Shopping & Style9 mins ago
Well They Would Wouldnt They
25 Answers
http://
He looks like a muppet....but is as dangerous as an AK47
another country they want to remove any individuality it has and destroy its borders and swallow into their ever growing empire
its all about expansion and control.....its call empire...and its coming to a country near you
He looks like a muppet....but is as dangerous as an AK47
another country they want to remove any individuality it has and destroy its borders and swallow into their ever growing empire
its all about expansion and control.....its call empire...and its coming to a country near you
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It isn't only the EU doing the sweet talking. That is the nub of it.
And much as Mr van Rompuy might not win any Mr Universe contests, and would certainly look even sillier riding bareback, at least he isn't a mass killer. Nor was it the EU which attempted to poison one of its election candidates several years ago.
The biggest attraction for Ukrainian people of closer economic ties with Europe is that, unlike the alternative (Russian customs union) is that although it would come with unpleasant short term economic realities, it also carries conditions such as reform of the judiciary. Fancy living in a country where the verdict goes in favour of the party who's bribed the judge the most money? Welcome to Ukraine in the 21st century. And it won't change as long as people like Yanukovich are in power, his interests and power base protected by his Kremlin mentor. Personally I think he and Klitschko should sort it out with an old fashioned fist fight. Always worked in my day :-)
And much as Mr van Rompuy might not win any Mr Universe contests, and would certainly look even sillier riding bareback, at least he isn't a mass killer. Nor was it the EU which attempted to poison one of its election candidates several years ago.
The biggest attraction for Ukrainian people of closer economic ties with Europe is that, unlike the alternative (Russian customs union) is that although it would come with unpleasant short term economic realities, it also carries conditions such as reform of the judiciary. Fancy living in a country where the verdict goes in favour of the party who's bribed the judge the most money? Welcome to Ukraine in the 21st century. And it won't change as long as people like Yanukovich are in power, his interests and power base protected by his Kremlin mentor. Personally I think he and Klitschko should sort it out with an old fashioned fist fight. Always worked in my day :-)
NJ, because I live in a member state of the EU(and being a member of a local organisation that encourages international friendship) I had the privilege of meeting a group of Lithuanians who visited our village earlier this year. They all spoke English very well, thought Russia was dreadful and that they had never had such freedom as they now had as members of the EU. I also know some Belarussians who would love their country to escape the clutches of Russia. The EU may suffer a bit of beaurocracy but it isn't all bad.
Sorry, ichkeria and jomifl, but it will come as no surprise to learn that I’m with baz on this one.
There are two strands to my thoughts. Firstly that I’m puzzled why the Ukrainians are so eager to become part of yet another oppressive empire which will stifle their ambition, individuality and democracy. It may well be that the EU is slightly less bad than the former USSR, but that’s rather like saying it is preferable to have your leg chopped off slightly below the knee instead of just above it.
But secondly (and more importantly as far as I’m concerned) should citizens of the current EU nations really want to see the bloc expanded to encompass a nation that is so steeped in corruption that the judiciary is as susceptible to bribery as suggested? There is nothing to stop the UK entering into trading agreements with the Ukraine (well, there wouldn’t be but for our membership of the EU). But is it really our responsibility as part of the EU to see their corruption cured just so they can join the club. In any case, corruption in high places within the EU (accounts not signed off by the auditors for at least fourteen years) leads me to believe that the EU is the very last organisation the Ukrainians should turn to for advice on such issues.
The EU is a corrupt, anti-democratic organisation whose long term aim is to see the abolition of individual nation states. In this respect it is identical to the former USSR. It has achieved little of benefit to the UK that the UK alone could not have achieved without it. It has imposed huge financial and administrative burdens on, particularly, its more prosperous nations and is a wealth redistribution machine shifting money to less well off members. (Incidentally, jomifl, you might like to ask your Lithuanian friends - and their Belarussian neighbours - quite how their “freedom” has been enhanced by their membership of the EU over how it would have been had they simply broken away from the USSR and remained independednt). It is struggling economically mainly because of its ridiculously flawed single currency which it refuses to abandon and the wild disparities in the economies of its members which will never converge whilst they remain individual nations (hence its long term ambition of a federal state). The last thing it needs is to recruit further members with vastly differing economies (GDP per capita in the Ukraine is less than 25% of that of the UK, average salaries £280 per month) and, shall we be kind and say, a less than satisfactory government and judiciary.
There! I think that's made my position quite clear !!
There are two strands to my thoughts. Firstly that I’m puzzled why the Ukrainians are so eager to become part of yet another oppressive empire which will stifle their ambition, individuality and democracy. It may well be that the EU is slightly less bad than the former USSR, but that’s rather like saying it is preferable to have your leg chopped off slightly below the knee instead of just above it.
But secondly (and more importantly as far as I’m concerned) should citizens of the current EU nations really want to see the bloc expanded to encompass a nation that is so steeped in corruption that the judiciary is as susceptible to bribery as suggested? There is nothing to stop the UK entering into trading agreements with the Ukraine (well, there wouldn’t be but for our membership of the EU). But is it really our responsibility as part of the EU to see their corruption cured just so they can join the club. In any case, corruption in high places within the EU (accounts not signed off by the auditors for at least fourteen years) leads me to believe that the EU is the very last organisation the Ukrainians should turn to for advice on such issues.
The EU is a corrupt, anti-democratic organisation whose long term aim is to see the abolition of individual nation states. In this respect it is identical to the former USSR. It has achieved little of benefit to the UK that the UK alone could not have achieved without it. It has imposed huge financial and administrative burdens on, particularly, its more prosperous nations and is a wealth redistribution machine shifting money to less well off members. (Incidentally, jomifl, you might like to ask your Lithuanian friends - and their Belarussian neighbours - quite how their “freedom” has been enhanced by their membership of the EU over how it would have been had they simply broken away from the USSR and remained independednt). It is struggling economically mainly because of its ridiculously flawed single currency which it refuses to abandon and the wild disparities in the economies of its members which will never converge whilst they remain individual nations (hence its long term ambition of a federal state). The last thing it needs is to recruit further members with vastly differing economies (GDP per capita in the Ukraine is less than 25% of that of the UK, average salaries £280 per month) and, shall we be kind and say, a less than satisfactory government and judiciary.
There! I think that's made my position quite clear !!
I'm sorry NJ in turn: many problems exist with the EU of course - but in a sense that's a whole separate debate. But claiming that it's 'only slightly less bad' than the EU is simply not a serious argument. In fact it's perfectly possible even to be anti-EU and yet still understand why Ukrainians would rather be looking west. The point about Ukraine's judiciary is that it will need to reform before it is allowed within a million miles of EU membership. That is one reason for its attraction for ordinary people. Russia may offer short term comfort but offers no prospect of any improvement in that area or others: why would it, of course as it is even worse
Of course if I were a Ukrainian I would choose the EU - in the same way that I would like to open a joint bank account with Bill Gates. But I’m not really concerned what they would want, but more what I think is in the best interests of the UK.
“To what extent has membership of the EU 'stifled democracy' in Germany, the UK, France, or any other member state, NJ ?”
Don’t know (and don’t really care) about other nations, Fred. But it is not disputed that upwards of 75% of legislation imposed upon the UK originates in Brussels (or Strasbourg if they happen to be on one of their twelve annual jollies there). There is virtually no democratic recourse for UK citizens who disagree with any of this. Further, the little democracy that does exist can see the interests of the UK completely overwhelmed by the interests of the other 27 voting nations. The proposed imposition of a financial transaction tax is a case in point. Such a levy is completely inappropriate in the UK (which already imposes 0.5% tax on share dealings anyway) but other nations are overwhelmingly in favour of the measure which will disproportionately impact on the City of London.
Where conflict between UK law and EU law have arisen, despite mumblings to the contrary, court judgements have established EU's law superiority over national law. Though I’m not too fussed about those nations who were foolish enough to adopt the euro, at least three of them have found their democratically elected governments usurped and ruled instead by a group of technocrats imposed upon them by the EU. Many of the hapless citizens of Cyprus saw 40% of their bank deposits forfeit as a direct result of their adoption of the euro and that currency’s subsequent crisis. Although this confiscation arrangement was sanctioned by the Cypriot parliament, they were virtually bludgeoned into their agreement by the conditions for their banks’ survival imposed upon them by their EU masters.
There are plenty more examples of the EU’s complete disregard for the will of the people or individual nation states. Successive UK Politicians have presided over a gradual submission of their powers and are now content to see three quarters of UK's legislation imposed by a bunch of unelected foreigners (and Neil Kinnock), most of whom (probably including Neil Kinnock) do not have the UK’s best interests at heart. Even without the EU, democracy in the UK leaves a lot to be desired but the increasing democratic shortfall brought about by our membership of the EU is a disgrace.
“To what extent has membership of the EU 'stifled democracy' in Germany, the UK, France, or any other member state, NJ ?”
Don’t know (and don’t really care) about other nations, Fred. But it is not disputed that upwards of 75% of legislation imposed upon the UK originates in Brussels (or Strasbourg if they happen to be on one of their twelve annual jollies there). There is virtually no democratic recourse for UK citizens who disagree with any of this. Further, the little democracy that does exist can see the interests of the UK completely overwhelmed by the interests of the other 27 voting nations. The proposed imposition of a financial transaction tax is a case in point. Such a levy is completely inappropriate in the UK (which already imposes 0.5% tax on share dealings anyway) but other nations are overwhelmingly in favour of the measure which will disproportionately impact on the City of London.
Where conflict between UK law and EU law have arisen, despite mumblings to the contrary, court judgements have established EU's law superiority over national law. Though I’m not too fussed about those nations who were foolish enough to adopt the euro, at least three of them have found their democratically elected governments usurped and ruled instead by a group of technocrats imposed upon them by the EU. Many of the hapless citizens of Cyprus saw 40% of their bank deposits forfeit as a direct result of their adoption of the euro and that currency’s subsequent crisis. Although this confiscation arrangement was sanctioned by the Cypriot parliament, they were virtually bludgeoned into their agreement by the conditions for their banks’ survival imposed upon them by their EU masters.
There are plenty more examples of the EU’s complete disregard for the will of the people or individual nation states. Successive UK Politicians have presided over a gradual submission of their powers and are now content to see three quarters of UK's legislation imposed by a bunch of unelected foreigners (and Neil Kinnock), most of whom (probably including Neil Kinnock) do not have the UK’s best interests at heart. Even without the EU, democracy in the UK leaves a lot to be desired but the increasing democratic shortfall brought about by our membership of the EU is a disgrace.
NJ - again you trot out the same rot about so called anti-democratic EU
Coming from a country where the upper house is unelected and the head of state is hereditary that's a bit of a laugh really isn't it?
The power in the EU is really with the council of ministers who are elected in their own countries
It adopts legislative acts (Regulations, Directives, etc.)
It helps coordinate Member States' policies,
It concludes international agreements on behalf of the Union;
It adopts the Union's budget, together with the European Parliament.
You keep coming back to European commissioners because it suits your argument but their job is most similar to that of a civil servant responsible for implementing and upholding regulations already passed.
I suspect you know this and that you don't really care about misleading people if it suits your political aims
But if you are more ethical than that and just misunderstood how it all works I apologise
Coming from a country where the upper house is unelected and the head of state is hereditary that's a bit of a laugh really isn't it?
The power in the EU is really with the council of ministers who are elected in their own countries
It adopts legislative acts (Regulations, Directives, etc.)
It helps coordinate Member States' policies,
It concludes international agreements on behalf of the Union;
It adopts the Union's budget, together with the European Parliament.
You keep coming back to European commissioners because it suits your argument but their job is most similar to that of a civil servant responsible for implementing and upholding regulations already passed.
I suspect you know this and that you don't really care about misleading people if it suits your political aims
But if you are more ethical than that and just misunderstood how it all works I apologise
NJ, the 'stifling' EU has given me (and you) the freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU, an (almost) common currency, freedom to move across borders without documentation, minimum wage, cross Europe mutual health care agreements. The list of benefits is a little longer than this, do you have a comparable list of disadvantages for the average Euro-citizen.
Further to what jakes, NJ, this 75 per cent of our laws being EU laws is regularly mentioned by those who are anti-EU , you included.
Have you ever taken time from your magisterial duties to actually look at what these 'laws' consist of? What they are are regulations and protocols to standardise maufacturing and business practices across the EU. They include regulations for standardising parts, for allowing free competition, to stop restrictive practices (such as manufacturers fixing prices or insisting that their goods only be sold in places that follow the practice) and a myriad other things to those ends.
And of course, the same figure applies to other member states, the same number of such 'laws', and the percentage of each country's laws is much the same; in Germany it was reported some years ago, by the Chancellor, that the figure was 80 per cent
Have you ever taken time from your magisterial duties to actually look at what these 'laws' consist of? What they are are regulations and protocols to standardise maufacturing and business practices across the EU. They include regulations for standardising parts, for allowing free competition, to stop restrictive practices (such as manufacturers fixing prices or insisting that their goods only be sold in places that follow the practice) and a myriad other things to those ends.
And of course, the same figure applies to other member states, the same number of such 'laws', and the percentage of each country's laws is much the same; in Germany it was reported some years ago, by the Chancellor, that the figure was 80 per cent
You may find, jomifl, that the freedom to use “an (almost) common currency” is one freedom many of those who enjoy it may well wish to have withdrawn.
The way that decisions in the EU are reached and which individuals vote on them is immaterial. What is important is that, apart from the ever decreasing number of issues which are subject to unanimity (i.e. those where individual nations have a veto), legislation is being foisted upon the UK electorate by people over whom they have no democratic control. If the majority of EU nations want a particular piece of legislation enacted but the UK does not it will pass into law regardless. The threatened financial transaction tax is a case in point.
It does you no credit, Jake, to suggest that the UK’s constitutional arrangements are undemocratic. You will know that the unelected Lords do not generate legislation and whilst they have the power of veto over Parliamentary bills there is no doubt that the Commons is supreme with the Parliament Act always available to force through legislation that the Lords attempts to block. Since you mention comedy what is laughable is to suggest that the Monarch, apart from signing the necessary papers, plays any practical role in the enactment of legislation.
The nature of the legislation passed is also not relevant but is worth a mention. It is true that much of it is technical and assists in facilitating trade. But much of it is not. There are innumerable EU directives where I can see no direct impact on the facilitation of free trade. Just a few plucked at random:
- Numerous Council Directives implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin;
- Habitats Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
- Birds Directive on the conservation of wild birds;
- Large Combustion Plant Directive on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants;
- Water Framework Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;
- Urban Waste Water Directive concerning urban waste water collection and treatment;
In addition of course there is the recent attempt to interfere with the UK’s affairs, possibly jeopardising the provision of its energy requirements, by suggesting the country has no right to spend its money on what it wants.
Many of these directives have laudable aims and some of them could well be construed, by those with an active imagination, to be connected with the facilitation of free trade (though it is hard to fathom how the conservation of wild birds could have such an effect). But they are matters for national governments to implement if and when they see fit.
It may well be that the majority of the UK electorate prefer their legislation to be controlled by foreigners and if they did I would shut up and fully embrace the EU (much as it would disappoint me). But the question has never been put. Until it is I will maintain that the EU is undemocratic.
And by the way, Fred, I don’t recall ever mentioning on AB (or anywhere else) that I undertake any “magisterial duties”.
The way that decisions in the EU are reached and which individuals vote on them is immaterial. What is important is that, apart from the ever decreasing number of issues which are subject to unanimity (i.e. those where individual nations have a veto), legislation is being foisted upon the UK electorate by people over whom they have no democratic control. If the majority of EU nations want a particular piece of legislation enacted but the UK does not it will pass into law regardless. The threatened financial transaction tax is a case in point.
It does you no credit, Jake, to suggest that the UK’s constitutional arrangements are undemocratic. You will know that the unelected Lords do not generate legislation and whilst they have the power of veto over Parliamentary bills there is no doubt that the Commons is supreme with the Parliament Act always available to force through legislation that the Lords attempts to block. Since you mention comedy what is laughable is to suggest that the Monarch, apart from signing the necessary papers, plays any practical role in the enactment of legislation.
The nature of the legislation passed is also not relevant but is worth a mention. It is true that much of it is technical and assists in facilitating trade. But much of it is not. There are innumerable EU directives where I can see no direct impact on the facilitation of free trade. Just a few plucked at random:
- Numerous Council Directives implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin;
- Habitats Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
- Birds Directive on the conservation of wild birds;
- Large Combustion Plant Directive on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants;
- Water Framework Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;
- Urban Waste Water Directive concerning urban waste water collection and treatment;
In addition of course there is the recent attempt to interfere with the UK’s affairs, possibly jeopardising the provision of its energy requirements, by suggesting the country has no right to spend its money on what it wants.
Many of these directives have laudable aims and some of them could well be construed, by those with an active imagination, to be connected with the facilitation of free trade (though it is hard to fathom how the conservation of wild birds could have such an effect). But they are matters for national governments to implement if and when they see fit.
It may well be that the majority of the UK electorate prefer their legislation to be controlled by foreigners and if they did I would shut up and fully embrace the EU (much as it would disappoint me). But the question has never been put. Until it is I will maintain that the EU is undemocratic.
And by the way, Fred, I don’t recall ever mentioning on AB (or anywhere else) that I undertake any “magisterial duties”.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
