Monarchy or Republic

[alexxxxx]

If our government knew they could settle the EU issue once and for all with a 'yes' vote from the public then it would hold a referendum, but it won't because it knows the answer is; no, no, no!

There was a referendum, and it passed. It wouldn't be no, no, no and you're going to attack me for this, but alot of people aren't qualified to make those decisions. They believe 100% of things they read. They don't know how things work, that's why you elect MPs to do that job for you. If you don't want to be in the EU you vote for UKIP in the general election. Once there is a majority, guess what, they get what they want. You're making it out to be a bigger issue than it really is. People don't vote UKIP because it isn't a viable alternative.

The fact and issue still remains, why should my family and most others pay more taxes for a bloated service they do not use. It simply isn't fair, why should the state take money from people to support a service the minority use. Tax hurts customers, which in turn hurts business, then business if driven away from the United Kingdom, then less tax is being paid so taxes then rise even more making the survining business suffer.

Because many others are not in a position to have a choice about which method of transport they use. I'm not suprised you haven't used this argument into public health spending, not everyone uses it, not everyone needs it, but the fact and the issue remains is that if a poor person needs to work, the only job they can find is 10 miles away on a train and their return fare is, lets say, £10 a day, that ends up being £200/month. If it's a low income job, £15k a year for example, alot of that income is dried up, that's a whole £2,500 gone, quite a large disincentive to work. And guess what, that means they're more likely to claim benefits. Taking over the public transport system, running it to break even, say to only £4/day, the price ends up being alot less to taxpayers.

Not everyone uses universities, but spending money on them helps the country as a whole, as the workforce can be better trained, earn more money, maybe spend less (as a proportion) on taxes.

You look at everything in such a simplistic manner, you seem to think that maximising economic growth is the only thing that matters, the only government goal. I'd be really suprised if you have never ridden on a train, a bus, a motorway, or used any other government thing.

It is not the governments job to infringe on peoples right to buy, sell and so on. That is exactly why Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979 because people had simply had enough of a government which had too much power, was being controlled by unions and nearly destroyed our country.

Eh? Where's this come from? Where did I say this? Or is this another 'back in the old days' speech. Okay.....

You can't expect the NHS to perform well on peanuts, however you can't expect to solve its problems by throwing endless cash at it, as if that did solve the problems of the NHS then Labour would of fixed it within the last 11 years. The NHS has far too much red tape, it needs to be cut down and given more independance from government. Then we will have a national health service which works for everyone.

Look at our figures compared to everyone else's. You'll notice we aren't as high up on the spending figures as the torygraph and the daily fail would like to believe. Do you want a free-market version like in the USA where people pay inflated prices, much more than you would in tax, some people don't get insurance. They let people die there or pensioners have to work into their 90s just to pay for the medicines they need to live on. "it's unfair because not everyone uses these, only the minority." It's called a safety net.

That is a poor example, history and the world know for a fact East Germany was poor and a total mess, that is exactly why a concreate wall along with mines and soldiers were built around Soviet Berlin to stop people leaving. East Germany and the Soviet Union were command economies, along with North Korea and Mao's China which have/did leave their people starving due to their glorious 'socialist/communist revolutions'. Socialism is dead, people do not want a return to 1970's Britain.

Maybe that's true. Maybe. But I think you group money and happiness too close together. You don't need to be rolling in it, with a 40" TV, Sky HD with the film channels, a BMW, Mercedes to be happy.

[Bun]

tories took us into it. labours' manifesto promised a referendum in 1974. got in, held it, got more than 2 thirds of the votes, get over it.

[UKIP]

There was a referendum, and it passed. It wouldn't be no, no, no and you're going to attack me for this, but alot of people aren't qualified to make those decisions. They believe 100% of things they read. They don't know how things work, that's why you elect MPs to do that job for you. If you don't want to be in the EU you vote for UKIP in the general election. Once there is a majority, guess what, they get what they want. You're making it out to be a bigger issue than it really is. People don't vote UKIP because it isn't a viable alternative.

Because many others are not in a position to have a choice about which method of transport they use. I'm not suprised you haven't used this argument into public health spending, not everyone uses it, not everyone needs it, but the fact and the issue remains is that if a poor person needs to work, the only job they can find is 10 miles away on a train and their return fare is, lets say, £10 a day, that ends up being £200/month. If it's a low income job, £15k a year for example, alot of that income is dried up, that's a whole £2,500 gone, quite a large disincentive to work. And guess what, that means they're more likely to claim benefits. Taking over the public transport system, running it to break even, say to only £4/day, the price ends up being alot less to taxpayers.

Not everyone uses universities, but spending money on them helps the country as a whole, as the workforce can be better trained, earn more money, maybe spend less (as a proportion) on taxes.

You look at everything in such a simplistic manner, you seem to think that maximising economic growth is the only thing that matters, the only government goal. I'd be really suprised if you have never ridden on a train, a bus, a motorway, or used any other government thing.

Eh? Where's this come from? Where did I say this? Or is this another 'back in the old days' speech. Okay.....

Look at our figures compared to everyone else's. You'll notice we aren't as high up on the spending figures as the torygraph and the daily fail would like to believe. Do you want a free-market version like in the USA where people pay inflated prices, much more than you would in tax, some people don't get insurance. They let people die there or pensioners have to work into their 90s just to pay for the medicines they need to live on. "it's unfair because not everyone uses these, only the minority." It's called a safety net.

Maybe that's true. Maybe. But I think you group money and happiness too close together. You don't need to be rolling in it, with a 40" TV, Sky HD with the film channels, a BMW, Mercedes to be happy.

In that case then we don't have the qualifications to elect our MP's, thats basically what you are saying. People know fully well that the European Union is taking sovereignty, you can see it in regulations, and agriculture and fishing. It is a big issue, if it wasn't a big issue and it had peoples support, it would of gone to a referendum a long time ago, or perhaps UKIP wouldn't of gone from a very small party in the 1990's to the fourth largest party-and growing right now. If its such a small issue as you make it out to be, then why is the EU determined to ram it through parliaments around Europe and avoid referendums at all costs. If its such a small issue then why are the main parties so reluctant to talk about the EU? - it is a ticking time bomb and sometime in the future it will have to be discussed, and when that time comes the eurocrats will not have a leg to stand on. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, makes sense to give billions of our money to every year, and be told what to do by it aswell.

I have tackled that issue, the point is that the NHS is a matter of life and death and just about everyone uses it, whereas a train service to London most will not use at all, or once in their lifetime. It does benefit some people you are right, however most people live quite near to their workplace/drive a car, therefore the argument is alreayd blown out of the window, not to mention the economic damage high taxes do for supporting a transport fantasy you are supporting would do.

University should be free yes, as I believe health and education are two of the few things which should remain free, yet quite independant from government red tape. As for my travel, yes I have ridden on bus and train services, and they are now private thanks to Margaret Thatcher. The fact is that I would rather be paying 80p rather than 50p if it means my family being able to afford other luxaries and not having to live in a bankrupt country with rubbish piling up on the streets and dead bodies rotting in the morgues. Economic growth is everything as with money brings prosperity, as Maragret Thatcher said; money doesn't fall from the sky, it has to be earned here on Earth.

As I have said before, I support the national health service. The point I am making is the point the staff themselves make in numerous interviews/conferences that get held, the NHS is bloated and needs to have red-tape cut back, which would means millions upon millions more to spend on extra staff or life saving drugs which people in this country are being denied because the NHS can't afford it, yet the government see fit to donate money to the EU, China, India and of course, more red tape at the NHS.

Money and happiness are very close together, if you have a nice home, low taxes and a family it means you can afford holidays and luxaries which in turn makes you happy. Whereas if you have no money you lose self-respect as your living from the state, you haven't got a home, you can't have a family because taxes are too high and your struggling as it is and you can't have holidays and luxaries then you are not happy. It is incredibly simple.

tories took us into it. labours' manifesto promised a referendum in 1974. got in, held it, got more than 2 thirds of the votes, get over it.

The tories took us into stages of it yes and shame on them, however since them orginial treaties were signed many things have changed and the EU is more powerful than ever before. The referendum was on the EU at that time, far different from the EU we see today, which has the aim of becoming a superstate which its citzens do not want.

Lets have a vote, once and for all which the choice is simple, do we want to remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or do we want to go down the ever narrowing path of becoming a state within the European Union.

I think you'll find the answer begins with the letter 'n'.

[RandomManJay]

Although I have nothing against Monarchy and I feel quite privileged to have one of the most powerful Monarchies remaining the world. I think it’s a bit antiquated and probably won't last much longer in the revolutionary society were going to turn into eventually.

[alexxxxx]

In that case then we don't have the qualifications to elect our MP's, thats basically what you are saying. People know fully well that the European Union is taking sovereignty, you can see it in regulations, and agriculture and fishing. It is a big issue, if it wasn't a big issue and it had peoples support, it would of gone to a referendum a long time ago, or perhaps UKIP wouldn't of gone from a very small party in the 1990's to the fourth largest party-and growing right now. If its such a small issue as you make it out to be, then why is the EU determined to ram it through parliaments around Europe and avoid referendums at all costs. If its such a small issue then why are the main parties so reluctant to talk about the EU? - it is a ticking time bomb and sometime in the future it will have to be discussed, and when that time comes the eurocrats will not have a leg to stand on. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, makes sense to give billions of our money to every year, and be told what to do by it aswell.

People do not have the time to educate themselves (i'm not being elitist, but it's true) about every subject in the UK and abroad so they can make decisions about how the country can progress. They cannot see evry different possiblility of each action. It's a full-time job to be an MP, if it was easy to make decisions like this, then we would have refferenda on every law passed/treaty signed. I'd argue that our membership of the EU actually increases our sovereignty. The EU is increasingly speaking out and acting united in the world. They have more weight behind their words than ourselves. If we were to leave, we have trading with our largest trading partner on their terms, not ours. We would be, in effect, a 'slave-state' to the EU. At least in the EU we have a say in what happens there. We are nearing an EU election, and so the EU will be in the limelight in a couple of weeks time.

I have tackled that issue, the point is that the NHS is a matter of life and death and just about everyone uses it, whereas a train service to London most will not use at all, or once in their lifetime. It does benefit some people you are right, however most people live quite near to their workplace/drive a car, therefore the argument is alreayd blown out of the window, not to mention the economic damage high taxes do for supporting a transport fantasy you are supporting would do.

On average 11% of the people of this country (outside the capital) rely on public transport. That's around 5-6million, I'd call that more than a minority. I make 4 trips a daywith the public transport system here, which costs my parents £28/month (unlimited travel), which I think is fairly reasonable. The reason why this is fairly reasonable is that the local government have a large stake and subsidise it. Those living further away have to spend more than that, maybe £4-5/return for a rather short journey. The average commute time for the UK is actually 45minutes, not that short at all. If a new system allows 1000 more people to take new jobs up, who wouldn't already being able to, on £18k a year, think of the new opportunities and how the local economy in that area can improve.

Economic growth is everything as with money brings prosperity, as Maragret Thatcher said; money doesn't fall from the sky, it has to be earned here on Earth.

There are more goals that the government need to think about. Unemployment, in my eyes, is as important as economic growth as it strengthens the moral of the population.

As I have said before, I support the national health service. The point I am making is the point the staff themselves make in numerous interviews/conferences that get held, the NHS is bloated and needs to have red-tape cut back, which would means millions upon millions more to spend on extra staff or life saving drugs which people in this country are being denied because the NHS can't afford it, yet the government see fit to donate money to the EU, China, India and of course, more red tape at the NHS.

I don't know the specifics with the donations abroad to china and india, i'd argue that in the moment in time most donations to overseas nations need to be removed as welfare costs are rising. The NHS should be under pressure to save costs, remove unnessasary posts, but WITHOUT comprimising care, which is my fear. It must be done carefully.

Money and happiness are very close together, if you have a nice home, low taxes and a family it means you can afford holidays and luxaries which in turn makes you happy. Whereas if you have no money you lose self-respect as your living from the state, you haven't got a home, you can't have a family because taxes are too high and your struggling as it is and you can't have holidays and luxaries then you are not happy. It is incredibly simple.

Being able to spend time with your famiily and friends and being able to relax is important too. I think that this is shown that we are one of the most unproductive nations in Europe. Output per worker per hour is much lower than France, Germany etc, yet they take many more days off than we do. The 'Rat Race' has produced many social problems with families being torn apart from work. The phrase 'it takes a village to raise a child' i think is a very true one. Shipping your children off to faceless childcare facilities for extended periods of time causes a rift for some. Economic growth does not grow at the same rate as Happiness Growth.

The tories took us into stages of it yes and shame on them, however since them orginial treaties were signed many things have changed and the EU is more powerful than ever before. The referendum was on the EU at that time, far different from the EU we see today, which has the aim of becoming a superstate which its citzens do not want.

Lets have a vote, once and for all which the choice is simple, do we want to remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or do we want to go down the ever narrowing path of becoming a state within the European Union.

I think you'll find the answer begins with the letter 'n'.

I'd disagree. There is alot of distortion with what the EU does in the media and the EU does not want to be a superstate and Iceland want to JOIN! I'd argue that the EU only gets bad press and it's positives are not shown enough in the media and the right-wing media uses it as a scapegoat to sell on to xenophobes. There is alot of support for the EU.

[UKIP]

People do not have the time to educate themselves (i'm not being elitist, but it's true) about every subject in the UK and abroad so they can make decisions about how the country can progress. They cannot see evry different possiblility of each action. It's a full-time job to be an MP, if it was easy to make decisions like this, then we would have refferenda on every law passed/treaty signed. I'd argue that our membership of the EU actually increases our sovereignty. The EU is increasingly speaking out and acting united in the world. They have more weight behind their words than ourselves. If we were to leave, we have trading with our largest trading partner on their terms, not ours. We would be, in effect, a 'slave-state' to the EU. At least in the EU we have a say in what happens there. We are nearing an EU election, and so the EU will be in the limelight in a couple of weeks time.


On average 11% of the people of this country (outside the capital) rely on public transport. That's around 5-6million, I'd call that more than a minority. I make 4 trips a daywith the public transport system here, which costs my parents £28/month (unlimited travel), which I think is fairly reasonable. The reason why this is fairly reasonable is that the local government have a large stake and subsidise it. Those living further away have to spend more than that, maybe £4-5/return for a rather short journey. The average commute time for the UK is actually 45minutes, not that short at all. If a new system allows 1000 more people to take new jobs up, who wouldn't already being able to, on £18k a year, think of the new opportunities and how the local economy in that area can improve.


There are more goals that the government need to think about. Unemployment, in my eyes, is as important as economic growth as it strengthens the moral of the population.


I don't know the specifics with the donations abroad to china and india, i'd argue that in the moment in time most donations to overseas nations need to be removed as welfare costs are rising. The NHS should be under pressure to save costs, remove unnessasary posts, but WITHOUT comprimising care, which is my fear. It must be done carefully.


Being able to spend time with your famiily and friends and being able to relax is important too. I think that this is shown that we are one of the most unproductive nations in Europe. Output per worker per hour is much lower than France, Germany etc, yet they take many more days off than we do. The 'Rat Race' has produced many social problems with families being torn apart from work. The phrase 'it takes a village to raise a child' i think is a very true one. Shipping your children off to faceless childcare facilities for extended periods of time causes a rift for some. Economic growth does not grow at the same rate as Happiness Growth.


I'd disagree. There is alot of distortion with what the EU does in the media and the EU does not want to be a superstate and Iceland want to JOIN! I'd argue that the EU only gets bad press and it's positives are not shown enough in the media and the right-wing media uses it as a scapegoat to sell on to xenophobes. There is alot of support for the EU.

Hang on, you say we haven't got the qualifactions to make the decision ourselves, yet the minister for Europe hadn't even read the lisbon treaty. If she hadn't read it and its her job to, what makes you think the majority of the other MP's had done so? - that argument is utter nonsense and holds no substance, it is only because a no vote would win that you have come out with all that same old Labour 'we elect our MP's so they can make the decisions for us' - holds no substance what so ever and is an insult to the people of this country.

The claim you make about us having no influence, well is that why the Soviet states had no influence even though they were in a very powerful political and military union? - if that is the case, then would we suddenly lose our UN security council seat overnight? - that argument holds no substance what so ever. Command economies and grouping countries together which do not wish to be together will not and does not work.

We do have a say in what happens in the EU, but considering most of our MEP's don't reflect values anywhere close to public opinion then that argument is also finished. Besides, we have a voice, but other countries also have a voice which means even if our voice was strong enough and we opposed it very strongly, if other countries voted in favour then we would still have to implement what ever red tape they want us to impose. That is why is does not work and never will, your living in a eurocrat dream.

1,000 state jobs created, countless lost in the private sector and a fall in spending across the board would mean it would hurt us more than it would benefit us. I will ask again, no I will tell you, the majority of this country do not use these services therefore you and no government has no right to take our money, which we earned and not anyone else. You spend your own money, not other peoples - that is exactly why socialist Britain failed.

Creating false state jobs such as those in the 1970's with the mines and so forth does not raise moral, it raises powerful unions which forced members to strike and brought moral in the whole country down. State jobs do not create prosperity like private sector jobs do, the happiness scale I made and the economic cycle I typed out prove this. State is not the solution.

The NHS won't compromise care, with the loss of red tape and countless burocrats the NHS will have extra billions to spend on itself and the patients rather than faceless numptys who have stuck to the NHS more than ever before in the last 11 years, its time to get our lighter out and once and for all get rid of these leeches.

It does though, you haven't been able to reply to my cycle because it is true and you know it. When you have money you can raise a family, buy a house, go on holiday, days out, set up business and so forth. When you do not have money you can barely fend for yourself let alone a family and a holiday is out of the question.

You disagree because you know people do not want it, thats why eurocrats do not want a referendum at any cost because even a famously pro-EU state such as the Republic of Ireland voted the EU down - that says a lot. The EU uses right-wing media as a scapegoat, not the other way around. Right-wing media is in some of the most popular newspapers in this country, if people didn't like what they heard they wouldn't buy it - simple, there is no other excuse.

If the EU didn't want to be a superstate why is it moving closer and closer to one, an anthem and embelm? - they are living on the planet zog (or should we say euro in future) in mine and the majority of Europes opinion.

The day the EU falls or we leave, I can tell you now, very few will shed a tear, maybe the left-wing failure politicians in Brussels will once their nice fat pay cheques disappear, but not any normal people.

[alexxxxx]

Hang on, you say we haven't got the qualifactions to make the decision ourselves, yet the minister for Europe hadn't even read the lisbon treaty. If she hadn't read it and its her job to, what makes you think the majority of the other MP's had done so? - that argument is utter nonsense and holds no substance, it is only because a no vote would win that you have come out with all that same old Labour 'we elect our MP's so they can make the decisions for us' - holds no substance what so ever and is an insult to the people of this country.

The claim you make about us having no influence, well is that why the Soviet states had no influence even though they were in a very powerful political and military union? - if that is the case, then would we suddenly lose our UN security council seat overnight? - that argument holds no substance what so ever. Command economies and grouping countries together which do not wish to be together will not and does not work.

Many countries would like to be in the EU, Iceland, like I have said, Turkey, Croatia. MPs and MEPs should do their jobs that they are paid £65k + expenses to do. If they are found not to be doing their jobs they should be voted out. That's the idea of parliament, to make the laws. Not the people. Our legal-setup does not include a constitution so regular referenda are not required. If you look at the setup of Switzerland, they have regular votes among the people for more contreversial laws. Our way is called a parliamentary democracy.

The EU is not a command economy and are actually freemarketers.

We do have a say in what happens in the EU, but considering most of our MEP's don't reflect values anywhere close to public opinion then that argument is also finished. Besides, we have a voice, but other countries also have a voice which means even if our voice was strong enough and we opposed it very strongly, if other countries voted in favour then we would still have to implement what ever red tape they want us to impose. That is why is does not work and never will, your living in a eurocrat dream.

Why don't they? It's PR-elected. So everyone's vote counts. If you know how the European Parliament works (which I have actually visited and sat in the chamber), parties sit in groups. Decisions about UK's membership should be taken up in the generals. If UKIP works in the EU they should be voting against further integration and representing their values. They shouldn't be acting childishly, giving out melted chocolate Euro-coins.

1,000 state jobs created, countless lost in the private sector and a fall in spending across the board would mean it would hurt us more than it would benefit us. I will ask again, no I will tell you, the majority of this country do not use these services therefore you and no government has no right to take our money, which we earned and not anyone else. You spend your own money, not other peoples - that is exactly why socialist Britain failed.

You misunderstand what I am saying. 1000 people are now mobilised to take up private sector jobs, all 'real' jobs. Private sector builing firms are used to build the stops and buses, which create jobs in the priavte sector and the only jobs which are held by the state is the Bus Drivers. And then the cycle of wealth is increased.

Creating false state jobs such as those in the 1970's with the mines and so forth does not raise moral, it raises powerful unions which forced members to strike and brought moral in the whole country down. State jobs do not create prosperity like private sector jobs do, the happiness scale I made and the economic cycle I typed out prove this. State is not the solution.

I know. You misunderstood what I meant.

The NHS won't compromise care, with the loss of red tape and countless burocrats the NHS will have extra billions to spend on itself and the patients rather than faceless numptys who have stuck to the NHS more than ever before in the last 11 years, its time to get our lighter out and once and for all get rid of these leeches.

You say they won't compromise care, but you don't know if that's possible.

It does though, you haven't been able to reply to my cycle because it is true and you know it. When you have money you can raise a family, buy a house, go on holiday, days out, set up business and so forth. When you do not have money you can barely fend for yourself let alone a family and a holiday is out of the question.

When I stayed in France, the whole family returned home for lunch and the whole atmosphere in the school was alot less stressful, but more focused. Everyone is more relaxed and everyone is more productive. Much better for the economy, much better for the people. In the UK only the richer people can afford to take time off.

You disagree because you know people do not want it, thats why eurocrats do not want a referendum at any cost because even a famously pro-EU state such as the Republic of Ireland voted the EU down - that says a lot. The EU uses right-wing media as a scapegoat, not the other way around. Right-wing media is in some of the most popular newspapers in this country, if people didn't like what they heard they wouldn't buy it - simple, there is no other excuse.

If the EU didn't want to be a superstate why is it moving closer and closer to one, an anthem and embelm? - they are living on the planet zog (or should we say euro in future) in mine and the majority of Europes opinion.

The day the EU falls or we leave, I can tell you now, very few will shed a tear, maybe the left-wing failure politicians in Brussels will once their nice fat pay cheques disappear, but not any normal people.

The EU decided that the emblem and the anthem were deemed as too far and so they removed them from the lisbon treaty. The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty because they lost some of their power in Brussels. Adjustments have been made and now they are to vote again. If they don't like that, then more pro-irish adjustments will be made. If they cannot find a compromise, then the Irish can leave, simple as.

[UKIP]

Many countries would like to be in the EU, Iceland, like I have said, Turkey, Croatia. MPs and MEPs should do their jobs that they are paid £65k + expenses to do. If they are found not to be doing their jobs they should be voted out. That's the idea of parliament, to make the laws. Not the people. Our legal-setup does not include a constitution so regular referenda are not required. If you look at the setup of Switzerland, they have regular votes among the people for more contreversial laws. Our way is called a parliamentary democracy.

The EU is not a command economy and are actually freemarketers.

Why don't they? It's PR-elected. So everyone's vote counts. If you know how the European Parliament works (which I have actually visited and sat in the chamber), parties sit in groups. Decisions about UK's membership should be taken up in the generals. If UKIP works in the EU they should be voting against further integration and representing their values. They shouldn't be acting childishly, giving out melted chocolate Euro-coins.

You misunderstand what I am saying. 1000 people are now mobilised to take up private sector jobs, all 'real' jobs. Private sector builing firms are used to build the stops and buses, which create jobs in the priavte sector and the only jobs which are held by the state is the Bus Drivers. And then the cycle of wealth is increased.

I know. You misunderstood what I meant.

You say they won't compromise care, but you don't know if that's possible.

When I stayed in France, the whole family returned home for lunch and the whole atmosphere in the school was alot less stressful, but more focused. Everyone is more relaxed and everyone is more productive. Much better for the economy, much better for the people. In the UK only the richer people can afford to take time off.

The EU decided that the emblem and the anthem were deemed as too far and so they removed them from the lisbon treaty. The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty because they lost some of their power in Brussels. Adjustments have been made and now they are to vote again. If they don't like that, then more pro-irish adjustments will be made. If they cannot find a compromise, then the Irish can leave, simple as.

Then you expect us to now sign up to the Lisbon Treaty and just say "hey what the hell, we can just vote her out next time around." - doesn't wash mate. People want their promised referendum and they want it now. The people of Europe want it. Yes countries may want to join up, that doesn't mean their citzens want to join it.

The EU is a command economy as it is a central economy which is all planned, if it wasn't a command economy then there would be no EU and it would be normal trade like the rest of the world have, and are getting along fine with.

UKIP are defending our interests in parliament, but Labour MEP's and others are still signing away sovereignty. That is why the BNP and UKIP are growing fast in the European Parliament with the BNP expected to make its first wins there for the first time ever, I think you can now see the message is no, no again and no to the EU.

The loss via tax still outweighs it and the loss due to high tax is even more outweighed by the loss of business. It has been tried before and it failed, how many times must Labour supporters make us fail in various areas until the message; it doesn't work gets through.

If the staff at the NHS are saying it, i'm pretty sure it stands more of a chance than any of the red tape and targets Labour throws out every day.

That is French culture and not ours, we're not the same.

As for the EU deciding it was 'too far' - wrong. The EU only removed them because France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty as they were given a referendum on the consitution. As the EU wants to ram this through in any shape or form, they removed their true objective of the plan for the superstate (the constitution) and renamed it the Lisbon Treaty with small parts such as the emblem and anthem removed, but don't worry because they will appear in the future once the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU yet more power.

Isn't it strange that after the Frrench & Netherlandral rejections no more referendums were held in them or any other country (excluding the Republic of Ireland because they, by law, have to hold a referendum on the EU) and Ireland, which is famously pro-EU still rejected the treaty.

I think that says it all on what people think of the European Union.

[.:Admiral:.]

This is how I see it right.

The UK Monarchy has been around for many many years, it's been passed generation to generation within the Royal Family. Yes, we pay tax money towards keeping them there; but people really don't realise how much work they actually do carry out.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the head of what, 53 Commonwealth Naitons? Thats pretty impressive considering many people "don't want a Monarchy" but yet, the still choose to have her as Head of State. She's 84 next year, she's been Queen since the age of 25. She's given up so much just to take the title; let alone the Duties & other things that she has to carry out as Head of State. Her Maj has attended EVERY single Trooping The Colour since it began; compaired to Queen Victoria (who only attended 1 in her whole life) it's amazing.

I wouldn't want to do her job, yeah you'd have everyone salute you every day, bow down to you or whatever but surely it'd get boring. You'd have to watch what you do, be careful of what you say, make sure you say the right things; wear the right things, eat the right things, look like a Monarch etc etc. The list goes on and on.

If we get rid of the Monarchy, LOADS of things go with it. For instance; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland... what would that be? The Republic of Great Britian? The title of Royal would dissapear from everything; Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Queens Colour Squadron RAF, Royal Fleet Air Arm... the list goes on. It'd cause so much hassle just to get rid of the Royal Family. Think, they'd have to become a normal citizen again? Dames, Sir's, Lords, Saints, OBEs, MBEs, KBEs, they'd all dissapear as they're awards from a Monarch. It's rediculous, the list is endless.

I hope to god that this country has some sence still left in here somewhere. The country has gone mad. I'd love to see the Monarchy remain throughout my entire lifetime, and through my Grandkids etc. It's part of what makes me proud to be British, not Welsh or Scottish or English... BRITISH.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

[alexxxxx]

Then you expect us to now sign up to the Lisbon Treaty and just say "hey what the hell, we can just vote her out next time around." - doesn't wash mate. People want their promised referendum and they want it now. The people of Europe want it. Yes countries may want to join up, that doesn't mean their citzens want to join it.

I expect the government to read through the material, debate freely, listen to their constituents concerns and not be influenced by what the Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Sky News and BBC News say. The media is to inform the public NOT to inform the MPs of the public. The referendum vote in the house of commons was not close to passing, with many conservatives against it, including K Clarke.

The EU is seen as a safety net to Iceland, a union that will help them if they fail, again.

The EU is a command economy as it is a central economy which is all planned, if it wasn't a command economy then there would be no EU and it would be normal trade like the rest of the world have, and are getting along fine with.

What are you on about!? It's called a FREE MARKET. A FREE MARKET. That's what the whole EU is ABOUT. It's about removing barriers of trade and services between nations. UKIP know f-all about the economy and what's best for trade. They just appeal to old-romantics. The EU is our biggest trading partner because of our membership. It is the largest single economic market in the world, larger than the USA. A truely free-market world wouldn't have borders at ALL. A Planned or Controlled Economy is wear there is no private business and the government determines who produces, in what quantity and where it goes. Who is going to set up a factory in the UK where there is no-one to trade with. THINK IT THROUGH.

One of the only things that isn't very free about it is the CAP, which is done to protect farmers' livelihoods. If we didn't have the CAP there wouldn't be enough food to go around! The world-price for food is TOO LOW for farmers in this country to compete with. There would be no milk and no break without CAP.

UKIP are defending our interests in parliament, but Labour MEP's and others are still signing away sovereignty. That is why the BNP and UKIP are growing fast in the European Parliament with the BNP expected to make its first wins there for the first time ever, I think you can now see the message is no, no again and no to the EU.

The BNP were polled yesterday at 4% of the vote. UKIP higher, but behind the Greens, Lib Dems etc. It isn't a large majority at all. Why do you think the 'Big 3' get in so much. It's because they are VOTED IN and you can't accept that. The Daily Mail doesn't speak for the nation, votes do.

The loss via tax still outweighs it and the loss due to high tax is even more outweighed by the loss of business. It has been tried before and it failed, how many times must Labour supporters make us fail in various areas until the message; it doesn't work gets through.

No it doesn't! The tax DOESN'T out way it at all. Infact, it increases wealth. When new roads are built in a new area, the local economy grows and grows. It's called careful spending, to trigger an economic phenomenon known as the Multiplier Effect.

That is French culture and not ours, we're not the same.

In my eyes, it's a better system.

As for the EU deciding it was 'too far' - wrong. The EU only removed them because France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty as they were given a referendum on the consitution. As the EU wants to ram this through in any shape or form, they removed their true objective of the plan for the superstate (the constitution) and renamed it the Lisbon Treaty with small parts such as the emblem and anthem removed, but don't worry because they will appear in the future once the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU yet more power.

They were removed because it's called negotiation. Someone tries to sell you a dirty car, then you say 'clean the car before i buy it, add 6 months insurance and get rid of the dints' and then you get the deal. You aren't buying the dirty car anymore, you're buying a slightly different version, a better version.

Isn't it strange that after the Frrench & Netherlandral rejections no more referendums were held in them or any other country (excluding the Republic of Ireland because they, by law, have to hold a referendum on the EU) and Ireland, which is famously pro-EU still rejected the treaty.

Technically, they aren't the same thing. They voted on the constitution, where this is the Lisbon Treaty. Quite a lot of it is the same, but not 100%. I guess the French and Dutch Government thought it was different enough to not warrant a Referendum.

I think that says it all on what people think of the European Union.

If UKIP poll more than 50% of the vote in June, maybe we'll have a case to leave the EU, as that would be a majority.