Angela Merkel rejects EU reform

Lol I do not know how she has the cheek to talk about regulation and red tape. France and Germany are both notorious for both those things and have infected the whole EU project with the Continental Post Napoleonic regime of state interference.

Yeah, damn Germans with their classless society, powerful economy, better environmental record, and tendency not to elect leaders by birth. Scoundrels.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I think that following a coherent industrial and social strategy since 1945 has helped.

The UK sulks because it gets shafted by a bunch of member states who do not contribute.

You seriously hold the belief that no trade deal would be put in place?

Even if it wasn't held by the EU as a whole, it would be held by the individual members. Think of all the services we provide, the German cars we buy, the French food we import and the financial prevalence of London. It's the hub of Europe - it's the most important city the EU has.

The problems with the EU need sorting; especially business ones. The French get a huge portion of the EU agricultural budget (the largest of the lot) to the detriment of the English and German farmers when arguably, it's the country that least needs it for development.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm# has a good tool from a few years ago highlighting expenditure. We put in so much when you consider the returns - look at the Spanish regional aid finance for example. That's for 2007 which is pre-bust, forget about now when the Spaniards are severely poorly off! It's the same for their agriculture. In that infographic, we are the 4th highest contributors to the EU. Why is their such a big discrepancy in returns when we pay our due? We shouldn't have to contribute to Spanish farms or poor villages - we would be better off using the money on our own.

The problem with the EU is that we have accepted countries into the fold who are not capable of self-sustenance or even genuine productivity. We shouldn't have countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Spain, Greece or Italy in the union - they are so badly in debt with corrupt governments and uncooperative people that it's a joke that we even entertained their entry!

The only way the EU would work in its current state is with a unified treasury and equivalent taxes set across the board. That would require unified legislation and you'd end up forming one giant new country. That's the reason the Greeks went bust - they lived a period throughout the recession practically mocking the rest of us until their bubble burst and they came crashing to the ground. They lived the high-life with low taxes and high social expenditure and when that had to stop because of the recession they started rioting in the streets.

At least we wouldn't have to give prisoners the vote.

That's not at all true. Someone may argue that the cure of the ills of the poorer countries is the creation of a single country, but there is absolutely zero chance in Hades that such an idea would get past the drawing board without considerable general public support. There hasn't been a successful union of previously foreign countries for centuries, and I don't see it changing without genuine public consent.




Yes we would. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.

My point about the union of the members of the EU was majorly sarcastic - I understand entirely that it would *never* happen. That's why the EU is difficult to work with - it's an idea which is essentially wrong just BECAUSE we refuse to truly form an inter-country union.

My point about the union of the members of the EU was majorly sarcastic - I understand entirely that it would *never* happen. That's why the EU is difficult to work with - it's an idea which is essentially wrong just BECAUSE we refuse to truly form an inter-country union.

On the last point - thanks. I never knew that; I always thought that if we left the EU then we'd get to leave the EU Court.

Sorry, I'm confused, are you saying we should leave the EU because you want it to become a superstate and you're disappointed it hasn't?

My point about the union of the members of the EU was majorly sarcastic - I understand entirely that it would *never* happen. That's why the EU is difficult to work with - it's an idea which is essentially wrong just BECAUSE we refuse to truly form an inter-country union.

On the last point - thanks. I never knew that; I always thought that if we left the EU then we'd get to leave the EU Court.

The ECHR is a separate institution, however the Lisbon Treaty (2009) demands that all EU member-states are signatories to the ECHR, so to that extent, we cannot abandon the ECHR without also exiting the EU.

And following that, she said what I quoted. She is setting her terms but not slamming shut the door. Of course she'd not bend over for the UK; why should she? It has to be of mutual benefit. We'd be doing the exact same thing in her shoes.

Labour in their 2005 manifesto on which they were elected pledged a referendum on the EU Constitution. The Netherlands and France rejected the EU Constitution via referendums. It was then rebranded by the EU as the "Lisbon Treaty" and forced through. Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty and were forced to vote again until they got it right. David Cameron gave a Cast Iron Guarantee that he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and weaselled out once elected. Nick Clegg promised a referendum and has changed his tune now in office. The EU and its supporters don't do democracy. They know we'll give the "wrong" answer by voting to leave.

Oh, pardon me for not bowing to the glorious EUSSR. There was me thinking I lived in a sovereign democratic nation, not a vassal state of a dictatorial empire.

Your assurances, like Ted Heath's lies about us joining a "common market" are worth nothing. We've just demonstrated that the EU doesn't do democracy.

I think that following a coherent industrial and social strategy since 1945 has helped.