jordy]

however, i would say that actually Britain's history is actually quite shameful (before WW2). Why is 'the empire' seen as a symbol of great power and how good we were when actually we were destroying different countries' cultues, land, crops taking their resources etc, ruling them, they had no say. Why is this something to be proud of. No doubt it has attributed to our success today but that doesn't make it right, not now and not then.It isn't right now, I think most people today condemn countries going around conquering others, hence why it no longer happens and there's an uproar when it's attempted. It's wrong to do it.

Back then? It was acceptable yes, if we didn't do it the French, Spanish or Portuguese would of done it instead, simple as. You simply can't apply the same level of 'Human Rights' to history which we take for granted today.

[Ramones]

Well the fact remains I still haven't assumed what Tony Blairs powers would be in a European President role, whether hes ceremonial or has real power i'm opposed to it both ways.





I think the word 'President' gives you some clue as to what his role is to be, surely?


President is usually the head of something, such as head of state which means Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union. They are trying to centralise the European Union at the moment so the European Union becomes more powerful, removing sovereign state independance even more than it has been eroded now.

You kinda did. And why would you be bothered if he has a ceremonial role :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is what a President is; a head of state/a body, I haven't assumed the roles of the President of the EU role at all. As for why I would be bothered, because I loathe the man, especially regrading the invasion of Iraq which he lied to this country and the world about, and because of that war over one million people have died and a country is now in tatters - not to mention the money he will be getting paid is basically coming from British taxpayers, eg; my mum and dad.

[Ramones]

President is usually the head of something, such as head of state which means Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union. They are trying to centralise the European Union at the moment so the European Union becomes more powerful, removing sovereign state independance even more than it has been eroded now.


That is what a President is; a head of state/a body, I haven't assumed the roles of the President of the EU role at all. As for why I would be bothered, because I loathe the man, especially regrading the invasion of Iraq which he lied to this country and the world about, and because of that war over one million people have died and a country is now in tatters - not to mention the money he will be getting paid is basically coming from British taxpayers, eg; my mum and dad.

'Tony Blair will have a powerful role within the European Union'

'I still haven't assumed what Tony Blairs powers would be in a European President role, whether hes ceremonial or has real power'

I think they're pretty contradicting.

I don't think you can assume Iraq would be so much better if we didn't join the war, but that's another debate.

And yeah, i'd be pretty worried about the 0.5p Tony will be taking out of your parents yearly salaries, Outrageous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed the role of President in something usually indicates a powerful role, hence why the Presidents/Prime Ministers of Europe have all commented on the issue. I do believe that Iraq was a better place before the war, Iraq was one of the most liberal middle eastern states you'd be suprised to hear.

It all adds up, so much for Tony being a socialist - shouldn't he be giving up the majority of his wages and not buying top notch houses?

[Ramones]

Indeed the role of President in something usually indicates a powerful role, hence why the Presidents/Prime Ministers of Europe have all commented on the issue. I do believe that Iraq was a better place before the war, Iraq was one of the most liberal middle eastern states you'd be suprised to hear.

It all adds up, so much for Tony being a socialist - shouldn't he be giving up the majority of his wages and not buying top notch houses?

Haha i think you should try and be a politician one day, you're pretty good at avoiding and bouncing back confronting statements. :P Although your last comment is pretty ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haha i think you should try and be a politician one day, you're pretty good at avoiding and bouncing back confronting statements. :P Although your last comment is pretty ridiculous.

I'll take it as a compliment, I do try and answer to best of my ability, although the last comment is rather true, Labour politicians constantly knock the Conservatives over wealth issues, yet they are just as bad.

You should always practise what you preach. :)

[Frodo13.]

It all adds up, so much for Tony being a socialist - shouldn't he be giving up the majority of his wages and not buying top notch houses?


He's not a socialist, he follows the ideology of democratic socialism and social democracy - both of which is entirely different to socialism, which infact, is better in explaining the regimes of the USSR and China.

[-:Undertaker:-]

He's not a socialist, he follows the ideology of democratic socialism and social democracy - both of which is entirely different to socialism, which infact, is better in explaining the regimes of the USSR and China.

If he follows that idealogy, then why has he not been calling for the United Kingdom to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or even calling on the heads of Europe to let their people decide?

You can call socialism all you want, its still the same failure it has always been and always will be. It is all about power to the state and not the people.

[alexxxxx]

i think he's trying to blur the difference between the state and the people, they shouldn't be different things in principal. The state should be completely representative of the people. unfortunately our draconian voting system means that we get 2 watered down parties begging for power, when really, the best method is for a number of parties who then create coalitions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i think he's trying to blur the difference between the state and the people, they shouldn't be different things in principal. The state should be completely representative of the people. unfortunately our draconian voting system means that we get 2 watered down parties begging for power, when really, the best method is for a number of parties who then create coalitions.

A too powerful state is socialism, the revolutions of the Russian Empire later the Soviet Union, North Korea and China all claim to of been for the people and by the people, when infact it was the small minority who took power or the idea of a socialist revolution was taken up by the poor, little did they know they would suffer more poverty by supporting these revolutions. As Margaret Thatcher said, when socialists cry power to the people, they really mean power to the state.

The problems of the state being too powerful were apparent in our own country the United Kingdom during the 1970s and is becoming more apparent now. While in the 1970s the problem was state control over industries which ment the whole economy was a quagmire and was just getting more and more stale as the weeks went by, today the problem is civil liberties and the government encroaching on them to an extent in which in some cases, given the world today and this nation being stable, are worse than the Soviet Union and Third Reich.

The state should be more representative of the people, hence why we need more referendums and voting reform so that UKIP and other parties get the seats in parliament they deserve.

[Niall!]

tl;dr

Here's how it is boys. The country is **** now, nothing will change it. Have your petty little arguement and I'll go back to enjoying my completely unaffected life.

[-:Undertaker:-]

tl;dr

Here's how it is boys. The country is **** now, nothing will change it. Have your petty little arguement and I'll go back to enjoying my completely unaffected life.

You are right really, maybe we should all take a leaf out of your book and start playing Pokemon again. :8

[alexxxxx]

A too powerful state is socialism, the revolutions of the Russian Empire later the Soviet Union, North Korea and China all claim to of been for the people and by the people, when infact it was the small minority who took power or the idea of a socialist revolution was taken up by the poor, little did they know they would suffer more poverty by supporting these revolutions. As Margaret Thatcher said, when socialists cry power to the people, they really mean power to the state.

You are so worried about socialism it's like your paranoid. Socialism isn't coming back in the form you think it is. People vote BNP not just because they are racist, but because they have some quite left wing policies. Obviously these would bankrupt the country but it shows the direction that some people would like it to take. I'd say there's a large number of people who favour re-nationalisation of some sectors, ie, gas, water, electricity and public transport as prices have hiked up since the tories started to sell them off. The public transport in my city is almost fully city-owned and it is affordable and value for money, but I see in the town next to me the opposite. It's expensive and there's a near-monopoly. People are fed up that power and gas companies are taking them for a ride in fake markets. People are genuinely worried about the NHS becoming part privatised and some of these schools are becoming privatised too. People prefer state-run monopolies to corporation-run monopolies because there is some accountability. Look at the state of our railways, we pay the most for them (in subsidies and tickets), yet they are some of the slowest, oldest and most inefficient in the EU. However, it's good to see that they are slowly upgrading the tracks, but suprise-suprise, only near london.



The problems of the state being too powerful were apparent in our own country the United Kingdom during the 1970s and is becoming more apparent now. While in the 1970s the problem was state control over industries which ment the whole economy was a quagmire and was just getting more and more stale as the weeks went by, today the problem is civil liberties and the government encroaching on them to an extent in which in some cases, given the world today and this nation being stable, are worse than the Soviet Union and Third Reich.

I agree that in the 70s that the state was obviously taking on too much in failing industries, however, the way the workers were treated was dreadful. Workers needed retraining and new opportunities, which didn't happen. I also agree that civil libs are going down the pan. How the government can say that ID cards will protect us from terrorism is stupid and how they can say that snooping on our emails and text messages will help them too. However, the only party who says they would deal with this issue is the LibDems, who are waning in support right now.


The state should be more representative of the people, hence why we need more referendums and voting reform so that UKIP and other parties get the seats in parliament they deserve.
Rederenda (?) are an awful way of passing laws as they can be swung on lies and biased media, nor are they legally binding and it relies on the public educating themselves on what they are voting for, which I can't say will happen, newspapers will do that for them, both swinging in the left and right way. It underminds parliament and doesn't represent the people. If PR was used instead of FPTP, it would be better for all parties involved.

[Niall!]

You are right really, maybe we should all take a leaf out of your book and start playing Pokemon again. :8

Hell yeah Pokemon party, what's your friend code?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are so worried about socialism it's like your paranoid. Socialism isn't coming back in the form you think it is. People vote BNP not just because they are racist, but because they have some quite left wing policies. Obviously these would bankrupt the country but it shows the direction that some people would like it to take. I'd say there's a large number of people who favour re-nationalisation of some sectors, ie, gas, water, electricity and public transport as prices have hiked up since the tories started to sell them off. The public transport in my city is almost fully city-owned and it is affordable and value for money, but I see in the town next to me the opposite. It's expensive and there's a near-monopoly. People are fed up that power and gas companies are taking them for a ride in fake markets. People are genuinely worried about the NHS becoming part privatised and some of these schools are becoming privatised too. People prefer state-run monopolies to corporation-run monopolies because there is some accountability. Look at the state of our railways, we pay the most for them (in subsidies and tickets), yet they are some of the slowest, oldest and most inefficient in the EU. However, it's good to see that they are slowly upgrading the tracks, but suprise-suprise, only near london.


I agree that in the 70s that the state was obviously taking on too much in failing industries, however, the way the workers were treated was dreadful. Workers needed retraining and new opportunities, which didn't happen. I also agree that civil libs are going down the pan. How the government can say that ID cards will protect us from terrorism is stupid and how they can say that snooping on our emails and text messages will help them too. However, the only party who says they would deal with this issue is the LibDems, who are waning in support right now.

Rederenda (?) are an awful way of passing laws as they can be swung on lies and biased media, nor are they legally binding and it relies on the public educating themselves on what they are voting for, which I can't say will happen, newspapers will do that for them, both swinging in the left and right way. It underminds parliament and doesn't represent the people. If PR was used instead of FPTP, it would be better for all parties involved.

The prices have only hiked up in the past decade or so because this government has not has the guts nor the balls to stand up to these companies, they have allowed mergers of these companies and foreign takeovers which has given these companies yet more power to push prices up. If they were re-nationalised it would start the same cycle off again which led us to the stage that was the 1970s and the winter of discontent, the government cannnot and should not manage these companies as proven time and time again, this government cannot even have its ministers hide top secret terrorist documents while walking around in Downing Street, let alone manage a sweet shop and a major company is out of the question. Indeed they may be the oldest in the European Union, but considering we pay one of the largest donations/tax to the European Union to pay for other countrys to have their roads/railways and so on built/fixed while our own infastructure is falling apart is yet another reason why the European Union is holding this country back.

The unions treated the workers badly, not the Conservative government. Unemployment is horrible and is horrible under any government, it was a horrible decision to have taken but it was vital. The unions bullied and intimidated those workers who refused to strike, with the famous phrase 'scab' used against them. As for civil liberties, unless Cameron is radical like Thatcher I don't think we will see a revolution in this issue, however under a Conservative government we will see a halt to this, which is better than the present issue. While the Liberal Democrats argue for this, they are also for higher taxation and government with sweeping powers which is not the way forward. This is another reason why I support UKIP more than the Conservatives, because the tories need to be radical otherwise their time in government will be a failure.

People buy media because they agree with it, simple as. If I have to buy a Guardian newspaper or some other left wing newspaper, i'm not suddenly going to change my political stance over an issue. That is egg on the face of the people of this country and is like saying lets keep Labour in office indefinetly because the right wing newspapers in the United Kingdom are the best sellers, therefore any election where Labour would lose would be biased because of the media. Parliament has underminded itself and a referendum would only increase peoples interest in politics, as for undermining parliament and politics, the Labour Party promised a referendum on EU reform yet has gone back on that promise - either we should have referendums on important issues such as the European Union or party manifestos should be made illegal to break once in office.


Hell yeah Pokemon party, what's your friend code?

Good, the Pokemon issue seems to of silenced you yet again. :)

[LuketheDuke]

at the end of the day you dont know what the Conservatives will do so dont say the tories will end this and that as its likely theyll flip flop on many issues like any government or executive when they win power.

the proof is in the pudding, not the recipe. and does anyone trust Cameron more than they would Gordy? I certainly dont.

[-:Undertaker:-]

at the end of the day you dont know what the Conservatives will do so dont say the tories will end this and that as its likely theyll flip flop on many issues like any government or executive when they win power.

the proof is in the pudding, not the recipe. and does anyone trust Cameron more than they would Gordy? I certainly dont.

I have always said I don't know what sort of Prime Minister David Cameron will be, by using past history and what Conservatism stands for I am make an educated guess what their term in office will be like, Labour have had their chance and they have failed, yet again and will leave office having piled up massive debts for the next government to sort out, just as they did in 1979.

I certainly do trust David Cameron more than the man who sold gold stocks when they were at a twenty five year low causing this country to lose billions upon billions.

[Frodo13.]

I certainly do trust David Cameron more than the man who sold gold stocks when they were at a twenty five year low causing this country to lose billions upon billions.

Yes, in a similar way that Labour had to clear up after the mess of Majors government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, in a similar way that Labour had to clear up after the mess of Majors government.

Labour did not clear any mess from Majors government, under Major pension funds were safe and Brown has raided all pension funds, infact in Liverpool some army veterans had a stall asking people to sign because the government has ruined their pension funds, I asked the man about it and he told me it was Brown who raided their funds.

Labour entered office with one of the best economic records left behind by any government, its widely acknowledged, hence why Labour have been able to afford (in short term) an extensive spending program.

[Frodo13.]

Labour did not clear any mess from Majors government, under Major pension funds were safe and Brown has raided all pension funds, infact in Liverpool some army veterans had a stall asking people to sign because the government has ruined their pension funds, I asked the man about it and he told me it was Brown who raided their funds.

Labour entered office with one of the best economic records left behind by any government, its widely acknowledged, hence why Labour have been able to afford (in short term) an extensive spending program.


Are you thick? Labour entered government at the tail end of recession, due to the poor care the economy got under Major. You've just lied to the entire forum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you thick? Labour entered government at the tail end of recession, due to the poor care the economy got under Major. You've just lied to the entire forum.

I not lied because unlike Labour the Conservatives have historically kept money aside and had smaller spending plans, that is one of the main attacks on the Conservatives that is used in political shows by Labour MPs. I hear this stated many times in programmes like Question Time and the Labour MPs never deny the fact that when Major left office Labour inherited one of the best economies any government had ever inherited.

As simple maths goes, if Labour did inherit a awful economy as you are putting it, with bad debts, then they wouldn't of been able to carry out their spending plans they have over the past decade.

Labour try to pass of the boom in the 2000's and late 1990's as their own, when it is not. It is all the child of the Thatcher government and the next boom will also be due to the Thatcher government. The mistake Lbaour has made, awful at that, is not keep cash for a rainy day, along with owning the banks yet not forcing the banks to lend out money to struggling business, while refusing to cut spending as debt spirals out of control.

[alexxxxx]

I not lied because unlike Labour the Conservatives have historically kept money aside and had smaller spending plans, that is one of the main attacks on the Conservatives that is used in political shows by Labour MPs. I hear this stated many times in programmes like Question Time and the Labour MPs never deny the fact that when Major left office Labour inherited one of the best economies any government had ever inherited.

As simple maths goes, if Labour did inherit a awful economy as you are putting it, with bad debts, then they wouldn't of been able to carry out their spending plans they have over the past decade.

Labour try to pass of the boom in the 2000's and late 1990's as their own, when it is not. It is all the child of the Thatcher government and the next boom will also be due to the Thatcher government. The mistake Lbaour has made, awful at that, is not keep cash for a rainy day, along with owning the banks yet not forcing the banks to lend out money to struggling business, while refusing to cut spending as debt spirals out of control.
You haven't a clue. Look at this article from the times (right wing paper):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5811186.ece

you'll find that until the downturn, overall, debt levels had fallen since the Major government.

and also:



The prices have only hiked up in the past decade or so because this government has not has the guts nor the balls to stand up to these companies, they have allowed mergers of these companies and foreign takeovers which has given these companies yet more power to push prices up. If they were re-nationalised it would start the same cycle off again which led us to the stage that was the 1970s and the winter of discontent, the government cannnot and should not manage these companies as proven time and time again, this government cannot even have its ministers hide top secret terrorist documents while walking around in Downing Street, let alone manage a sweet shop and a major company is out of the question. Indeed they may be the oldest in the European Union, but considering we pay one of the largest donations/tax to the European Union to pay for other countrys to have their roads/railways and so on built/fixed while our own infastructure is falling apart is yet another reason why the European Union is holding this country back.

Pribatisation just leads to governement-sponsered monopolies that instead of compete against each other just hike up prices. Instead of being accountable to the people they are just accountable to their shatre holders.

You contradict yourself so much. So say that we shouldn't fund the railways because not everyone uses them so why should they pay for them, yet you say that the EU is somehow at fault for our failing railway system... Surely you'd be of the opinion that it is up to private companies to sort it out? >_> Or is it just another dig at the EU? The EU doesn't hold us back at all. Infact, thanks to the EU Regional fund, my town has a new market square, art galleries and scientific research centre. If it was up to the tories, this probably wouldn't have happened at all.

[Janet Snakehole]

rofl the thought of president blair is crackin es up
just no.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You haven't a clue. Look at this article from the times (right wing paper):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5811186.ece

you'll find that until the downturn, overall, debt levels had fallen since the Major government.

and also:


Pribatisation just leads to governement-sponsered monopolies that instead of compete against each other just hike up prices. Instead of being accountable to the people they are just accountable to their shatre holders.

You contradict yourself so much. So say that we shouldn't fund the railways because not everyone uses them so why should they pay for them, yet you say that the EU is somehow at fault for our failing railway system... Surely you'd be of the opinion that it is up to private companies to sort it out? >_> Or is it just another dig at the EU? The EU doesn't hold us back at all. Infact, thanks to the EU Regional fund, my town has a new market square, art galleries and scientific research centre. If it was up to the tories, this probably wouldn't have happened at all.


The media, BBC included have all said that debt now is its worst since the levels obtained by World War II. The economics simply dont add up, Labour would simply not have been able to have had them spending programs they introduced when in 1997 if the economy was in a state, they simply would not. Whilst in the earlier years the Major government had severe economic problems, by the end of their term in office the economy was in very good shape which Labour took advantage of, embarking on a reckless spending spree which has left us like a sitting duck as the recession this time around hit us. Gordon Brown himself (oh so great economist) stated that he abolished boom and bust, how very wrong he was and how very stupid he was to of said that, boom and bust is needed for a capitalist economy to work but that still gives Labour no excuse for their lack of preparation. According to this website debt levels are now at 52.0% of GDP and that was in 2008, god knows what they are like now.

It has under this government, they allowed all these merges, they allowed these companies to dominate and control market prices. Who merged all the banks and created a superbank which could damage market competitivness? - Labour did.

You have it wrong, I was using it because you are pro-EU, so you complain about our railways faling apart yet you support the United Kingdom giving the European Union billions every year so they can repair/upgrade their infastructure? - that is contradictary. As I have said before, you say the European Union has given us all these projects, yet where is the sense in giving the EU say for example, 20 billion and only getting 10 billion back?; it - does - not - make - sense.


rofl the thought of president blair is crackin es up
just no.

Indeed, Tony Blairs ego has always been too big for him, next he'll be after Supreme ruler of the Universe and the sad thing is, this time we won't be able to stop him getting into this European Union post, despite the fact we will be paying his salary along with his nice fat pension.

[alexxxxx]

The media, BBC included have all said that debt now is its worst since the levels obtained by World War II. The economics simply dont add up, Labour would simply not have been able to have had them spending programs they introduced when in 1997 if the economy was in a state, they simply would not. Whilst in the earlier years the Major government had severe economic problems, by the end of their term in office the economy was in very good shape which Labour took advantage of, embarking on a reckless spending spree which has left us like a sitting duck as the recession this time around hit us. Gordon Brown himself (oh so great economist) stated that he abolished boom and bust, how very wrong he was and how very stupid he was to of said that, boom and bust is needed for a capitalist economy to work but that still gives Labour no excuse for their lack of preparation. According to this website debt levels are now at 52.0% of GDP and that was in 2008, god knows what they are like now.

It has under this government, they allowed all these merges, they allowed these companies to dominate and control market prices. Who merged all the banks and created a superbank which could damage market competitivness? - Labour did.

You have it wrong, I was using it because you are pro-EU, so you complain about our railways faling apart yet you support the United Kingdom giving the European Union billions every year so they can repair/upgrade their infastructure? - that is contradictary. As I have said before, you say the European Union has given us all these projects, yet where is the sense in giving the EU say for example, 20 billion and only getting 10 billion back?; it - does - not - make - sense.


Where on that page does it say debt levels are now 52%? You've just made that up! You ignore these facts and just come up with your own conclusions made from your own warped reality. I'm sure public debt is very high because of bank bailouts, but actually, if you see, our economy is holding up much better than other western economies. I can't actually find details on bank mergers, but because you've used it in an argument i'm sure you'd be willing to back that up, no?

In my opinion, the EU's reluctance to put money into our rail system could be because there aren't any public-run rail services. We ARE the European Union. We ARE the EU. It's the old nationalistic view of Europe. We net contribute unfortunately because our government won't get involved in the EU as much as they should, not enough public pressure to bring our contributions down or to fight for more funding of these projects. Our membership of the EU does make sense, come 20 years and the UK will just be a novelty as the USA, Brazil, China, India, Japan and the EU take place as being the big economic players.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Where on that page does it say debt levels are now 52%? You've just made that up! You ignore these facts and just come up with your own conclusions made from your own warped reality. I'm sure public debt is very high because of bank bailouts, but actually, if you see, our economy is holding up much better than other western economies. I can't actually find details on bank mergers, but because you've used it in an argument i'm sure you'd be willing to back that up, no?

In my opinion, the EU's reluctance to put money into our rail system could be because there aren't any public-run rail services. We ARE the European Union. We ARE the EU. It's the old nationalistic view of Europe. We net contribute unfortunately because our government won't get involved in the EU as much as they should, not enough public pressure to bring our contributions down or to fight for more funding of these projects. Our membership of the EU does make sense, come 20 years and the UK will just be a novelty as the USA, Brazil, China, India, Japan and the EU take place as being the big economic players.

Here we go; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8160614.stm

Government debt is the highest it has ever been since records began in 1974. What would you like me to prove, you should know Labour merged the banks and nationalised them some months ago, and the Conservatives are now willing to break these banks up when they gain office shortly.

Our government has the power to fight for funding, however it chose to give away the rebate Margaret Thatcher secured us and that tells us everything we need to know, this government and even Conservatives governments at times are under the thumb of the European Union.

There was never a nationalistic view of Europe and there still isn't, Europe in a continent and not a country and the closest it ever came to being a country was destroyed by the Allies when they bashed the Third Reich to back where it came from. You make it out that everyones dying to have this European Union superstate declared, well why will they not give us a referendum then?

In the 1980s many predicted that the fast growing economy of Japan would overtake that of the United States and Japan would become the new superpower of the world, that did not happen. Using tactics such as "we're going to be pushed out/crushed by the major powers" is absolute rubbish.

[Niall!]

Good, the Pokemon issue seems to of silenced you yet again. :)

Silenced me? About what? I don't give two ***** about politics, I only post what I think. If you think I'm ashamed of playing Pokemon, think again, **** is awesome.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Silenced me? About what? I don't give two ***** about politics, I only post what I think. If you think I'm ashamed of playing Pokemon, think again, **** is awesome.

You seem to think your in a position to have a go at people in this thread for talking and taking an interest in politics and the news, when you play Pokemon, a game which died about eight years ago and was designed for children aged around seven to ten.

Your just making a show of yourself anyway so by all means carry on, I have said all I need to say. :)

[Niall!]

You seem to think your in a position to have a go at people in this thread for talking and taking an interest in politics and the news, when you play Pokemon, a game which died about eight years ago and was designed for children aged around seven to ten.

Your just making a show of yourself anyway so by all means carry on, I have said all I need to say. :)

http://i26.tinypic.com/5pev76.jpg

Hurr durr I guess I should go play mature games for mature gamers, such as yourself.

Seriously, what does it matter I play a kids game. Plenty of people on this forum do it, people I know play it, so really "insulting" me by saying I have to play mature games now I'm an adult is stupid.

[Monopoly]

lol, can't talk about pkemon when you're a rare valuing conservative.

[-:Undertaker:-]

lol, can't talk about pkemon when you're a rare valuing conservative.

The difference is that I didn't post in a thread to annoy people/post in a thread I wasn't interested in, so your right I wouldn't be able to talk about being sad in a Pokemon thread either. As to your reply above, if he is going to insult me and others in this thread about discussing politics, I can use the resort about Pokemon because I am not going out of my way to look for trouble, whereas he is.

[Monopoly]

right. so insult him about posting in the thread he's not interested in, not about pokemon. ;s

[alexxxxx]

Here we go; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8160614.stm

Government debt is the highest it has ever been since records began in 1974. What would you like me to prove, you should know Labour merged the banks and nationalised them some months ago, and the Conservatives are now willing to break these banks up when they gain office shortly.


:eusa_clap Well done! Have a sticker! You managed to find some infomation for your argument. Yes, you are right, debt levels now are high, however, much of this money was borrowed for the takeover of banks. The only noteable bank that I think merged was Lloyds and Halifax. This was done so Halifax didn't fail. Once the economy picks up, as long as the tories aren't in power, we won't sell the banks off cheap, but at market value and hopefully pick up some profit. Britain has fared the economic climate pretty well compared to others (ie Spain) and we could be out of ressession at the end of this year. We're going to have to be thrifty over the next few years publically but that's how it goes.
Our government has the power to fight for funding, however it chose to give away the rebate Margaret Thatcher secured us and that tells us everything we need to know, this government and even Conservatives governments at times are under the thumb of the European Union.

There was never a nationalistic view of Europe and there still isn't, Europe in a continent and not a country and the closest it ever came to being a country was destroyed by the Allies when they bashed the Third Reich to back where it came from. You make it out that everyones dying to have this European Union superstate declared, well why will they not give us a referendum then?

The point I was meant to put across is that somehow some people feel like we're not part of the European Continent and that somehow we're not possible to call ourselves European. Why don't you stop asking me, who has no power or say this altogether and find out. Probably because there was a referendum to take us into the EC, then the Tories signed Masteright (sp) and then we've had elections come and gone, european and domestic and nothing's been done to get us out. Tories are pro-EU really, even though they sit in a eurosceptic section of the Parliament. Labour and LibDem are even more pro-EU. Mr Brown won't dissolve parliament until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in Ireland, which WILL happen. I've pretty much told you everything you need to know about the EU Parliament.



In the 1980s many predicted that the fast growing economy of Japan would overtake that of the United States and Japan would become the new superpower of the world, that did not happen. Using tactics such as "we're going to be pushed out/crushed by the major powers" is absolute rubbish.
The EU already IS the largest market in the world. We already are the largest economy in the world, and that won't be challenged by the USA or Japan. Japan ran into problems in the 90s because of deflation, they call this 'the lost decade.' In 30 years time, if we left the EU, which we won't the size of our economy would fall in relation to the rapid expansion overseas. It's a fact.

[StefanWolves]

undertake you are always looking for trouble, you're always trolling about stuff people dont give a **** about lol.

Edited by invincible (Forum Moderator): Please don't post to cause arguements

[alexxxxx]

the thing is, i don't know why i keep on responding, i just want him to feel like he's wrong.

[Hecktix]

the thing is, i don't know why i keep on responding, i just want him to feel like he's wrong.

He may be wrong in your opinion, infact I believe his opinion to be wrong too.

However, each to their own, everybody is entitled to their opinion & if people don't start realising that in this forum then something will have to be done.

Read this: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=5933731#post5933731