Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?

[Ardemax]

The European Union did not stop the fighting, by that time the Russian Federation had taken South Ossetia and the other region, there was nothing to stop and still, those regions remain under Russian control. The EU did jack all.

Chechen War
Kosovo War
Bosnian War
..more here.

On the final point, we are not talking about other threads. In this discussion you said "have there been any European wars?" when I answered this you then changed the question to "did these wars rage through europe?"

I thought you took on board previous questions from other threads, obviously not.

Btw I said wars in the last 5-10 years, and the Russian war on the bottom was part of the USSR when it split.

And yes the French presidency of the EU helped reach agreements.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought you took on board previous questions from other threads, obviously not.

Btw I said wars in the last 5-10 years, and the Russian war on the bottom was part of the USSR when it split.

And yes the French presidency of the EU helped reach agreements.

I gave just provided a list of wars which have occured since 1989, the USSR split in 1991 and there are many wars that have happened (as you can see on that list) since 25 December 1991. On the French Presidency, those parts of Georgia are still under Russian occupation, the Georgian army was crippled and was forced to retreat - what did the EU stop/solve exactly?

[Ardemax]

Helped make an agreement to stop the fighting?

And I told you the EU today was just about established in 92.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1992 - 2009, if you look on that list there are wars after 1992. On the agreement, no they did not. The Georgian army was battered and destroyed and was forced to retreat to Tiblisi because it appeared as if the Russians were going to advance to the capital, but they never.

The Russians only signed the EUs' pathetic treaty AFTER they had taken the regions they had aimed to take, so much for stopping wars.

[alexxxxx]

The laws come from the Commission, if a company such as BA and Iberia wish to merge they have to have the permission of the Commission. The Commission has the power. In the past you have said that a referendum was not needed on Lisbon because it was not such a big treaty, yet the other day you said the President of the Commission should be elected - so if the Commission does not have much power then why do you want a vote on that post but not the Lisbon Treaty?

it's wrong to claim that the parliament holds no power because it's not true. The comission carries out the laws that which are proposed in the comission and then sent to strasbourg to be voted on. The comission is already safeguarded by the fact that it 1) is appointed by the council (which is of the heads of all the national governments), (2) can be sacked by the parliament, (3) has to be approved by the parliament.

i think that it would be beneficial for the EU to seem more democratic if our comissioner was elected, but the problem is that the job of a comissioner is to look after EU, not national interests. Likewise with the parliament. Putting an anti-EU comissioner in place only breaks up ties and harms work. The removal of britain from the EU has to be taken in national governments, not EU governments. Voting for UKIP in the european elections only really dampens our say, voting for UKIP in national elections would be the only way of working.

BA and Iberia have to convince the comission (NOT the 27 comissioners, but the civil service that looks after the laws) that their takeover is not going to destroy competitiion in a european-wide market that is working very well in driving the cost down.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You talk about democracy, however the people of the United Kingdom were not given a vote ever, on whether we want to be members of the European Union. Until you accept this and the fact that we need a say, then you cant claim the European Union is democratic or that it should be democratic (internally).

This is the underlaying point, and we could argue forever on whether we should or should not be members and we'd never agree, however that debate needs to take place because we've never ever had that chance to discuss it.

[Ardemax]

1992 - 2009, if you look on that list there are wars after 1992. On the agreement, no they did not. The Georgian army was battered and destroyed and was forced to retreat to Tiblisi because it appeared as if the Russians were going to advance to the capital, but they never.

The Russians only signed the EUs' pathetic treaty AFTER they had taken the regions they had aimed to take, so much for stopping wars.

I've answered most of the war-related questions, but today there's only like 1-2 wars in the past 5ish years in Europe?

surely that's an improvement?

[alexxxxx]

You talk about democracy, however the people of the United Kingdom were not given a vote ever, on whether we want to be members of the European Union. Until you accept this and the fact that we need a say, then you cant claim the European Union is democratic or that it should be democratic (internally).

This is the underlaying point, and we could argue forever on whether we should or should not be members and we'd never agree, however that debate needs to take place because we've never ever had that chance to discuss it.

yes, it will rage on forever because you can't grasp the fact that a parliament can make decisions on behalf of the electorate and this is democratic. or otherwise every single law that is passed, using your argument, is undemocratic because 'we never had a vote on it.'

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've answered most of the war-related questions, but today there's only like 1-2 wars in the past 5ish years in Europe?

surely that's an improvement?

No that is not an improvement, and as I said before; the EU has not solved/stopped wars in Europe.

yes, it will rage on forever because you can't grasp the fact that a parliament can make decisions on behalf of the electorate and this is democratic. or otherwise every single law that is passed, using your argument, is undemocratic because 'we never had a vote on it.'

Actually no, because a normal law does not create over 84% of our laws and lead to the abolition of the United Kingdom and the creation of the European Union.

[Ardemax]

I also talked about the prevention of wars.
And seeing as there's been what, 1 in the past 5-8 years?

Compared with the 90's, I think there has been an improvement.