Technology2 mins ago
Have we heard it all before?
With typical Europhilia the Independent (independent? are they really?) seeks to reasure us on the so called "Myths" of the latest EU "Constitution"
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article30 70577.ece
Now forgive me but I remember a similar thing being said in 1973, Ted Heath the master of treachery, (yes he's Tory, I know, I know), "There are those that believe signing up for a Common Market, will lead to ceding power and control to some sort of European superstate, I say this is not going to happen". Well no sh1t Ted! We voted for trading agreements and general cooperation, see where we are now! If we do sign the final surrender document, how long before the 10 fears above come to pass? As GWB once failed to say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article30 70577.ece
Now forgive me but I remember a similar thing being said in 1973, Ted Heath the master of treachery, (yes he's Tory, I know, I know), "There are those that believe signing up for a Common Market, will lead to ceding power and control to some sort of European superstate, I say this is not going to happen". Well no sh1t Ted! We voted for trading agreements and general cooperation, see where we are now! If we do sign the final surrender document, how long before the 10 fears above come to pass? As GWB once failed to say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. 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.
On their list is:
>5. Britain will lose control of its borders
What a joke. We have not even got control of our borders now.
If we did have control then the half a million illegal immigrants, and the half a million (or more) EU migrants would not be here.
For the last 15 years or so we have had an almost open door policy on immigration.
We now have thousands of criminals, drug dealers, people smugglers, and those involved in organized crime, identlity theft, credit card fraud and so on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4941132.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3169157.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article2493384.ece
>5. Britain will lose control of its borders
What a joke. We have not even got control of our borders now.
If we did have control then the half a million illegal immigrants, and the half a million (or more) EU migrants would not be here.
For the last 15 years or so we have had an almost open door policy on immigration.
We now have thousands of criminals, drug dealers, people smugglers, and those involved in organized crime, identlity theft, credit card fraud and so on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4941132.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3169157.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article2493384.ece
What's really funny about the EU constitution is that it will actually give national government more power, not less.
So the Eurosceptics are cutting of their noses to spite their faces - simply because voting yes for anything with EU in the title warps their minds.
Oh no, that's not the only reason is it? There's the fact that the Sun and other newspapers have started a 'vote no' campaign against the EU. The same EU that wants stricter laws against monopolies - which would directly harm media barons like Murdoch? Surely just coincidence??
Oh look, on page 3, Sally, 21, from Dorset says the EU is bad and they should leave our sausages alone. Vote no!
So the Eurosceptics are cutting of their noses to spite their faces - simply because voting yes for anything with EU in the title warps their minds.
Oh no, that's not the only reason is it? There's the fact that the Sun and other newspapers have started a 'vote no' campaign against the EU. The same EU that wants stricter laws against monopolies - which would directly harm media barons like Murdoch? Surely just coincidence??
Oh look, on page 3, Sally, 21, from Dorset says the EU is bad and they should leave our sausages alone. Vote no!
The anti Europeans, and there are many, suggesting we have a referendum on the new treaty. Because of the bad press the result is a foregone conclusion, a NO. But nobody has suggested what happens from there on. Do we become little Englanders again, drop out of the EU and hide behind the commonwealth. They don't want us!
We do NOT need to be part of the European Union. We need to trade with them and have close links - but that is it. It is a myth that jobs will be lost if we dont join, it is a myth that we need the euro as our currency. Non of this has come to pass and it wont. Great Britain can survive outside - others do - eg the Swiss.
As for morecontrol under the constitution, Hogwash.
And anyway I like my bannanas and cuecumbers bent.
As for morecontrol under the constitution, Hogwash.
And anyway I like my bannanas and cuecumbers bent.
Loosehead, on a totally unrelated point:
Under the current guidelines that apply to derivatives, investment management companies are permitted to use derivatives purely for the purposes of management and hedging. The maximum permitted nominal is based on the fund�s total assets, rather than directly on the inherent risk of the derivatives. As such, derivatives are entirely limited to orderly fund administration and hedging. Leverage is possible only to a certain degree. KAGG, derivative financial instruments are permissible only under the following circumstances (special asset funds):
- securities, (hedging and income enhancement);
- equity indices, (hedging and income enhancement);
- interest rates, (hedging and income enhancement);
- foreign exchange, (only for hedging purposes);
- swaps, (only for hedging purposes).
If the government was planning to overhaul these laws, should it go to referendum?
And if so, are you confident that the British public would be in a position to make a sound judgement? Or would they just follow what The Sun says?
Under the current guidelines that apply to derivatives, investment management companies are permitted to use derivatives purely for the purposes of management and hedging. The maximum permitted nominal is based on the fund�s total assets, rather than directly on the inherent risk of the derivatives. As such, derivatives are entirely limited to orderly fund administration and hedging. Leverage is possible only to a certain degree. KAGG, derivative financial instruments are permissible only under the following circumstances (special asset funds):
- securities, (hedging and income enhancement);
- equity indices, (hedging and income enhancement);
- interest rates, (hedging and income enhancement);
- foreign exchange, (only for hedging purposes);
- swaps, (only for hedging purposes).
If the government was planning to overhaul these laws, should it go to referendum?
And if so, are you confident that the British public would be in a position to make a sound judgement? Or would they just follow what The Sun says?
Ok so we dare to question, we are being shafted by the EU in cahoots with our own governement. So NJOK you decide in a leap of illogic that I therefore advocate any law should also go to a referendum. You pick a complex financial area to illustrate your point, perlease! I must remember to use that technique myself. I do not deny that generally the public would be voting without digesting some of the main details but that has always been the case. On the basis that nothing can be believed until it is officially denied I would say that the 10 points made by the Indy are all the public need to know! For what It's worth I generally do not advocate referendums, the governement for good or bad represents us and they are elected, fine. There are however areas when the fundemental nature of our being is changed that I beleive a referendum is appropriate.
I think this has been debated before and one the problems I believe is that we as a nation don't understand all the ins and outs of the EU Constitution so how informed a choice could we make anyway? That being a case then I can see why the elected goverment would be in a better place to do that.
I think NJOK's hedges and enhancement example is actually quite a good one and does illustrate what I mean.
I think NJOK's hedges and enhancement example is actually quite a good one and does illustrate what I mean.
Why the 'perlease'?
I was just making the point that laws that involve copious amounts of complicated minutae (like the one you're talking about - sorry, but it does) require a bit more thought than deciding who gets booted out of X Factor.
So when people vote against a law in the same way that they'd boo a pantomime villian, it might not be the best method of law-making.
That's why we elect MPs and don't have referendums every day.
I was just making the point that laws that involve copious amounts of complicated minutae (like the one you're talking about - sorry, but it does) require a bit more thought than deciding who gets booted out of X Factor.
So when people vote against a law in the same way that they'd boo a pantomime villian, it might not be the best method of law-making.
That's why we elect MPs and don't have referendums every day.
If they did have a referendum then both sides would be forced to make the public aware of the substance. It would induce a national debate. The ins and outs would be scrutinised at length. A lot of people would not bother studying the constitution if it is already a fait a complet, they might if the decision rested with the people. There are always going to be those who don't know what they are voting for but that's nothing new, ref general elections etc.
I really dont understand why people think that the EU is such a bad thing. I can really only see good points to being part of it. The reformed constitution still works on a confederal level based on subsidiarity and proportionality. I also think the "solidarity" clause is an excellent idea. I notice that lots of people against the constitution are often people that moan about the state of the country so maybe moving a few powers from British judges is actually a good thing??
I find the constitution unarguable myself, I don't tut at it and want to be part of Europe and don't think the Eu will work as well without the constitution, its just getting to big.
I find the constitution unarguable myself, I don't tut at it and want to be part of Europe and don't think the Eu will work as well without the constitution, its just getting to big.
NJOK. I think you're missing the point here. The example you give is indeed a very complicated section of law and one that most people would struggle to understand. However, it is just one small section of law and would, rightly, not require a referendum to change. The EU Treaty or Constitution or whatever you want to call it actually fundamentally changes the way this country and its people are governed. That should surely be a matter for the people to decide.
Without Europe there would have been no Kyoto agreement. So I think improving the quality of the air we breath and preserving this planet can be checked as point one.
Freedom of movement and goods. I know lots of people enjoying holidays easily hosted in our member states. Not having to wait weeks for a parcel from Italy to arrive and believe it or not this freedom of movement is helping to keep our inflation rates at the lowest ever.
Lets not forget the investment we receive in this country because we are access to the whole of Europe.
I think Del's link covers most of it nicely but lets say we do have a written constitution if we fall victim to another terrorist attack the rest of the member stated will be obliged to help us should we ask for it.
I like the idea of standing side by side with our European neighbours, I don't think it necessarily involves losing sovereignty which seems to be what most people are worried about, god forbid we lose our precious pound. The Eu was born from a string of reformed communities to show unity and friendship amongst countries after the second world war. Maybe because for most of your life time you have enjoyed the benefits of being part of this you feel they are to blame for everything rubbish in our country? I think too many people hear what people have to say on telly or read it in the newspaper and just don't bother to double check the facts, even more so, how many people actually vote in the European elections? Not half as many that whinge about the Eu Im sure.
Freedom of movement and goods. I know lots of people enjoying holidays easily hosted in our member states. Not having to wait weeks for a parcel from Italy to arrive and believe it or not this freedom of movement is helping to keep our inflation rates at the lowest ever.
Lets not forget the investment we receive in this country because we are access to the whole of Europe.
I think Del's link covers most of it nicely but lets say we do have a written constitution if we fall victim to another terrorist attack the rest of the member stated will be obliged to help us should we ask for it.
I like the idea of standing side by side with our European neighbours, I don't think it necessarily involves losing sovereignty which seems to be what most people are worried about, god forbid we lose our precious pound. The Eu was born from a string of reformed communities to show unity and friendship amongst countries after the second world war. Maybe because for most of your life time you have enjoyed the benefits of being part of this you feel they are to blame for everything rubbish in our country? I think too many people hear what people have to say on telly or read it in the newspaper and just don't bother to double check the facts, even more so, how many people actually vote in the European elections? Not half as many that whinge about the Eu Im sure.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
