EU latest power grab at UN risks UK's permanent security council seat

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/244765/EU-move-risks-UK-s-seat-at-UN

EU MOVE RISKS UK’S SEAT AT UN


http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/244765_1.jpg

EU has seized the right to speak at the UN



THE EU has seized the right to speak at the United Nations on behalf of its 27 member states, prompting fears that Britain may eventually lose its seat altogether.

In the latest Brussels power grab the EU will be able to address UN meetings through its own officials, rather than the country holding its rotating presidency. The decision, which does not give the EU voting rights, comes after years of lobbying by the European bloc. Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, told the UN’s General Assembly they would now hear “a clearer voice” from the EU.

But the move has sparked fears that the UK will eventually lose its seat at the UN table. Ukip leader Nigel Farage said: “This is the next step along the road to Britain being deprived of its permanent seat and its voice at the UN Security Council. There can be no such thing as a ‘British Foreign Policy’ if there is an EU ‘common foreign and security policy’.”

Hmm yep there we go, another drip drip drip and its all going to go - and before anyone attempts to dismiss this as 'oh that'll never happen you are simply raving!' - the very same was said about the Euro and numerous other things which have now been lost by formerly sovereign states around Europe. It was afterall, only a few decades ago when we had control of our immigration policy before we lost it to the EU.

But this is what will happen and its a very clever drip by drip process, along with the ending of HM armed forces in due time and the end of the nation of the United Kingdom. I have numerous quotes from top figures in the commission including our former PM Edward Heath on the creation of a federal Europe if anybody has any doubts so I would beg you to do something before its too late.

It looks as though, yet again, Cast-iron Dave has simply melted away.

Thoughts?

[jam666]

I heard about this a few months ago and I am absolutely disgraced by this. OUT OF THE EU NOW!!! (I was proud voting for UKIP earlier today :p).. Nigel Farage for PM lmao :)

[Mathew]

That's actually disgusting to read. Am I just being ignorant and bias towards the whole situation, or is there any true benefits to being in the EU?

[Conservative,]

Vote UKIP and this won't happen.

OMG DAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME D:

Lol but seriously, this kind of **** needs to stop.

[GommeInc]

That's actually disgusting to read. Am I just being ignorant and bias towards the whole situation, or is there any true benefits to being in the EU?
Simple answer: there are no benefits of the EU. Free trade, the main benefit, does not exist in the European Union. A quick research into the matter and you would find that it is far from free trade. We should just pull out, the EU is a wasted organisation with no benefits and is only a place to dump money.

[Hecktix]

That's actually disgusting to read. Am I just being ignorant and bias towards the whole situation, or is there any true benefits to being in the EU?

I've been starting to wonder this myself now..


Simple answer: there are no benefits of the EU. Free trade, the main benefit, does not exist in the European Union. A quick research into the matter and you would find that it is far from free trade. We should just pull out, the EU is a wasted organisation with no benefits and is only a place to dump money.

There is a (loose) benefit that the current (and former) Government both cry in the sense of jobs, although I see no benefit to the UK itself shipping our citizens off to work in Europe, yeh sure great opportunity if people want to take it but it's no benefit to the country.

I thought back in the days when we refused to go to the Euro we may not get too involved in the EU and just sit on the outskirts, however sitting on the outskirts seem to be drifting further and further into the EU.

It makes me wonder why the Conservatives and Labour, who are both obviously aware of the public wish not to be too involved in the EU as they both talked about a referendum - why they didn't give this referendum and why they are so adamant in staying in the EU. There has to be some reason they won't leave it and there must be further reasons to why they won't reveal these reasons.

It seems to be an awful waste of money, however.

[GommeInc]

There is a (loose) benefit that the current (and former) Government both cry in the sense of jobs, although I see no benefit to the UK itself shipping our citizens off to work in Europe, yeh sure great opportunity if people want to take it but it's no benefit to the country.

I thought back in the days when we refused to go to the Euro we may not get too involved in the EU and just sit on the outskirts, however sitting on the outskirts seem to be drifting further and further into the EU.

It makes me wonder why the Conservatives and Labour, who are both obviously aware of the public wish not to be too involved in the EU as they both talked about a referendum - why they didn't give this referendum and why they are so adamant in staying in the EU. There has to be some reason they won't leave it and there must be further reasons to why they won't reveal these reasons.

It seems to be an awful waste of money, however.
Incredibly loose benefits :P I honestly cannot see how the Government can justify paying out x amount of billions to an organisation that doesn't give any perks or will do anything differently to what we can do now. The last I bothered reading up on the EU they help put money towards building and maintaining the transport system, which I am fairly certain we can do perfectly well on our own and for less than the odd billion we chuck at an organisation that doesn't even know how to handle money itself :P I mean, sure, they could give 20+ Billion Euros to Portugal and other hard done countries, but would it not be wiser to actually help these countries out rather than chuck money at the problem or zap money out of them in the first place? It's no wonder the Euro is hopeless. As far as I see it, the European Union and the Euro only exist to put countries in debt.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There has to be some reason they won't leave it and there must be further reasons to why they won't reveal these reasons.

Two simple reasons; high paid unelected jobs for when they have been booted out of/left office here, and secondly believing in a federal Europe.

[GommeInc]

Two simple reasons; high paid unelected jobs for when they have been booted out of/left office here, and secondly believing in a federal Europe.
I can't help but think there's a third option, and that's an unknown and unseen contract that the PM sees which tell them they cannot pull out without some sort of fee to handle the pulling out costs. I'd hate to assume both of your points are true, only an imbesile would want a unified, single entity of Europe when each nation has its own views, traditions, morals and societies.

[alexxxxx]

If people educated themselves about the EU instead of believing exactly what's written in the express/mail/telegraph they'd find there are hundreds of good reasons to be in the EU...

The french wouldn't allow themselves to lost their seat and everything said by Kathy Ashton has to be unanimously agreed on by every member state.

The key words in this stub of an article:

"The decision, which does not give the EU voting rights, comes after years of lobbying by the European bloc."

from what i can tell this seems like if the EU states agree, they can voice through EU officials rather than their own.

[jam666]

IKathy Ashton has to be unanimously agreed on by every member state.

All members had to agree on the lisbon treaty and they didn't but it was ratified anyway. What makes you think that they wont simply try and force this through just like all previous un-popular decisions that the EU has taken with the electorate?

[-:Undertaker:-]

If people educated themselves about the EU instead of believing exactly what's written in the express/mail/telegraph they'd find there are hundreds of good reasons to be in the EU...

Then why not have a big national debate on the topic and prove us all wrong, show us how great the EU is with these hundreds of great policies you do not mention. Afterall, the CAP is such a great success isn't it? the CFP another one. Oh and the Euro. The EU energy policy is another... the list of failure stretches onwards into the night.


The french wouldn't allow themselves to lost their seat and everything said by Kathy Ashton has to be unanimously agreed on by every member state.

But losing their currency and national vetoes on a number of areas!? hey, no problem don't worry your pretty little heads now!


The key words in this stub of an article:

"The decision, which does not give the EU voting rights, comes after years of lobbying by the European bloc."

from what i can tell this seems like if the EU states agree, they can voice through EU officials rather than their own.

This tactic doesn't wash anymore, you continue to leave out QMV and areas of power of which the Commission is solely responsible for now with national governments not being allowed to veto in certain areas, and its increasing all the time.

Oh and finally I have to get this off my chest, remember back last year when you said to me something along the lines of 'why don't you vouch for the Liberal Democrats and you'll then get your in-out referendum as is promised in the manifesto' - at the time I dismissed it saying how I don't believe a word they or the other two parties say especially on this topic.

Turns out I was spot on.

[alexxxxx]

Then why not have a big national debate on the topic and prove us all wrong, show us how great the EU is with these hundreds of great policies you do not mention. Afterall, the CAP is such a great success isn't it? the CFP another one. Oh and the Euro. The EU energy policy is another... the list of failure stretches onwards into the night.

Who exactly initiates a 'national debate' - i don't! You seem to debate it every day and I assume talk about it with like minded people like yourself on 'democracy forum' or whatever. The CAP and CFP are not perfect. The Euro is hardly a disaster, it is 10 years old now. The ERM before then survived for years and years also (not in our case however.) If you'd like to point to me a balanced article about the EU energy policy (preferably not from the mail or a poorly written telegraph column then that'd be great.

Lists of positives include strong economic growth (up until the recession) in the world's largest single market (for one), common (single) market, EU standard testing and standards allowing for better cross-border market participation, development funds targeting areas national governments forgot, co-ordinating cross-border strategies in terms of development, science funding, education, free(er) labour markets - the list goes on and on and on and on and on.



But losing their currency and national vetoes on a number of areas!? hey, no problem don't worry your pretty little heads now!

It was their decision! And where have they lost their national vetoes in the UN?



This tactic doesn't wash anymore, you continue to leave out QMV and areas of power of which the Commission is solely responsible for now with national governments not being allowed to veto in certain areas, and its increasing all the time.

QMV is used in the Council by members of the elected governments. In many areas unanimity is required, most importantly what comes out of Ashton's office. The Commission does not have the ability to pass laws, only draft. Their main job is to carry out the day-to-day running of the union (ie investigate countries, nations for breaking laws etc).


Oh and finally I have to get this off my chest, remember back last year when you said to me something along the lines of 'why don't you vouch for the Liberal Democrats and you'll then get your in-out referendum as is promised in the manifesto' - at the time I dismissed it saying how I don't believe a word they or the other two parties say especially on this topic.

Turns out I was spot on.

They promised and they didn't or couldn't deliver in the coalition agreement. If anything the conservatives are more to blame as they hold the majority of the coalition. What is interesting though is the disgusting behavior of the yes and no campaigns for the AV system. Especially with Blunkett coming out yesterday and saying they literally made up the cost of how much the change would make.

I'd dread to think of the misinformation pushed out by the yes and no campaigns to staying in..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Who exactly initiates a 'national debate' - i don't! You seem to debate it every day and I assume talk about it with like minded people like yourself on 'democracy forum' or whatever.

The reason why supporters of the EU such as yourself don't want a national debate and referendum on the issue is because you know you will be very likely to loose - the only thing you have are trendy words and fear such as 'jobs will be lost if we leave the EU', some of which you have mentioned below. Words such as 'development', 'positive co-operation' and so forth are used as a tactic when anyone with any kind of detatched intelligence knows its simply jargon.

If the EU is so beneficial, then lets have a referendum on it.


The CAP and CFP are not perfect.

They are much more than simply not perfect, they are a complete disaster.


The Euro is hardly a disaster, it is 10 years old now.

Not a disaster, are you aware of whats going on? a currency can only work with a fiscal union my friend.


The ERM before then survived for years and years also (not in our case however.)

The likes of you would have had us join it (as you did causing Black Wednesday) just as you would have had us surrender our currency and join the Euro, and judging by the naive response on the current situation concerning the Euro above you still would have us join it. The same can be said for the CAP and the CFP, failure after failure.


If you'd like to point to me a balanced article about the EU energy policy (preferably not from the mail or a poorly written telegraph column then that'd be great.

The fact that we are now committed to 15%/20% of our energy coming from renewables by 2020, something which cannot be done as the Dutch have shown us (who have not closed down a single coal or gas powerplant and now sell their subsidised wind energy to their neighbours).

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/2020hindsightPR.pdf

A fault also on our part as our politicians continue to follow its agenda.


Lists of positives include strong economic growth (up until the recession) in the world's largest single market (for one)

The economy of the EU has been terrible for years; unemployment in countries such as Spain has been terrible for decades even and the EU didn't improve this at all - infact for all the 'good' it did, it made it worse due to the fact that it heaped mounds of regulations upon these countries and poorer areas who already suffer from low investment.


common (single) market

Why is this 'good'? most of our business is internal, either way - being a member of the EU or not we would still be able to conduct this trade just without the membership fee and the prospect we face often which is being overruled on issues which are detrimental to the United Kingdom.


EU standard testing and standards allowing for better cross-border market participation

Yes, more red tape has been fantastic hasn't it? the standardisation of tractor seats, the banning of harmless herbal medicines, the measurement of fruit to the mm and taking stall owners to prison if they do not use the metric system.

Its all been just wonderful, the list of insane pieces of legislation from that place grows by the day.


development funds targeting areas national governments forgot

The Conservatives poured money into Liverpool in the 1980s whereas now the EU does it (albeit with our own money) - its just another part thats been taken over by EU competence, the only difference now is that we have to display their propaganda or face being fined millions and that the elected national government no longer has that decision within its power - that decison of how to spend the money of taxpayers is now with unelected politicians in Brussels.


co-ordinating cross-border strategies in terms of development

Excuse the jargon please, why not call it what it is "British taxpayers paying for motorways in Ireland, sewers in Budapest etc" - at least be honest about it if you agree with it, the redistribution of wealth.


science funding

That is an issue a national parliament (which can be removed) should hold sway over, again, not unelected commissioners in Brussels.


education

Distributing EU propaganda in schools by the commission? (of which I binned in my own school)


free(er) labour markets

Resulting in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from eastern Europe arriving in the UK who as of the 1st of May now have a greater extent of access to our benefits system.


- the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

Please don't I might end up cutting myself.


It was their decision! And where have they lost their national vetoes in the UN?

They haven't yet, they soon will do - just as with the ERM it led to the Euro.


QMV is used in the Council by members of the elected governments. In many areas unanimity is required, most importantly what comes out of Ashton's office. The Commission does not have the ability to pass laws, only draft. Their main job is to carry out the day-to-day running of the union (ie investigate countries, nations for breaking laws etc).

QMV means the UK can be outvoted on issues which are bad for the United Kingdom, anyone with a sensible grasp of common sense would see this as unacceptable when other, smaller countries do not have to do the same thing.

Now as for the Commission, who elected them to draft these laws? nobody did. They do not have a mandate, regulations I know can simply be implemented (of which the vast majority now are) whereas directives, the lesser important issues are usually sent to the EU 'parliament' - another place where the UK can be outvoted against its national interests.


They promised and they didn't or couldn't deliver in the coalition agreement. If anything the conservatives are more to blame as they hold the majority of the coalition. What is interesting though is the disgusting behavior of the yes and no campaigns for the AV system. Especially with Blunkett coming out yesterday and saying they literally made up the cost of how much the change would make.

..and broken about every other promise, sorry but that doesn't wash with this 'oh but its the coalition agreement' - it was simply a policy which was designed to capture eurosceptic votes, nothing more and nothing less. Both of them are fully committed to it and would certainly never consider giving the people a say in a national referendum.

I knew there was no chance in hell of a referendum and I was proved right.


I'd dread to think of the misinformation pushed out by the yes and no campaigns to staying in..

Lets just scrap elections then? you've argued in the past on many fronts concerning this, first it was 'we dont govern by referendum' - which we often do, then it was 'the people are too stupid to vote on the treaty' - why not just advocate no elections?

[alexxxxx]

The reason why supporters of the EU such as yourself don't want a national debate and referendum on the issue is because you know you will be very likely to loose - the only thing you have are trendy words and fear such as 'jobs will be lost if we leave the EU', some of which you have mentioned below. Words such as 'development', 'positive co-operation' and so forth are used as a tactic when anyone with any kind of detatched intelligence knows its simply jargon.

If the EU is so beneficial, then lets have a referendum on it.

If push came to shove, i think that the british population would vote to stay in.. just.



Not a disaster, are you aware of whats going on? a currency can only work with a fiscal union my friend.

The Euro has a long, long way to go before breaking up.



The likes of you would have had us join it (as you did causing Black Wednesday) just as you would have had us surrender our currency and join the Euro, and judging by the naive response on the current situation concerning the Euro above you still would have us join it. The same can be said for the CAP and the CFP, failure after failure.

I have never actually said I think Britain should be in the Euro, as I don't think our economies are all in line enough for it to work. There are issues with the Euro, but they will be sorted out.



The fact that we are now committed to 15%/20% of our energy coming from renewables by 2020, something which cannot be done as the Dutch have shown us (who have not closed down a single coal or gas powerplant and now sell their subsidised wind energy to their neighbours).

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/2020hindsightPR.pdf

A fault also on our part as our politicians continue to follow its agenda.


Renewable energy is in fact a good thing (in my opinion) as economically, it seems wasteful (especially as most have to subsidised), but as fossil fuels become more and more expensive, alternative, more efficient and more secure methods of energy generation will become economically viable. This will lead to a smoother price fluctuations than are more likely with non-renewables. In the future, as technology improves and oil/coal rises, there will be profits and more private investment. In fact there is nothing to disagree with in this report, yes the UK might not need to spend this money to reach its carbon target, however, the benefits of renewable resources which do not concern the environment are good enough to take without considering carbon targets. From what i've learned at University, there is very little chance that we can change the direction of climate change (if, in fact it is happening at all - based on the model we've been taught), but that doesn't mean that renewables are bad.



The economy of the EU has been terrible for years; unemployment in countries such as Spain has been terrible for decades even and the EU didn't improve this at all - infact for all the 'good' it did, it made it worse due to the fact that it heaped mounds of regulations upon these countries and poorer areas who already suffer from low investment.

True, Spain and parts of France have been terrible, but they had infact been improving (apart from Portugal). What the EU has done has funneled funds into areas where money for investment was required (Liverpool included).



Why is this 'good'? most of our business is internal, either way - being a member of the EU or not we would still be able to conduct this trade just without the membership fee and the prospect we face often which is being overruled on issues which are detrimental to the United Kingdom.

Most business everywhere in the world is internal. Businesses trade with those closest, yes. But not all business does. If you don't see the benefits in a common market then i'm surprised.



Yes, more red tape has been fantastic hasn't it? the standardisation of tractor seats, the banning of harmless herbal medicines, the measurement of fruit to the mm and taking stall owners to prison if they do not use the metric system.

The standardization of cement, steel production, building codes, concrete, plastics, glass and timbers make trading far more easy. It allows an engineering firm in London to build in Greece with materials from Sweden and Germany done by someone who was trained in Ireland a lot more simple! Stall owners should be made to sell in the metric system. I have never learned imperial, nor have my parents, i have never been taught to convert between the two either. Companies and stall owners should not be allowed to exploit me as a customer and sell me drinks/fruit etc without me understanding what i'm buying.



Its all been just wonderful, the list of insane pieces of legislation from that place grows by the day.

And the list of insane legislation from the UK grows everyday, a long with the much larger list of important and sensible.



The Conservatives poured money into Liverpool in the 1980s whereas now the EU does it (albeit with our own money) - its just another part thats been taken over by EU competence, the only difference now is that we have to display their propaganda or face being fined millions and that the elected national government no longer has that decision within its power - that decison of how to spend the money of taxpayers is now with unelected politicians in Brussels.

It's not propaganda is it really? Anyone with a brain cell realises that EU money comes from the UK. Best to see where money is being spent by different agencies. Besides EU investment requires the other 50% to be funded by other sources.



Excuse the jargon please, why not call it what it is "British taxpayers paying for motorways in Ireland, sewers in Budapest etc" - at least be honest about it if you agree with it, the redistribution of wealth.

No that's not actually what I meant at all.



That is an issue a national parliament (which can be removed) should hold sway over, again, not unelected commissioners in Brussels.

Why should british waste money on science projects that are being undertaken in the Netherlands?



Distributing EU propaganda in schools by the commission? (of which I binned in my own school)

Nope, Erasmus schemes and laws allowing UK students to study abroad without paying international fees and british universities being able to accept bright students from around the EU. And you sound like a tough guy, i wouldn't want to mess with you.


Resulting in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from eastern Europe arriving in the UK who as of the 1st of May now have a greater extent of access to our benefits system.

Pay in the system, you take out the system.



They haven't yet, they soon will do - just as with the ERM it led to the Euro.

A bit of a presumption. Much like the presumption that the lisbon treaty would make a dictator out of van rompuy.


QMV means the UK can be outvoted on issues which are bad for the United Kingdom, anyone with a sensible grasp of common sense would see this as unacceptable when other, smaller countries do not have to do the same thing.

That is the case, but as the EU is larger now, it is harder and harder to pass laws that benefit the majority of member states. You take the bad with the good, it's the same with anything.


Now as for the Commission, who elected them to draft these laws? nobody did. They do not have a mandate, regulations I know can simply be implemented (of which the vast majority now are) whereas directives, the lesser important issues are usually sent to the EU 'parliament' - another place where the UK can be outvoted against its national interests.

You see this is the one of the only (in my opinion) valid reason that I think you can be against the commission, as they have the monopoly over drafting regulation. That is supposedly due to tendancy for the parliament to want to take positions on things that do not fall under the EU mandate. Regulations in the UK can be implemented by the dictators in the government departments. MPs don't vote on building codes. This is no different to government departments. Don't forget the council of ministers too.



..and broken about every other promise, sorry but that doesn't wash with this 'oh but its the coalition agreement' - it was simply a policy which was designed to capture eurosceptic votes, nothing more and nothing less. Both of them are fully committed to it and would certainly never consider giving the people a say in a national referendum.

Alright Dan, you've convinced me - i'm voting UKIP. In all seriousness, I don't support any political party as none of them are centrist enough for me. I did support the Lib-Dems but unfortunately their performance in the coalition is too disappointing for me to vote for them until there is a large change of leadership.


I knew there was no chance in hell of a referendum and I was proved right.

Lets just scrap elections then? you've argued in the past on many fronts concerning this, first it was 'we dont govern by referendum' - which we often do, then it was 'the people are too stupid to vote on the treaty' - why not just advocate no elections?

I know loads of people who have voted in the AV election without even understanding what is put in front of them, let alone people who quote to me the £250million figure of how much it costs. I'd support an EU referendum if there was a serious push for one by MPs and the but I think it's a terrible idea in practice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If push came to shove, i think that the british population would vote to stay in.. just.

If that occurs then fine, however it must be fair and I would like you to tell the truth - the truth that this is intended to end the United Kingdom and complete the aims of what Monnet, Heath, MacMillan, Van Rompuy, Delors all want which is a federal Europe.

If it is continuted by stealth then when the time comes and people finally realise what has happened, the results will not be pretty to see.


The Euro has a long, long way to go before breaking up.

Oh yes I quite agree, the dreams and egos of those pushing the project come before the people.


I have never actually said I think Britain should be in the Euro, as I don't think our economies are all in line enough for it to work. There are issues with the Euro, but they will be sorted out.

By fiscal union? thats the only way it can be sorted out.

What mandate will the commission have for fiscal union? they are already pushing for it, they now 'overlook' our budget and its powers will only continue to increase on this and many others topics.


Renewable energy is in fact a good thing (in my opinion) as economically, it seems wasteful (especially as most have to subsidised), but as fossil fuels become more and more expensive, alternative, more efficient and more secure methods of energy generation will become economically viable. This will lead to a smoother price fluctuations than are more likely with non-renewables. In the future, as technology improves and oil/coal rises, there will be profits and more private investment. In fact there is nothing to disagree with in this report, yes the UK might not need to spend this money to reach its carbon target, however, the benefits of renewable resources which do not concern the environment are good enough to take without considering carbon targets. From what i've learned at University, there is very little chance that we can change the direction of climate change (if, in fact it is happening at all - based on the model we've been taught), but that doesn't mean that renewables are bad.

Fossil fuels are cheap in reality, it is only tax which makes them so expensive both for consumers. Now as for green jobs, I cannot believe you have just said that - green jobs are government subsidised henceforth they make a loss and are a drain on the productive parts of the economy (the real economy) because they have to be paid for out of tax.

For every green job created in Scotland, 4 jobs are lost in the real economy. (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564579/201103011820/How-Green-Is-Your-Lost-Job-.aspx)

It is nothing but economics of the mad house, imposed on us not by only incompetent politicians but also by the European Union .


True, Spain and parts of France have been terrible, but they had infact been improving (apart from Portugal). What the EU has done has funneled funds into areas where money for investment was required (Liverpool included).

Which is, again, wrong because the British government has now lost control over money which belongs to its own taxpayers. There are various examples of this money being wasted on dance schemes and so forth, while the horrid blue flag is stuck all over the place on billboards. The lovely anglican cathedral in Liverpool is an example of this, blue flags plastered all over the inside - as though we are supposed to be thankful for the EU when in reality it is our own money which is being spent.

The signs should really say 'This project was funded by the British and German taxpayers'.


Most business everywhere in the world is internal. Businesses trade with those closest, yes. But not all business does. If you don't see the benefits in a common market then i'm surprised

Because government doesn't need to become involved like the EU does. I am all for free trade, and I mean proper free trade. Free trade means that traders will be able to trade with any part of the world (such as the Commonwealth of which we do not have a trade deficit with unlike the European Union). The EU, with its amass of regulations, rules and tariffs based on politics only serves to hurt trade. There is nothing free about the common market, nor is it needed.


The standardization of cement, steel production, building codes, concrete, plastics, glass and timbers make trading far more easy. It allows an engineering firm in London to build in Greece with materials from Sweden and Germany done by someone who was trained in Ireland a lot more simple! Stall owners should be made to sell in the metric system. I have never learned imperial, nor have my parents, i have never been taught to convert between the two either. Companies and stall owners should not be allowed to exploit me as a customer and sell me drinks/fruit etc without me understanding what i'm buying.

They are not exploiting you - they are using the method of measurement (and the far better one I might add which is human rather than technical which is explained below) that is the measurement of this country and which people prefer to use as in the case with Steve Thoburn (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=k1jFTe-VAYuWhQekloj-Aw&ved=0CBsQvwUoAQ&q=steve+thoburn&spell=1&fp=bfdda58ca92a9720). Now as the attitude you have on this, it reeks of authoritianism which for a supposed 'Liberal' 'Democrat' isn't suprising. I remember the burka ban, you said it was no job of government to tell people what to wear - but is the job of government in your eyes for them to force people to sell their fruit and meat in an alien measurement system along with telling pub owners that people cannot light up on their premises. Double standards will not do.

Do you ever hear for example, of a book saying 'he looked up at the daunting cliff which stood at 270 metres' - it does not sound right. There are more examples of this which are better than I can word it, when it should be 'he looked up at the cliff which stood 900 foot tall'.


And the list of insane legislation from the UK grows everyday, a long with the much larger list of important and sensible.

Indeed it does, but in Brussels they are much better at it. Afterall when you have a powerless and useless supposed parliament sitting around all day, thats what they end up doing. Legislating for legislatives sake.

How is it right that the elected parliament cannot remove these regulations?


It's not propaganda is it really? Anyone with a brain cell realises that EU money comes from the UK. Best to see where money is being spent by different agencies. Besides EU investment requires the other 50% to be funded by other sources.

Yes it is, its an area which the EU does not need to become involved with and only has done because it views it as a unique chance to spread propaganda about itself and promote itself - the allocation of regeneration money does not need to be allocated by the European Union which is only supposed to manage the common market, something which, again, shows what the true aim of the project is.


No that's not actually what I meant at all.

You do mean that hence why you haven't stated what you 'really meant'.


Why should british waste money on science projects that are being undertaken in the Netherlands?

Because competition drives progress and science, as it has done since time began.


Nope, Erasmus schemes and laws allowing UK students to study abroad without paying international fees and british universities being able to accept bright students from around the EU. And you sound like a tough guy, i wouldn't want to mess with you.

Something which again can be done on a national level.

And hey, i'm just being fair - imagine your horror if we started circulating solely anti-EU material in schools or conservative minded views on topics such as abortion, sex, marriage - you would be outraged.


Pay in the system, you take out the system.

Of which many don't, and besides - the system is being overwhelmed, it cannot cope with this number of people using it especially in the south. But as usual, don't let that get in the way of anything.


A bit of a presumption. Much like the presumption that the lisbon treaty would make a dictator out of van rompuy.

Call him what you like - he is not elected and has an agenda which he now has the tools to push for. The Lisbon Treaty gave huge swathes of power (and the 'hooks' of which in future can be added to for more power) to the EU and we were denied a referendum. And people such as yourself were not only dishonest over the Lisbon Treaty, but you lied through your teeth to deny this was the Consitution re-written.

These presumptions always turn out to be correct because I know what the EU is like and the way it operates and has operated since it was first dreamed up as a concept and pushed for by mainly Jean Monnet - who was probably one of the most intelligent political operators we saw in the last century (on a par with Enoch Powell).


That is the case, but as the EU is larger now, it is harder and harder to pass laws that benefit the majority of member states. You take the bad with the good, it's the same with anything.

Or we could leave, legislate on the good for ourselves and not have to deal with the concerns of the French and other Europeans because they would then be able to make their decisions which suit them best.

A win-win situation for both sides of the English Channel, or should I say 'Anglo-French Pond'.


You see this is the one of the only (in my opinion) valid reason that I think you can be against the commission, as they have the monopoly over drafting regulation. That is supposedly due to tendancy for the parliament to want to take positions on things that do not fall under the EU mandate. Regulations in the UK can be implemented by the dictators in the government departments. MPs don't vote on building codes. This is no different to government departments. Don't forget the council of ministers too.

The Commission simply extends that mandate with every treaty that is passed so what does it matter. Now as the United Kingdom and Whitehall - they are far from perfect I agree which is why I and UKIP want a swiss-style local and national referendum system which would place more important issues in the hands of the people and not the politicians who could then focus on the smaller details which come from Whitehall rather than simply nodding them through.

Its also another reason why I want to close down a large part of government, but again, this only happens because people such as yourself want people taken to court and regulated on which measurements they use even if their own customers are happy with the service (hence why they buy there in the first place).


Alright Dan, you've convinced me - i'm voting UKIP. In all seriousness, I don't support any political party as none of them are centrist enough for me. I did support the Lib-Dems but unfortunately their performance in the coalition is too disappointing for me to vote for them until there is a large change of leadership.

Well thats at least better than voting for the Lib/Lab/Con.


I know loads of people who have voted in the AV election without even understanding what is put in front of them, let alone people who quote to me the £250million figure of how much it costs. I'd support an EU referendum if there was a serious push for one by MPs and the but I think it's a terrible idea in practice.

But is that not an argument for abolishing elections? elections afterall cover the entire concept of how the country is governed (at least the parts where the EU has no control over) - a referendum deals with one issue.