EU Migrants being sent home

[alexxxxx]

The 'one President' is the guy called Herman Van Rompuy who came to be our President by the European Union and national governments forcing through the EU Consitution Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the people. I should add that the French, Dutch and Irish were asked whether they wanted the President, offical flag and emblem and so on but said no alex. The word no means exactly that, no. This guy is unelected, not wanted and most people dont even know his name.

Now I know for a europhile like yourself that is very hard to understand the concept that people do not want something thats EU-related, but for once actually understand that you are working, foolishly and in an almost dictorial way which goes against the wishes of the people.

So you mean the president of the european council! I'm glad you cleared that up. National Governments should more closely scrutinise EU legislation instead of regarding the EU as foreign news.

It cannot and will not happen?

You mean like our farming, fishing, agricultural, social and various other policies (now starting to edge towards economic)

If you have a common market, you have to have common regulation or it simply isn't a common market.

are now controlled by the European Union despite the fact that Ted Heath said when we had the referendum on joining the European Economic Community that it was not a 'United States of Europe' project and then it later came out that he knew at the time that the intention was to build a European Superstate and it still is. Herman Van Rompuy has called for world government and Jose Barroso has called the European Union an Empire - need I say more?

Just because something isnt offically called a government doesnt mean it is not a government (and I think thats a phrase similar to one that came from the former head of the EU Commission).

The EU is essentially controlled via the european council and the european council don't want too much power taken away from their national governments. They need ideological people, but require people they can control easily.
[QUOTE]
But do you not grasp the fact that if nobody is reporting anything on the EU that its actually not wanted and not needed? - I dont understand this mentality you have, people do not want it yet people such as yourself seem to think the word no means yes. It means no, no to a single currency, no to a President on more than Obama and no to a unelected Commission full of convicted criminals/communists. We live in a democracy and people can read whatever they wish, and we are reading time after time how the EU wastes money and aims to become a European Superstate.

You have got fair reporting, and you have a fair response to which is *still* no.
Well it's not the fact that no-one wants it. Infact I'd argue that the lack of quality journalism in the main stream media leads to the ignorance and the fear about the EU.

I do not expect the EU to 'do its job in regulation and protecting citizens rights' because my country never asked for it and we still do not want it even after all these regulations it has imposed to 'protect our rights'. As for the trade agreements, well i'm sorry but their national laws come ontop of the laws of the EEA and EFTA unlike the British system and systems across Europe where national parliaments and Consitutions are being cyncially violated by European law.

See above about regulation. I expect you want agreements like the League Of Nations where as there are no real methods of punishments for countries that break rules, they'll continue to do so. If we were to join the EFTA you'd have to abide by the court. You are completely wrong, British law cannot come first if you want to join organisations like this. If you don't join organisations like this you become a marginalised nation.

How is the United Kingdom a sovereign state and the European Union not a sovereign state when EU law and courts take place over British law and courts - the fact is, it isnt. Its a mere puppet state. The whole idea of a state is so you govern yourself yet the United Kingdom no longer does that therefore it is not a sovereign state. You say regulation needs to happen, why not have it done here in Britain at a fraction of the cost and let the people decide in their own parliament whether or not they want more or less regulation?

If the UK is a puppet state, how are we still allowed to have a general election right now. Frankly what you've wrote is the largest joke of all as due to the Lisbon Treaty an official way of leaving the EU has been written up. As long as we still have the right to leave the EU we are a completely 100% sovereign state.

So what is your big problem with holding a referendum on membership?

In other words, you want democracy as long as it suits you. Well I have news for you, that is not democracy.



The vast majority of people seem to care alex even if you think its [hold a referendum] 'not necessary' so why not allow them to choose?

they are getting the choice now - vote UKIP! UKIP have had a lot of television exposure and they are always out an about. People know who they are and who they stand for. We vote in a government to make laws - that's what it's there for. Do you want to undermine our parliament? If 50%+ of the british people want to leave the EU they can, by voting in UKIP. Not hard to see my point of view is it? How come is it that UKIP are polling very little in the general election?

..and you can make an even bigger saving ontop of that by leaving the EU and scrapping all EU regulation.

Well ultimately a lot of this regulation will be just taken back into UK control and will just be paid by the taxpayer here instead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you mean the president of the european council! I'm glad you cleared that up. National Governments should more closely scrutinise EU legislation instead of regarding the EU as foreign news.

Why can the people not scrutinise the European Union in a fair and free referendum?

If you have a common market, you have to have common regulation or it simply isn't a common market.

The free market shouldnt be in blocs, having a trade bloc defies the idea of the common market and its pretty simple with the views of Nigel Farage and Ron Paul played into it, the free market is that; its free without much regulation at all. One nation trades with another and so forth - thats the free market. A trade bloc which seeks to exclude others because they are not in that organisation is not a free market.

The EU is essentially controlled via the european council and the european council don't want too much power taken away from their national governments. They need ideological people, but require people they can control easily.

See now this is where we trip alex, because whether you like it or not (which you do because you've given your support for a federal Europe) the aim is to create a European Superstate. If you have something that has its own currency, its own regulations (which overtakes priority of those on a national scale) and if you have something which aims for political, social and economic union then you are speaking of nothing more than a state. The European Union in idealogical terms is socialist with Jose Barroso being a former Maoist and many former Soviets hold positions withion the European Union which is ironic, as they were unelected in the Soviet Union and are now unelected in the European Union.

Well it's not the fact that no-one wants it. Infact I'd argue that the lack of quality journalism in the main stream media leads to the ignorance and the fear about the EU.

As usual you attempt to play it as the usual 'evil right wing media brainwashing everybody' - back in 1997 I could of said exactly the same about Labour and called for elections to be scrapped because everyone was being influenced by the eurphoria and press. It does not wash. How on earth can you accuse people of being ignorant over the European Union when the EU itself refuses to give anybody a say on whether or not they even wish for it to exist, and when it has to it makes them vote again - thats damn right arrogant.

See above about regulation. I expect you want agreements like the League Of Nations where as there are no real methods of punishments for countries that break rules, they'll continue to do so. If we were to join the EFTA you'd have to abide by the court. You are completely wrong, British law cannot come first if you want to join organisations like this. If you don't join organisations like this you become a marginalised nation.

I do not agree with the idea that one nation state should be bullied into what it does not want by other nations and as a libertarian yourself (apparently) you should be on the same line as myself. Let us take Iran for example, why can Iran be denied nuclear weapons when Israel has them but is not signed upto any international treaties and still denies they exist despite the fact they clearly do. It fuels extremism and creates wars, it doesnt prevent them.

As for British law, yes it can come first because we live in Britain and we are a sovereign state. If the EFTA is not an option then a seperate treaty should be organised, if not then we go back to what the rest of the world does which is trade with obstacles but try to minimise them as much as possible by putting hope into the idea that the European Union might open up in terms of trade, rather than isolate itself in a trade bloc while the rest of the world is posed to outpace Europe.

If the UK is a puppet state, how are we still allowed to have a general election right now. Frankly what you've wrote is the largest joke of all as due to the Lisbon Treaty an official way of leaving the EU has been written up. As long as we still have the right to leave the EU we are a completely 100% sovereign state.

The Soviet Union had elections but we clearly know what a sham they were, the same goes for this. The states of the USSR also technically had the right to leave the Soviet Union and eventually did, however if you have studied history you will know how hard it is to do that and the same is occuring now. We are being tangled up into this web which is political, social and economic which is making it harder and harder to leave. They can add as many clauses as they wish to do so, all an illusion because the pace of European regulation and legislation is outpacing any withdrawl clause rapidly and almost, well it does, defies the idea that you can just leave whenever you wish.

they are getting the choice now - vote UKIP! UKIP have had a lot of television exposure and they are always out an about. People know who they are and who they stand for. We vote in a government to make laws - that's what it's there for. Do you want to undermine our parliament? If 50%+ of the british people want to leave the EU they can, by voting in UKIP. Not hard to see my point of view is it? How come is it that UKIP are polling very little in the general election?

You know as well as I do and UKIP itself, the FPTP system will not allow that ever to happen and I can gurantee you that as soon as that system is thrown off and a real proportional representation system is put into place the European Union will be over - either by the hands of UKIP itself or the Conservative Party which would be forced back into conservative and libertarian ideals with the threat of UKIP and other parties that would arise from a fair and free election. I shall take my mum and dad as an example as well as the rest of my family a few years back, we disagree with most of the policies of the Liberal Democrats yet we voted for them and why? - because under FPTP the only choice/real effect we could make was to vote for the Liberal Democrats to keep Labour out who destroyed this city and we did not want that again.

We also have something like 40% of people who do not bother voting, FPTP leaves them isolated and quite rightly because their vote is a waste of time. Lets not pretend, UKIP is a mainly conservative-natured party and i'm sure you would agree also that its ideals and idealogy of conservatism and libertarianism appeal much more to the vast majority of conservatives than the policies of the Conservative Party in 2010. Infact you even see it on this forum, conservatives on here have said they would vote for UKIP but they vote Conservative because they know that under this system UKIP haven't a cats chance in hell of forming a government.

To see how corrupt and unfair the system is, just look at the Liberal Democrats now;- ahead in the polls yet predicted to get the least seats. Labour;- behind in the polls yet predicted to retain the most seats. The issue of parliament, I would like to undermine it yes because direct democracy is a far better solution. Again, as Nigel Farage pointed out, that parliament spent 18 hours debating the invasion of Iraq but spent over 600 hours debating the fox hunt ban.

Now i'm sorry, what sort of tinpot democracy is that?

Well ultimately a lot of this regulation will be just taken back into UK control and will just be paid by the taxpayer here instead.

Theres not need to include all this regulation as it strangles business, Europe has always been more inclined to use more regulation hence why their financial sectors lagged behind those of ours and the City of London. The taxpayer already pays for it Alex, as well as paying for things such as new motorways across Europe while our own roads fall into disrepair because 'we havent got enough money' - and yourself and the eurocrats wonder why people are against the European Union. :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

Why can the people not scrutinise the European Union in a fair and free referendum?

Do you even know what scrutinise means?
scrutiny - Thorough inspection of a situation or a case

The free market shouldnt be in blocs, having a trade bloc defies the idea of the common market and its pretty simple with the views of Nigel Farage and Ron Paul played into it, the free market is that; its free without much regulation at all. One nation trades with another and so forth - thats the free market. A trade bloc which seeks to exclude others because they are not in that organisation is not a free market.

That would be the ideal, but unfortunately you are going to find it very hard to get 100% free trade reciprocal trade agreements with the rest of the world. And then you are going to have to have some sort of body with power to make sure that free trade continues - which leads to blocs.

See now this is where we trip alex, because whether you like it or not (which you do because you've given your support for a federal Europe) the aim is to create a European Superstate. If you have something that has its own currency, its own regulations (which overtakes priority of those on a national scale) and if you have something which aims for political, social and economic union then you are speaking of nothing more than a state. The European Union in idealogical terms is socialist with Jose Barroso being a former Maoist and many former Soviets hold positions withion the European Union which is ironic, as they were unelected in the Soviet Union and are now unelected in the European Union.

And yes I agree with it having its own regulations and there are significant benefits to having one currency (and yes they should take prevalence over national laws or what would be the point in them?). I'm not a particular fan of Borroso, but it is worth noting that his last party affiliation was a centre-right party and he was a maoist in student years. What happens today is more important than what happened in the past.

As usual you attempt to play it as the usual 'evil right wing media brainwashing everybody' - back in 1997 I could of said exactly the same about Labour and called for elections to be scrapped because everyone was being influenced by the eurphoria and press. It does not wash. How on earth can you accuse people of being ignorant over the European Union when the EU itself refuses to give anybody a say on whether or not they even wish for it to exist, and when it has to it makes them vote again - thats damn right arrogant.

I still stand by what I say.

I do not agree with the idea that one nation state should be bullied into what it does not want by other nations and as a libertarian yourself (apparently) you should be on the same line as myself. Let us take Iran for example, why can Iran be denied nuclear weapons when Israel has them but is not signed upto any international treaties and still denies they exist despite the fact they clearly do. It fuels extremism and creates wars, it doesnt prevent them.

Unfortunately to have a common market that works you need to have common rules, if there wasn't you'd have each nation protecting their own inefficient industries and a loss in economic welfare. How hard is this to understand? Where has Iran come from?

As for British law, yes it can come first because we live in Britain and we are a sovereign state. If the EFTA is not an option then a seperate treaty should be organised, if not then we go back to what the rest of the world does which is trade with obstacles but try to minimise them as much as possible by putting hope into the idea that the European Union might open up in terms of trade, rather than isolate itself in a trade bloc while the rest of the world is posed to outpace Europe.

You won't get another treaty. The EU is open to trade from all over the world, not free trade, but it is open - there are tariffs on many imports. The USA has similar tariffs and jump at the chance to look after themselves. Eventually there will be free trade over the world, but you have to accept that it takes time to do so.

The Soviet Union had elections but we clearly know what a sham they were, the same goes for this. The states of the USSR also technically had the right to leave the Soviet Union and eventually did, however if you have studied history you will know how hard it is to do that and the same is occuring now. We are being tangled up into this web which is political, social and economic which is making it harder and harder to leave. They can add as many clauses as they wish to do so, all an illusion because the pace of European regulation and legislation is outpacing any withdrawl clause rapidly and almost, well it does, defies the idea that you can just leave whenever you wish.

You are not honestly comparing the UK elections to soviet elections. Then why does the Lisbon treaty now include an exit clause and outline how a state can leave the union?

You know as well as I do and UKIP itself, the FPTP system will not allow that ever to happen and I can gurantee you that as soon as that system is thrown off and a real proportional representation system is put into place the European Union will be over - either by the hands of UKIP itself or the Conservative Party which would be forced back into conservative and libertarian ideals with the threat of UKIP and other parties that would arise from a fair and free election. I shall take my mum and dad as an example as well as the rest of my family a few years back, we disagree with most of the policies of the Liberal Democrats yet we voted for them and why? - because under FPTP the only choice/real effect we could make was to vote for the Liberal Democrats to keep Labour out who destroyed this city and we did not want that again.

We also have something like 40% of people who do not bother voting, FPTP leaves them isolated and quite rightly because their vote is a waste of time. Lets not pretend, UKIP is a mainly conservative-natured party and i'm sure you would agree also that its ideals and idealogy of conservatism and libertarianism appeal much more to the vast majority of conservatives than the policies of the Conservative Party in 2010. Infact you even see it on this forum, conservatives on here have said they would vote for UKIP but they vote Conservative because they know that under this system UKIP haven't a cats chance in hell of forming a government.

I completely disagree - you are blaming the system when really it is the inadequacies and the unpopularity of UKIP and its policies that means that it doesn't get elected. If UKIP was a single-issue party on leaving the european union and then promised to have a general election afterwards - it would be much more likely to get elected. Its right-wing agenda and undertones puts people who are eurosceptic and left-wing off voting for them. I'll give you my example - I live where Ken Clarke is in office - a 14000-strong majority - my vote essentially won't count. PR doesn't ever mean you get strong governments. They fall apart when coalitions fall apart. Even though in principle i support reform, care has to be taken into not setting up a system where forming any sort of government becomes impossible.

To see how corrupt and unfair the system is, just look at the Liberal Democrats now;- ahead in the polls yet predicted to get the least seats. Labour;- behind in the polls yet predicted to retain the most seats. The issue of parliament, I would like to undermine it yes because direct democracy is a far better solution. Again, as Nigel Farage pointed out, that parliament spent 18 hours debating the invasion of Iraq but spent over 600 hours debating the fox hunt ban.

Now i'm sorry, what sort of tinpot democracy is that?

There is argument to what you're saying and I agree with the majority of what you say in this respect. But predictions on seats are very very hard to make due to you have to make a wide variety of assumptions. When you start assuming a uniform swing, any prediction is likely to be wrong.

Theres not need to include all this regulation as it strangles business, Europe has always been more inclined to use more regulation hence why their financial sectors lagged behind those of ours and the City of London. The taxpayer already pays for it Alex, as well as paying for things such as new motorways across Europe while our own roads fall into disrepair because 'we havent got enough money' - and yourself and the eurocrats wonder why people are against the European Union. :rolleyes:

i wouldn't use this as a good example. frankfurt is regarded as a major financial sector, that's why the ECB is based their. It was highly regarded that London would have been the headquarters of the ECB if we had joined the EMU. I'm perfectly happy that our money goes towards building better roads - it will improve efficiency of all businesses across europe.

[Adamm]

Good, get 'em all gone.

Flee to Bosnia instead, no one cares about that tiny country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you even know what scrutinise means?
scrutiny - Thorough inspection of a situation or a case

Indeed I so and congratulations to you for finding the definition, so I will ask again; why can the British people not have a debate to scrutinise the European Union and then have a referendum on the issue?

That would be the ideal, but unfortunately you are going to find it very hard to get 100% free trade reciprocal trade agreements with the rest of the world. And then you are going to have to have some sort of body with power to make sure that free trade continues - which leads to blocs.

The body which regulates trade would be the government or a sovereign organisation, not one which tells us how to run our NHS, our immigration system, our economy, what weights and measurements to use, what a pig (animal) is, what flag we should have and the list goes on and on and on. Free trade is possible without blocs, and infact blocs are the opposite to free trade because rather than looking out to the rest of the world, you isolate yourself within that bloc - Europe is in decline and will continue to decline both economically and demographically, by looking inwards it is storing up enormous problems for itself in the future both politically, socially and economically.

And yes I agree with it having its own regulations and there are significant benefits to having one currency (and yes they should take prevalence over national laws or what would be the point in them?). I'm not a particular fan of Borroso, but it is worth noting that his last party affiliation was a centre-right party and he was a maoist in student years. What happens today is more important than what happened in the past.

Now this is where you cannot answer it each and every time we touch on it;

1) EU regulation, you agree with them.
- Perhaps some regulations to do with trade are needed, however how are regulations controlling weights and measurements, the definition of a pig, working time directives and so on even directly related to the economy. If you are arguing for more regulation across the board (in other words removing governmental powers from elected bodies and giving them to foreign unelected bodies) then that needs consent because you are handing over sovereign powers without anybody agreeing to it - it is totally and utterly wrong.

2) The single currency, has its benefits you say.
- The single currency does not have its benefits because you lose all monetary control over your economy and your currency, in other words you cannot even describe yourself as 'you' in that case because once you do that there is no 'you' as in a nation state - there is only one state then, a European Superstate. Infact you are repeating the utter rubbish that Peter Mandelson and Nick Clegg continue to spout;- I mean can you not see the disaster that has been the euro in which a country/countries totally differing economies have the same currency? (Greece compared to Germany, France compared to Czech Republic and so forth).

I still stand by what I say.

In other words, totally ignoring public opinion and dismissing it.

Unfortunately to have a common market that works you need to have common rules, if there wasn't you'd have each nation protecting their own inefficient industries and a loss in economic welfare. How hard is this to understand? Where has Iran come from?

That is a common sign of Europe actually and not the United Kingdom from after the 1980s in which we finished our loss-making industry off and killed it, whereas Europe favours keeping dead industry alive as it is far more to the left than the United Kingdom is. If you want common rules for trade then fair do's (although this could be done with a treaty anyway) but once you start taking away my sterling, social, economic and political policy then you have overstepped the mark.

You won't get another treaty. The EU is open to trade from all over the world, not free trade, but it is open - there are tariffs on many imports. The USA has similar tariffs and jump at the chance to look after themselves. Eventually there will be free trade over the world, but you have to accept that it takes time to do so.

I have said there will be no more treaties concerning the European Union - aslong as we remain a part of it. Hang on a second anyway, not long ago you were saying the European Union was free trade and now you are saying the total opposite - you say free trade will take a while to arrive;- if thats the case, then what is the point in the European Union?

You are not honestly comparing the UK elections to soviet elections. Then why does the Lisbon treaty now include an exit clause and outline how a state can leave the union?

I am, no matter what the people voted in their voting system;- they were still governed from Moscow and the same goes for us with Brussels which in your eyes (the very small minority of Euro-federalists) is a good thing. The Lisbon Treaty may include an exit clause, but at the same time hands over enormous powers (self-amending ones) to the European Union meaning it is nothing but a farce. It is wrapping us up in a web [Eurpean dominence] which is spinning ten times faster than you can cut it back with the tiny scissors [exit clause] they have given you.

I completely disagree - you are blaming the system when really it is the inadequacies and the unpopularity of UKIP and its policies that means that it doesn't get elected. If UKIP was a single-issue party on leaving the european union and then promised to have a general election afterwards - it would be much more likely to get elected. Its right-wing agenda and undertones puts people who are eurosceptic and left-wing off voting for them. I'll give you my example - I live where Ken Clarke is in office - a 14000-strong majority - my vote essentially won't count. PR doesn't ever mean you get strong governments. They fall apart when coalitions fall apart. Even though in principle i support reform, care has to be taken into not setting up a system where forming any sort of government becomes impossible.

UKIP is not unpopular though, I shall remind you it came second in the European 2009 Elections. Even if UKIP recieved 50% of the vote in a General Election, it probably would still not form a majority because of the way the FPTP voting system is worked out - hence why many ditch UKIP and vote for other parties, mostly being the Conservatives. Tink of it like this; if you removed the UKIP sticker and the Conservative Party sticker from their policies and presented them to voters, who would they back? - without a question they would back UKIP and we can see it on this forum especiallu where UKIP voters tend to back the Conservatives because they know if they vote UKIP, it'll split the Conservative vote.

As for the single issue;- that is utter rubbish. The European Union is still not a strong enough issue in the minds of the voters to warrant voting for a single issue party and in terms of left and right, it would hardly gain more support from the left because the European Union does everything the left mostly agrees with;- more regulation and the creation of the European Superstate. As a Telegraph article recently stated;- a hung parliament with a PR outcome is the best chance UKIP will ever get. If this does occur and PR does arrive to this country, UKIP would very well reach something around the 20% mark in a future General Election which would force a referendum on the European Union.

There is argument to what you're saying and I agree with the majority of what you say in this respect. But predictions on seats are very very hard to make due to you have to make a wide variety of assumptions. When you start assuming a uniform swing, any prediction is likely to be wrong.

However we know that even with calculated swings, the system with the polls at the moment is likely to return a Labour majority even if it comes 3rd in the polls. Every single vote should count, if you vote in a Tory stronghold for the Liberal Democrats then it should count and the same goes for all votes including those for the smaller parties such as UKIP.

i wouldn't use this as a good example. frankfurt is regarded as a major financial sector, that's why the ECB is based their. It was highly regarded that London would have been the headquarters of the ECB if we had joined the EMU. I'm perfectly happy that our money goes towards building better roads - it will improve efficiency of all businesses across europe.

How can you even begin to justify British taxpayers paying for roads on the other size of Europe? :S

[HotelUser]

Pathetic. There's bums born in England too, why not kick them out?