EU fines Britain more than £150 million for not displaying EU propaganda

[-:Undertaker:-]

yes but co-operation requires treaties, laws & regulations for it to work and weak links and half-done treaties won't work and would be an incredible waste of money.

Co-operation does require a lot of those things you have listed, on the other hand it does not require a President, a government of Europe [the Commission], European courts superior over British courts, European laws over various areas, a European military taskforce, it does not require Europe-wide taxation (coming soon), it does not require a sham parliament, it does not require a flag/anthem. Again I could go on all night, but it is clear and plain for everybody to see that this isnt about working together - it is about becoming a whole.

I support a fair, free europe where its citizens can not be restricted in what they want to do in terms of where they want to work and live and also to help preserve culture and heritage. Jingoistic nationalism is not what i support which is what is spouted by a lot of the main and minor parties as a populist measure of gaining support. Relentless patriotism is often undertaken by people who have nothing to be proud of by themselves i feel. No doubt there is some corruption in the EU and i don't feel that the current way it works is the best way - but it's better than not having a pan-euro system at all.

But you are a nationalist, you are the nationalist here. I am staunchly patriotic, I love my country and its history - I believe it has given a lot to the world and I owe my country itself. Yourself on the other hand, you wish to push yourself and your own state onto other people - that is the Orwellian definition. A patriot wishes to defend their culture, a nationalist seeks to impose it and be rid of others that challenge its own.

The European Union will end up the same way as other failed/failing states such as Yugoslavia, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. If you attempt to quash culture and create a new culture, a European identity - then you do risk all out civil war. It may seem a doom and gloom ending, but history shows that is exactly what happens with the most recent example being the Balkans crisis - an identity was imposed on them and look what happened.

The best thing about Europe is its diversity, its heritage and its uniqueness - that is exactly why there is no such thing as a European identity because Europe formed each to its own, unlike any other continent. Do not attempt to ruin or spoil this because history will come back in a very nasty way. If it is done via majority consent then it would possibly work for a longer period (hence why the United Kingdom has outlived other aritifical states) - but the speed, the undemocratic way it is being done now is just wrong and it will fail.

EU nationalism is the biggest problem this continent faces, the likes of the unelected Van Rompuy and Barroso feel they have the sole right to impose their nationalism on myself and my people - they have no such right.

Are you saying that you feel this report is unfounded in that it believes that the majority of people in the UK feel that its membership of the EU has not brought about any benefit to the UK?

I am saying that the Eurometer and any other EU study is not to be trusted no matter what its outcome. I have said time and time again - it is very clever, it is designed to be slipped in via the backdoor and the same applies to its studies/findings or polls.

[Moh]

Where does this £150 million go?

[alexxxxx]

Co-operation does require a lot of those things you have listed, on the other hand it does not require a President, a government of Europe [the Commission], European courts superior over British courts, European laws over various areas, a European military taskforce, it does not require Europe-wide taxation (coming soon), it does not require a sham parliament, it does not require a flag/anthem. Again I could go on all night, but it is clear and plain for everybody to see that this isnt about working together - it is about becoming a whole.

arguably European courts are required in order to allow good enforcement of pan-euro laws. eu taxation i doubt will come soon.

But you are a nationalist, you are the nationalist here. I am staunchly patriotic, I love my country and its history - I believe it has given a lot to the world and I owe my country itself. Yourself on the other hand, you wish to push yourself and your own state onto other people - that is the Orwellian definition. A patriot wishes to defend their culture, a nationalist seeks to impose it and be rid of others that challenge its own.

no no this is where you are wrong. i don't want to have exclusively a european identity. i want to be english, i want my english identity but i also want to be recognised as a european and have pan-european rights too - why should someone tell me why i can't get a job somewhere or live somewhere? It would be best to be free from borders imo. You don't exchange one identity for the other, you can have both. There IS such thing as european culture which is seen from outside of Europe and we recognise to an extent inside of europe that we have some common values, common musically, common sports, common languages - common arts, but this does not mean THIS image should be our only image, nor does the EU try to push this sort of harmonisation of culture. Infact it supports localism - welsh and irish are official languages of the EU, it funds local cultural projects and arts, it has rules on local foods and drinks (Melton Mobray pork pies for example must be made in melton mobray - making sure that local ways and traditions in food are kept, not lost) and one of its mottos is 'united in diversity.' As Margret thatcher said 'just because the french are part of the community, it doesn't mean they are any less french' (or something a long those lines), it's the same with us. I however do feel it's stupid to be 'proud' of being english/british as it was only by luck that i was born here.

The European Union will end up the same way as other failed/failing states such as Yugoslavia, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. If you attempt to quash culture and create a new culture, a European identity - then you do risk all out civil war. It may seem a doom and gloom ending, but history shows that is exactly what happens with the most recent example being the Balkans crisis - an identity was imposed on them and look what happened.

like i said, it is not doing anything of the sort. everyone can pull out whenever they want.

The best thing about Europe is its diversity, its heritage and its uniqueness - that is exactly why there is no such thing as a European identity because Europe formed each to its own, unlike any other continent. Do not attempt to ruin or spoil this because history will come back in a very nasty way. If it is done via majority consent then it would possibly work for a longer period (hence why the United Kingdom has outlived other aritifical states) - but the speed, the undemocratic way it is being done now is just wrong and it will fail.

EU nationalism is the biggest problem this continent faces, the likes of the unelected Van Rompuy and Barroso feel they have the sole right to impose their nationalism on myself and my people - they have no such right.

It IS the best part yes, and if anything what destroys local culture and heritage is globalisation - not the EU itself. Can you please tell me how the EU has tried to craft a european culture? I don't see it? No one sees it.

I am saying that the Eurometer and any other EU study is not to be trusted no matter what its outcome. I have said time and time again - it is very clever, it is designed to be slipped in via the backdoor and the same applies to its studies/findings or polls.

i feel that the distrust from a lot of people from the EU comes from stories of 'tha war' rather than from much rational reasoning at all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

arguably European courts are required in order to allow good enforcement of pan-euro laws. eu taxation i doubt will come soon.

Not really, the national parliaments could take out that order just as easily - as usual it is about power and with every treaty the European Unino creates and passes, the more power it wants for itself. The taxation part, why not? the President is already aiming for world government so why not aim lower and go for taxation aswell!?

no no this is where you are wrong. i don't want to have exclusively a european identity. i want to be english, i want my english identity but i also want to be recognised as a european and have pan-european rights too - why should someone tell me why i can't get a job somewhere or live somewhere? It would be best to be free from borders imo. You don't exchange one identity for the other, you can have both. There IS such thing as european culture which is seen from outside of Europe and we recognise to an extent inside of europe that we have some common values, common musically, common sports, common languages - common arts, but this does not mean THIS image should be our only image, nor does the EU try to push this sort of harmonisation of culture. Infact it supports localism - welsh and irish are official languages of the EU, it funds local cultural projects and arts, it has rules on local foods and drinks (Melton Mobray pork pies for example must be made in melton mobray - making sure that local ways and traditions in food are kept, not lost) and one of its mottos is 'united in diversity.' As Margret thatcher said 'just because the french are part of the community, it doesn't mean they are any less french' (or something a long those lines), it's the same with us. I however do feel it's stupid to be 'proud' of being english/british as it was only by luck that i was born here.

Because it is not your democracy, not your choice. It is their choice [concerning that country] who they decide to allow into their country. That is democracy, that is the sign of a sovereign state. The right to decide who comes and goes into your country is one of the basic requirements of what defines a nation state. It is not up to you (a Briton) or an unelected eurocrat in Brussels to make that decision for them. This is where your euro-nationalism comes in, you want to make everybody adhere to your rules, your ways - this creating a false European identity.

Outside of Europe we are not seen as Europeans. We are seen as the Britons, the French, the Germans - all unique in their own cultures and all totally different. The EU often uses the word 'harmonisation' be it road signs, traffic light colours, measurement systems and so forth - all designed and all doing what I have said, ending them seperate cultures. The languages point is the same, we both know the EU cares little for them languages and is only spending that money in that area as a public relations stunt - both the French and the Germans have been at edge over the years over which lanaguage is the primary language of the EU and its fellow organisations. If you mash everything together you have to have one/two languages in which all other weaker languages eventually die out themselves.

The EU is not united in diversity because its not united at all - the political elite are united to their cause yes, and as for Margaret Thatcher - we all saw what happened to her when she started turning on the European Union, she was finished by the euronationalists in her cabinet who could not stand the idea that she would blow their euro dream out of the water.

If you want a federal europe without asking for permission first, then you are a euro nationalist and thats that. Nationalism is the very thing the EU often says it fights against, when in reality it is just creating another nationalist cause which wishes to triumph over all other cultures and nations. The people of Europe want to be friends, want to trade, want to be good neighbours - but do not want to be united as one.

like i said, it is not doing anything of the sort. everyone can pull out whenever they want.

You have just seen the Laeken declaration, it admits itself that is what it wants. Even back with Ted Heath when he cynically lied to the British people and took us into the European Union, it was clear - this is a federal europe and the idea of monetary union and so forth means there is little way of turning back. Why do you think it spends so much on propaganda and public relations every year? because it wants to make the ride less bumpy and make people less fierece about their sovereignty and independence, it wants to make them feel as though without the EU, life and its treats will end. It aims to make us feel small, make us feel insecure about the 'modern age' when in reality the modern age has always been around, they [the politicians] would have used the same pharses for a number of differing things back in 1960, 1930, 1890 and so on. There is never a end-all modern age, the world is the same just more technologically advanced - the EU wants to make us think that there is a need to gear up for something new, a new global order when the only global order threatening us is federalism itself.

It IS the best part yes, and if anything what destroys local culture and heritage is globalisation - not the EU itself. Can you please tell me how the EU has tried to craft a european culture? I don't see it? No one sees it.

I thought part of the argument for the EU was globalisation? I thought the point of creating this European Union was to protect ourselves against the likes of the BRIC nations who are rapidly developing? now its not that? what is this then? what is this project? what is its purpose?

It is clear to see it; the monetary union, the political union, the economic union, the parliament, the flag, the anthem, the motto, a foreign minister, the idea that we are 'European citizens' when there has never been a country or nation called Europe. Europe has (historically) been a continent and it should remain that. Below is the video of Farage exposing the same old people from the old regime, now in the new regime. The idea that they are creating a nation, the idea that their nation takes place over the existing nations - that is euro nationalism. They want my nation to end and their nation to take over, their flag to take place over my flag - again, the Orwellian definition of nationalism in full play much like it was under the USSR in Eastern Europe where national flags were dropped and new flags and a new identity carved and churned out of Moscow much as it is from Brussels in the modern day.

i feel that the distrust from a lot of people from the EU comes from stories of 'tha war' rather than from much rational reasoning at all.

That is just going along the 'little englander' line which just simply isnt true, most people go holidaying on Europe and have many friends (even a wife in the case of Nigel Farage!) who are Europeans. This is not a battle between little englanders vs the world, it is not a battle between the entire left and the right - it is a battle for the nation state and for the right to decide our own destiny, democracy in simple terms.

[alexxxxx]

Not really, the national parliaments could take out that order just as easily - as usual it is about power and with every treaty the European Unino creates and passes, the more power it wants for itself. The taxation part, why not? the President is already aiming for world government so why not aim lower and go for taxation aswell!?

Oh please. The national parliaments if they get something they don't like will throw it out - meaning it'll eventually become useless. Oh please, the president has no power, they picked someone with no big image so the uk, french, german and italians can keep him in check.

Because it is not your democracy, not your choice. It is their choice [concerning that country] who they decide to allow into their country. That is democracy, that is the sign of a sovereign state. The right to decide who comes and goes into your country is one of the basic requirements of what defines a nation state. It is not up to you (a Briton) or an unelected eurocrat in Brussels to make that decision for them. This is where your euro-nationalism comes in, you want to make everybody adhere to your rules, your ways - this creating a false European identity.

This is where i disagree. I don't believe we should be restricted by this. You believe in tribal freedom, i believe in personal freedom. This is why you seem to be such against human rights, where the aim of the human rights is to protect the minority, not pander to the majority. You can't have a functional market without free movement of goods, services and people.

Outside of Europe we are not seen as Europeans. We are seen as the Britons, the French, the Germans - all unique in their own cultures and all totally different. The EU often uses the word 'harmonisation' be it road signs, traffic light colours, measurement systems and so forth - all designed and all doing what I have said, ending them seperate cultures. The languages point is the same, we both know the EU cares little for them languages and is only spending that money in that area as a public relations stunt - both the French and the Germans have been at edge over the years over which lanaguage is the primary language of the EU and its fellow organisations. If you mash everything together you have to have one/two languages in which all other weaker languages eventually die out themselves.

You only have to hear americans bark on about 'europe' to know that's not true - the chinese I've spoken to think the same. They don't care. I guess you haven't met many french or german people to say we are totally different - it's simply not true. There are similarities and there are differences, just like the UK. Scotland has a different culture to england, wales and northern ireland. The north of england has a different culture to devon and london, hell even Nottingham has differences to Derby and leicester. Where do you draw the line in the differences? German is the most spoken language in the EU, but I'd say that English is probably the language that they are most proficient in.

The EU is not united in diversity because its not united at all - the political elite are united to their cause yes, and as for Margaret Thatcher - we all saw what happened to her when she started turning on the European Union, she was finished by the euronationalists in her cabinet who could not stand the idea that she would blow their euro dream out of the water.

I'd say it was.

If you want a federal europe without asking for permission first, then you are a euro nationalist and thats that. Nationalism is the very thing the EU often says it fights against, when in reality it is just creating another nationalist cause which wishes to triumph over all other cultures and nations. The people of Europe want to be friends, want to trade, want to be good neighbours - but do not want to be united as one.

You have just seen the Laeken declaration, it admits itself that is what it wants. Even back with Ted Heath when he cynically lied to the British people and took us into the European Union, it was clear - this is a federal europe and the idea of monetary union and so forth means there is little way of turning back. Why do you think it spends so much on propaganda and public relations every year? because it wants to make the ride less bumpy and make people less fierece about their sovereignty and independence, it wants to make them feel as though without the EU, life and its treats will end. It aims to make us feel small, make us feel insecure about the 'modern age' when in reality the modern age has always been around, they [the politicians] would have used the same pharses for a number of differing things back in 1960, 1930, 1890 and so on. There is never a end-all modern age, the world is the same just more technologically advanced - the EU wants to make us think that there is a need to gear up for something new, a new global order when the only global order threatening us is federalism itself.

The Laeken declaration - in my opinion, is referring mostly to 'uniting' west and eastern europe which traditionally had different ties and allegiences as it was just before the eastern european countries joined the EU. The full text of the laeken declaration is here: http://www.eunow.eu/laeken%20declaration.html

And seeing as you know the laeken declaration in such detail you'd also know it says:
"
the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all

diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions.

"

People celebrate and enjoy other member state's culture and it would be a much more boring
place if there wasn't.

I thought part of the argument for the EU was globalisation? I thought the point of creating this European Union was to protect ourselves against the likes of the BRIC nations who are rapidly developing? now its not that? what is this then? what is this project? what is its purpose?

The EU helps drive globalisation, yet it also has a responsibility to protect local customs and culture. It itself does not destroy local things.

It is clear to see it; the monetary union, the political union, the economic union, the parliament, the flag, the anthem, the motto, a foreign minister, the idea that we are 'European citizens' when there has never been a country or nation called Europe. Europe has (historically) been a continent and it should remain that. Below is the video of Farage exposing the same old people from the old regime, now in the new regime. The idea that they are creating a nation, the idea that their nation takes place over the existing nations - that is euro nationalism. They want my nation to end and their nation to take over, their flag to take place over my flag - again, the Orwellian definition of nationalism in full play much like it was under the USSR in Eastern Europe where national flags were dropped and new flags and a new identity carved and churned out of Moscow much as it is from Brussels in the modern day.

Citizenship of the union is additional not replacing citizenship of the member state and is there so you are allowed to live and work where you like. I wouldn't say these unions particularly define what is a culture. You are again blurring the lines between nationality and culture. I can see why someone would see that a monetary union changes the culture, but i think that it can be a good way of harmonising the market. You don't see the government changing what flag it flies, or what people fly in their back gardens? Not here, not in france, not in sweden, not in germany, not in italy. It's a conspiracy theory. A nation cannot be enforced on you if you do not accept it. No one is accepting it and it is not being created. I can see the need for an identity for the union itself, the flag and motto i have no particular problem with. No one really takes the anthem seriously.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh please. The national parliaments if they get something they don't like will throw it out - meaning it'll eventually become useless. Oh please, the president has no power, they picked someone with no big image so the uk, french, german and italians can keep him in check.

They cannot overturn regulations, as I have said before; there is a reason EU law and courts are superior to British law and courts, to make sure we cannot overturn those rulings. From the book 'The Great European Rip-off' which actually argues for reform of the EU rather than abolition, it puts;

Over the last 10 years the Commission has introduced around 2,340 regulations (cannot be overturned, have to be implemented as EU law states) a year compared to 103 directives a year (directives can be suited on member states behalf to how they wish to implement them and when). So about 96% of all new laws passed during the last decade are actually regulations, giving lie to the Commission which claim that is 'often' uses directives. This meant that by the start of 2009 only about 6 per cent of the total body of current EU law was now based on the more flexible directives, with a massive 94% coming from completely inflexible regulations.

% of EU law coming from regulations rather than directives

1985 - 81%
1009 - 81%
1995 - 82%
2000 - 91%
2005 - 93%
2009 - 94%

The unelected President of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy (who calls for a world government), attended the G8 summit. The unelected head of the EU Commission Jose Barroso (convicted of embezzlement aka financial fraud in normal terms) also attended the summit. The very reason they picked Herman Van Rompuy without a vote and here lies the core reason the EU can never become democratic; is because he is a federalist and would not have been elected by the peoples of Europe. This man has called for EU-wide taxation and for all national symbols across Europe to be replaced by EU symbols. He may not have the speaking skills of Tony Blair but he is dangerous and unelected - and he wants a European Superstate - the exact reason why its now not (or has it ever been?) whats best for the member states, but whats best for the EU itself - euro-nationalism.

This is where i disagree. I don't believe we should be restricted by this. You believe in tribal freedom, i believe in personal freedom. This is why you seem to be such against human rights, where the aim of the human rights is to protect the minority, not pander to the majority. You can't have a functional market without free movement of goods, services and people.

Then you do not live in the real world. In the modern world we have borders, we have welfare systems which can be exploited and we have social issues which arise from immigration and the movement of people - you disregard these real issues and go along with the idea that 'I can go wherever I like and take whatever I wish, even if the people who live there do not like it'. The human rights idea, no i'm for human rights - against torture of terrorist suspects and all the rest. What I am not for is foreign courts ruling over British courts and the idea that 'because i'm gay/black/disabled/in a minority I have a right to something that the majority do not have' aka when they are hired because of them factors. Democracy is about majority rule, end of.

You only have to hear americans bark on about 'europe' to know that's not true - the chinese I've spoken to think the same. They don't care. I guess you haven't met many french or german people to say we are totally different - it's simply not true. There are similarities and there are differences, just like the UK. Scotland has a different culture to england, wales and northern ireland. The north of england has a different culture to devon and london, hell even Nottingham has differences to Derby and leicester. Where do you draw the line in the differences? German is the most spoken language in the EU, but I'd say that English is probably the language that they are most proficient in.

Americans know Europe as a continent, not as an identity. The French talk French and are considered rude aswell as surrender monkeys for World War II. The British or English are considered to have bad teeth and to all live in a smokey Victorian London whilst saluting the Queen. The Dutch are considered to all wear clogs, grow tulips and bake pies. There is no similarity within Europe between people, other than the fact we all share (mostly) the same skin colour and even that is not correct as the Spanish are darker and so on.

How do you draw the differences? - you draw them at a nation, a natural nation. England is a natural nation, as in Scotland, Wales, France, Prussia and so on. Artifical nations are the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Spain itself along with the former countries of Yugoslavia, the USSR and Czechslovakia. Within those nations that are natural, their are differences as with any nation. However you can largely define nations throughout history, they share the same history mainly, the same buildings, the same culture and so on. The reason why the United Kingdom has lasted longer than for example, Yugoslavia is because the nations of Scotland, Wales and England all share the same culture and history.

Europe on the other hand is totally different, differing history, differing languages and so on. You spoke earlier about preserving languages yet whether you like it or not, the unification of Europe would mean the adoption of one central language which would mean a steady but sure decline for all the unique and individual languages that exist across Europe. If it does not adopt one language and the people refuse to accept it (as they do now and as they always will do) then it will not last very long at all, even the USSR shared some traits within itself of an identity and that didnt last very long so I would certainly not put my money on the idea of a European Union lasting very long.

I'd say it was.

The polls and referendums say, no declare different. Being a euro-nationalist you would say that.

The Laeken declaration - in my opinion, is referring mostly to 'uniting' west and eastern europe which traditionally had different ties and allegiences as it was just before the eastern european countries joined the EU. The full text of the laeken declaration is here: http://www.eunow.eu/laeken%20declaration.html

And seeing as you know the laeken declaration in such detail you'd also know it says:
"
the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all

diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions.

"

The Laeken declaration was declared to light the way the European Union followed, with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty which started to lay down the foundations for a monetary union, political union and economic union. The parts you have quoted are just the symbolic parts, in the hope that when future 'Europeans' study in their EU schools the history of the European Union, they will look to these parts and read the history of their great nation - in other words its trying to copy the consitution and texts of the United States and most other modern, plastic and fake Constitutions.

You have just read one of the most important parts of the declaration, quoting that it wants a federal Europe. No more evidence normally would be required, but i'll go ahead with it anyway (following the introduction of the euro);

In 1992 the German chancellor Helmut Kohl told us what was coming: 'The European Union Treaty . . . within a few years will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after the war, the United States of Europe.'

In 1993 the Commission president Jacques Delors explained: 'We're not just here to make a single market, but a political union.'

In 1996 the German president Roman Herzog declared: 'The day of the nation state is over.'

In 1999 Romano Prodi, who took over as Commission president from Jacques Santer, gave an excellent description of how the EU had developed over the years: 'The single market was the theme of the eighties' the single currency was the theme of the nineties; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.' and we went on to explain where he was headed: 'For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the oppertunity to unite Europe.'

The head of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, said; 'A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy.'

The first president of the European Central Bank (ECB) backed up this view; 'The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU (European Monetary Union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a United Europe.'

And the second head of the ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, was also explicit about the EU's powers; ' The Council of Ministers will have more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.'

EU Commission president Romano Prodi again said; 'But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term government for this, what other term do you suggest?'

In case we hadn't got the message still, he said around a month later: 'Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers, I have executive powers for which there is no ohter name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government.'

I have more if you wish to see them from this book, the Great European Rip-Off which are ontop of the ones I know from memory which are widely ready to take from the internet. One of my favourites though would have to be this one because it just states clearly what is happening, especially concerning our democracy;

A memo written by a senior British civil servant in 1971, but released only 30 years later, reportedly gave an unambiguous insight into the attitudes of our leaders:

'Of course this is the end of British democracy as we have known it, but if it is properly handled the people won't know what's happened until the end of the century. With any luck old boy, by then I'll be dead.'

The EU helps drive globalisation, yet it also has a responsibility to protect local customs and culture. It itself does not destroy local things.

If it is to become a state (as I have made clear that it does, well I havent really - the EU itself has done) then protecting local cultures is nothing more than a PR mask for what it is really doing. If it is to become a single state then it will have to have to same everything (even more powerful than the federal US government as stated) right down to what lamposts we have, what street signs we use, what main language we use, what brands we use and many other issues that cover across the board, even the monarchy and the British unwritten consitution would be ended after thousands of years of history. It destroys culture.

Citizenship of the union is additional not replacing citizenship of the member state and is there so you are allowed to live and work where you like. I wouldn't say these unions particularly define what is a culture. You are again blurring the lines between nationality and culture. I can see why someone would see that a monetary union changes the culture, but i think that it can be a good way of harmonising the market. You don't see the government changing what flag it flies, or what people fly in their back gardens? Not here, not in france, not in sweden, not in germany, not in italy. It's a conspiracy theory. A nation cannot be enforced on you if you do not accept it. No one is accepting it and it is not being created. I can see the need for an identity for the union itself, the flag and motto i have no particular problem with. No one really takes the anthem seriously.

It does mean the end of citizenship of the nation state. The very fact the words 'EUROPEAN UNION' were placed ontop of the passports of Europe (over the name of the nation state itself) declares that this is trying to make us become European Union citizens over our nation ones. To add to this, I was reading about this subject a while ago and they are that hell-bent on forcing it down our throats, they even forced member states to use burgundy as the colour of the passports - how utterly power mad could you get?

Now you have gone onto monetary union which there really isnt much to say about other than 'Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland' - to harmonise a market means to destroy a market, in other words 'the market will do what we want' - the markets have shown the European elite that this isnt the case, because politicians cannot control the market at the end of the day (as shown with the centrally managed USSR in which the market simply moved or fell on its own sword).

I have been waiting for the words 'its a conspiracy theory' for a very long time. Look back at what i've quoted earlier on, along with various other quotes out there and tell me then thats its a conspiracy theory.

[alexxxxx]

They cannot overturn regulations, as I have said before; there is a reason EU law and courts are superior to British law and courts, to make sure we cannot overturn those rulings. From the book 'The Great European Rip-off' which actually argues for reform of the EU rather than abolition, it puts;

Over the last 10 years the Commission has introduced around 2,340 regulations (cannot be overturned, have to be implemented as EU law states) a year compared to 103 directives a year (directives can be suited on member states behalf to how they wish to implement them and when). So about 96% of all new laws passed during the last decade are actually regulations, giving lie to the Commission which claim that is 'often' uses directives. This meant that by the start of 2009 only about 6 per cent of the total body of current EU law was now based on the more flexible directives, with a massive 94% coming from completely inflexible regulations.

% of EU law coming from regulations rather than directives

1985 - 81%
1009 - 81%
1995 - 82%
2000 - 91%
2005 - 93%
2009 - 94%

The unelected President of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy (who calls for a world government), attended the G8 summit. The unelected head of the EU Commission Jose Barroso (convicted of embezzlement aka financial fraud in normal terms) also attended the summit. The very reason they picked Herman Van Rompuy without a vote and here lies the core reason the EU can never become democratic; is because he is a federalist and would not have been elected by the peoples of Europe. This man has called for EU-wide taxation and for all national symbols across Europe to be replaced by EU symbols. He may not have the speaking skills of Tony Blair but he is dangerous and unelected - and he wants a European Superstate - the exact reason why its now not (or has it ever been?) whats best for the member states, but whats best for the EU itself - euro-nationalism.

You've completely missed my point. My point was that if the EU was not to exist and there were no courts to enforce pan-euro regulations, once a parliament sees something they don't like, it won't get passed. Now you may say 'oh but that's democracy' but the real point is that then the relationship breaks down between the countries and any efforts are worthless.

Then you do not live in the real world. In the modern world we have borders, we have welfare systems which can be exploited and we have social issues which arise from immigration and the movement of people - you disregard these real issues and go along with the idea that 'I can go wherever I like and take whatever I wish, even if the people who live there do not like it'. The human rights idea, no i'm for human rights - against torture of terrorist suspects and all the rest. What I am not for is foreign courts ruling over British courts and the idea that 'because i'm gay/black/disabled/in a minority I have a right to something that the majority do not have' aka when they are hired because of them factors. Democracy is about majority rule, end of.

I don't think borders help anyone. It doesn't help economic success in the long run and it promotes tribalism.

Americans know Europe as a continent, not as an identity. The French talk French and are considered rude aswell as surrender monkeys for World War II. The British or English are considered to have bad teeth and to all live in a smokey Victorian London whilst saluting the Queen. The Dutch are considered to all wear clogs, grow tulips and bake pies. There is no similarity within Europe between people, other than the fact we all share (mostly) the same skin colour and even that is not correct as the Spanish are darker and so on.

Oh please that's not what i meant at all. Main ideals of europe are pretty much the same throughout. Many socialist policies (universal healthcare coverage), heavily subsidized or free universities, more relaxed, less of a rat-race than in the far east or in the USA and diverse culture.

How do you draw the differences? - you draw them at a nation, a natural nation. England is a natural nation, as in Scotland, Wales, France, Prussia and so on. Artifical nations are the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Spain itself along with the former countries of Yugoslavia, the USSR and Czechslovakia. Within those nations that are natural, their are differences as with any nation. However you can largely define nations throughout history, they share the same history mainly, the same buildings, the same culture and so on. The reason why the United Kingdom has lasted longer than for example, Yugoslavia is because the nations of Scotland, Wales and England all share the same culture and history.

I have to completely disagree with you there.

Europe on the other hand is totally different, differing history, differing languages and so on. You spoke earlier about preserving languages yet whether you like it or not, the unification of Europe would mean the adoption of one central language which would mean a steady but sure decline for all the unique and individual languages that exist across Europe. If it does not adopt one language and the people refuse to accept it (as they do now and as they always will do) then it will not last very long at all, even the USSR shared some traits within itself of an identity and that didnt last very long so I would certainly not put my money on the idea of a European Union lasting very long.

Absolute rubbish. There is no chance that a unified europe would destroy the different languages. There is no particular dominant language in Europe to start with.

The polls and referendums say, no declare different. Being a euro-nationalist you would say that.

Just because there is low support for the EU in this country, doesn't mean it doesn't spread anywhere else. And to be honest, just little support for the EU doesn't mean that europe is not united.

The Laeken declaration was declared to light the way the European Union followed, with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty which started to lay down the foundations for a monetary union, political union and economic union. The parts you have quoted are just the symbolic parts, in the hope that when future 'Europeans' study in their EU schools the history of the European Union, they will look to these parts and read the history of their great nation - in other words its trying to copy the consitution and texts of the United States and most other modern, plastic and fake Constitutions.

You have just read one of the most important parts of the declaration, quoting that it wants a federal Europe. No more evidence normally would be required, but i'll go ahead with it anyway (following the introduction of the euro);

In 1992 the German chancellor Helmut Kohl told us what was coming: 'The European Union Treaty . . . within a few years will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after the war, the United States of Europe.'

In 1993 the Commission president Jacques Delors explained: 'We're not just here to make a single market, but a political union.'

In 1996 the German president Roman Herzog declared: 'The day of the nation state is over.'

In 1999 Romano Prodi, who took over as Commission president from Jacques Santer, gave an excellent description of how the EU had developed over the years: 'The single market was the theme of the eighties' the single currency was the theme of the nineties; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.' and we went on to explain where he was headed: 'For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the oppertunity to unite Europe.'

The head of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, said; 'A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy.'

The first president of the European Central Bank (ECB) backed up this view; 'The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU (European Monetary Union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a United Europe.'

And the second head of the ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, was also explicit about the EU's powers; ' The Council of Ministers will have more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.'

EU Commission president Romano Prodi again said; 'But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term government for this, what other term do you suggest?'

In case we hadn't got the message still, he said around a month later: 'Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers, I have executive powers for which there is no ohter name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government.'

I have more if you wish to see them from this book, the Great European Rip-Off which are ontop of the ones I know from memory which are widely ready to take from the internet. One of my favourites though would have to be this one because it just states clearly what is happening, especially concerning our democracy;

A memo written by a senior British civil servant in 1971, but released only 30 years later, reportedly gave an unambiguous insight into the attitudes of our leaders:

'Of course this is the end of British democracy as we have known it, but if it is properly handled the people won't know what's happened until the end of the century. With any luck old boy, by then I'll be dead.'

Such conspiracy rubbish. Of course the bloody commision is the the executive branch ie what takes the role of the government in a 'traditional' sense. That's it's JOB. Who else do they expect will enforce the rules?

If it is to become a state (as I have made clear that it does, well I havent really - the EU itself has done) then protecting local cultures is nothing more than a PR mask for what it is really doing. If it is to become a single state then it will have to have to same everything (even more powerful than the federal US government as stated) right down to what lamposts we have, what street signs we use, what main language we use, what brands we use and many other issues that cover across the board, even the monarchy and the British unwritten consitution would be ended after thousands of years of history. It destroys culture.

No no no no no. The EU's goal is not to become a state. Nor is that the wishes of the national governments.

It does mean the end of citizenship of the nation state. The very fact the words 'EUROPEAN UNION' were placed ontop of the passports of Europe (over the name of the nation state itself) declares that this is trying to make us become European Union citizens over our nation ones. To add to this, I was reading about this subject a while ago and they are that hell-bent on forcing it down our throats, they even forced member states to use burgundy as the colour of the passports - how utterly power mad could you get?

Have you ever thought that maybe if a passport has EUROPEAN UNION written on the top, it makes it easier to distinguish at a border who is eligible to enter sans visa and who isn't. Jersey, Guernsey, IoM, Hong Kong passports are all the same colour and they aren't in the EU.

Now you have gone onto monetary union which there really isnt much to say about other than 'Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland' - to harmonise a market means to destroy a market, in other words 'the market will do what we want' - the markets have shown the European elite that this isnt the case, because politicians cannot control the market at the end of the day (as shown with the centrally managed USSR in which the market simply moved or fell on its own sword).

A monetary union is not the same as a common market to start with. You have proven before that you haven't a clue what you're talking about in economics because the EU is far from the USSR in that respect.

I have been waiting for the words 'its a conspiracy theory' for a very long time. Look back at what i've quoted earlier on, along with various other quotes out there and tell me then thats its a conspiracy theory.

that's because it is a conspiracy theory. and not a very credible one because there seems to be no-one who will gain from it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Alex. I have just provided you with numerous quotes from EU officals/people who support the European project and are involved in it and they are saying the exact opposite to what you are saying. Are they all telling lies and you are the one telling the truth?

Here is the former British prime minister admitting what Mr Delors (then EU commission president) said all them years ago;

Another one for you (from an outsider) is from the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev; "The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in western Europe."

The similarties are striking between the Soviet Union and the European Union, as the Soviet president pointed out all of those years ago. Both have an unelected government of Europe/Eurasia (as Mr Prodi points out) with [increasingly] powerless federal governments down at a lower level - and both had a parliament which had no real parliamentary authority and could be bypassed by the likes of regulations with the European Union The parliament is nothing but a show dog, it is the Commission which retains power and it is the Commission which is the unelected government of Europe.

It is either we go with a federal Europe or we leave - it is the the peoples of Europe who need to make that choice, not the politicians.

[AgnesIO]

You'd like an EU source on it?

Are the EU really going to publish that? its like asking me to provide some EU sources regarding the Lisbon Treaty in the way in which they totally ignored the Irish, French and Dutch no votes - the EU isnt going to report bad press on itself, its already hated enough without having to do so.

Are UKIP really going to say how good the EU can be? I mean if you are going to say the EU will be biased, then use a brain cell -:undertaker:-.. UKIP ARE JUST THE SAME.

Stop relying on the Daily Mail and UKIP are sources. That's just ludicrous.

And the money problems in Britain, as well as many education problems (eg. funding) was partly Thatchers fault - ask someone older than fifty -:undertaker:- and stop relying on rubbish sources to fund your rant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I will respond to the Thatcher point first. Margaret Thatcher left office nearly two decades ago now, why are you [the left] still blaming her for everything? I do not know whether you know (doesnt sound like you do) but we have had a Labour government just gone which was in office for 13 years - so why did Labour not sort out whatever you are moaning about? more to the point Margaret Thatcher actually diverted money from the military and foreign affairs to education and health spending, she did the opposite of what you claim.

Are UKIP really going to say how good the EU can be? I mean if you are going to say the EU will be biased, then use a brain cell -:undertaker:-.. UKIP ARE JUST THE SAME.

Stop relying on the Daily Mail and UKIP are sources. That's just ludicrous.

And the money problems in Britain, as well as many education problems (eg. funding) was partly Thatchers fault - ask someone older than fifty -:undertaker:- and stop relying on rubbish sources to fund your rant.

The EU Consitution was being planned for years and lets go through the motions and see if the dispute them then, no UKIP here or Daily Mail - just the facts and if you dispute them then actually come up with some evidence rather than being a coward and constantly ranting about a party and a paper whilst slamming me.

When Tony Blair first became an MP he paraded his euro-scepticism; 'We'll negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs.'. However in his 1997 manifesto he stressed the need for Britain to be in the centre of Europe; 'Britain will be a leader in Europe.'

Shortly after being elected in 1997, the new prime minister stressed how he would let the people have their say on any further moves towards an integrated Europe; 'If there are any further steps to European integration, the people should have their say at a general election or in a referendum.' But in 2003 when the consitution was being finalised, Mr Blair seemed to have changed his mjind somewhat; 'I see no case for having a referendum on the new EU consitution. We don't govern this country by referendum.'

Later in that year, Mr Blair confirmed that there would be no referendum; 'There will not be a referendum. The reason is that the consitution does not fundamentally change the relationship between the UK and the EU.' However by April of the following year Mr Blair was saying that there should now be a referendum; 'There is no question of any consitutional treaty going through without the express constent of the British people . . . Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.'

In their 2005 manifesto they were keen to avoid it becoming a major issue at the election, so they wrote; 'The new Consitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively . . . We will put it to the British people in a referendum.' By 2007 the office of PM was handed to Gordon Brown and Brown was adamant that his government would live up to any promises it made in its manifesto; 'The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.'

Thee months later however, Brown seemed to have decided that there was clearly no need for a referendum has he claimed that the new Lisbon Treaty which replaced the failed Consitution [France, the Netherlands and the Irish all said no] was nothing like the Consitutional Treatt and, according to him, made little or no difference to Britain's relationship with the EU; 'If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundemental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty.'

The UK government then pushed the Lisbon Treaty through parliament, allowing only two weeks debate on the matter. Only one hurdle remained, euro-phile Republic of Ireland which had recieved 40 billion (euros) of EU money since joining in 1973. It was assured to be a pushover (the Irish by law must have a referendum on matters that transfer sovereignty). Although with this in mind, it didnt really matter which way the Irish voted as the EU parliament voted by 449 to 129 to reject Amendment 32 to a report on the Lisbon Treaty. That amendment stated; 'The European parliament undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland.'. So the decision had alredy been made long before the Irish vote to ignore the result if the result was not the one the European Union wanted.

After the Irish rejected the hated treaty, Nicholas Sarkozy was quick to suggets the Irish vote again; 'Les Irlandais devraient revoter.' As for the EU flag, the motto, the anthem and the establishment of a 'Europe Day' on 9 May - all these symbols of a superstate had been removed from the consitution when it morphed into the Lisbon Treaty in order to avoid upsetting nation states. In late 2008 however, the European parliament votyed to adopt them anyway, thus furthering the creation of a single superstate in spite of its unwilling citizens.

----------

If you dispute that the Lisbon Treaty is a different treaty to the original consitution, you are at loggerheads with the heads of Europe. (On the Lisbon Treaty);

'The substance of the consitution is preserved. That is a fact.' - German chancellor Angela Merkel

'Theres nothing from the original package that has been changed.' - Astrid Thors, Finland's Europe minister.

'The substance of what we agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term "consitution".' - Dermot Ahern, Irish foreign minister

'The good thing is . . . that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.' - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister

'In terms of context, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way . . . The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the consititional treaty.' - architect of the consitution

+more if you should wish to read them.

----------

No Daily Mail here, no UKIP - just quotes from Europes elite. So a response would be appreciated, a response that actually holds some water rather than the usual rant about the Daily Mail and UKIP. You said to me that I should use a brain cell? well maybe you should use your brain cells to actually back up what you are saying (whatever that is, not sure exactly because all you have done is rant about a party and a newspaper).