[gamer91]

(Original post by tucker672)
lol I knew it was from The Trap; but I was just using that particular segment for the speech

i suspected as much, its not really a video which is close to the message of Curtis' film.

[tucker672]

(Original post by gamer91)
i suspected as much, its not really a video which is close to the message of Curtis' film.

haha you could say that. But it is not exactly kike he wrote that brilliant speech

which coincedentally has be cut and pasted becuase it is not in the roder in which it was said.

[Rob 106]

(Original post by L i b)
I disagree with that assessment; well, insofar as all governments are corrupt to a certain level the EU is only as corrupt as any national government.



Really depends how you define legitimacy. Yes, if you're a backward nationalist, certainly; but I find that thinking rather abhorrent myself.



It is a mix of democracy and the representation of the member states which constitute it. That's largely the only way it will work. Yet if we were to make it more democratic, removing the privileges of the national governments within it, then your ilk would be the first to complain.

The EU is much more corrupt than the UK government. The EU have not had their accounts approved for 13 years because they are corrupt, they waste my money and your money.


it is illegitimate beacause it is undemocratic.

It is undemocratic because they will never let anything be voted on by the British or European people, or if they do they arrogantly ignore it (as in France, Holland and Ireland).
Also the majority of British people no longer wish to be part of this "union" and yet we remain a member.
It it also has an "appointed" commission. You cannot vote them out, they do not listen to views of the people, they do what they like and they are the people that are "managing the day-to-day business of the European Union: implementing its policies, running its programmes and spending its funds." (http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/comm/index_en.htm).

The EU is monster, they won't allow the filming of protests against themselves, they deny free speech, they are the enemies of freedom.

The people of TSR: you are intelligent people, but the EU has a lot of power and is able to convey itself as a good thing, but please look deeper into it, it is dangerous. I am genuinely worried for the fate of this country under in the European Union. Please think about this, and the consequences of removing the soverignty of Britain from the British people.

[L i b]

(Original post by Rob 106)
The EU is much more corrupt than the UK government. The EU have not had their accounts approved for 13 years because they are corrupt, they waste my money and your money.

I don't think they spend a great deal of my money, but yes, I'll agree - their accounting could be more transparent. However that doesn't mean they're more corrupt than the UK government.

it is illegitimate beacause it is undemocratic.

So, pray tell, when did the UK become 'legitimate'?

1832 with the Reform Act?

1872 with secret ballots?

1928 with equal franchise for men and women?

1949 with the removal of double voting by university graduates?

The 1960s when the last vestiges of property qualification were finally abandoned in our electoral system?

Is it legitimate now, considering we have unelected officials, an unelected head of state and an unelected upper chamber of Parliament?

Please, tell me what level of democracy delegitimises a polity, because from where I'm standing the EU looks very democratic in comparison with us at some points.

It is undemocratic because they will never let anything be voted on by the British or European people, or if they do they arrogantly ignore it (as in France, Holland and Ireland).

That's absolute nonsense. There has only been one national referendum in British history (coincidentally voting that we remain in the European Community) - you cannot say a polity is delegitimised simply because a lack of referendum.

Moreover, ratification of treaties is a matter for the member states, not the EU: as such, there's only one set of parties denying referendums on treaty ratifications: Britain, and all the other countries in the same position as it.

Also the majority of British people no longer wish to be part of this "union" and yet we remain a member.

It it also has an "appointed" commission. You cannot vote them out, they do not listen to views of the people, they do what they like and they are the people that are "managing the day-to-day business of the European Union: implementing its policies, running its programmes and spending its funds." (http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/comm/index_en.htm).

So a bit like the British government then? After all, Ministers of the Crown are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, not elected.

The EU is monster, they won't allow the filming of protests against themselves, they deny free speech, they are the enemies of freedom.

They have no authority to do any of these things. You're a crackpot.

[Rob 106]

(Original post by L i b)
I don't think they spend a great deal of my money, but yes, I'll agree - their accounting could be more transparent. However that doesn't mean they're more corrupt than the UK government.



So, pray tell, when did the UK become 'legitimate'?

1832 with the Reform Act?

1872 with secret ballots?

1928 with equal franchise for men and women?

1949 with the removal of double voting by university graduates?

The 1960s when the last vestiges of property qualification were finally abandoned in our electoral system?

Is it legitimate now, considering we have unelected officials, an unelected head of state and an unelected upper chamber of Parliament?

Please, tell me what level of democracy delegitimises a polity, because from where I'm standing the EU looks very democratic in comparison with us at some points.



That's absolute nonsense. There has only been one national referendum in British history (coincidentally voting that we remain in the European Community) - you cannot say a polity is delegitimised simply because a lack of referendum.

Moreover, ratification of treaties is a matter for the member states, not the EU: as such, there's only one set of parties denying referendums on treaty ratifications: Britain, and all the other countries in the same position as it.

Also the majority of British people no longer wish to be part of this "union" and yet we remain a member.



So a bit like the British government then? After all, Ministers of the Crown are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, not elected.



They have no authority to do any of these things. You're a crackpot.

Britain is more democratic than the EU, although we have a monarchy and house of Lords, in practice they cannot overrule the democratic decisions.
Surely the No votes by France, Holland and Ireland on the Lisbon constitution/treaty show the will of these people, for it to then go ahead is a clear lack of democracy.

I am afraid your post has not in anyway changed my view on the EU, but i find it interesting that you (like many other pro-EU people) will become annoyed that anyone dare disagree with europe and you brand me a "crackpot", what have I said to lead you to this conclusion? You state that I have "no authority to do any of these things". What i have no right to exercise my right to free speech? to disagree with the EU? yeah your probably right, how dare I?!

But I can curious as to whether you really are happy with the EU, do you really think the EU is a legitimate thing, and is it good for the UK?

[L i b]

(Original post by Rob 106)
Britain is more democratic than the EU, although we have a monarchy and house of Lords, in practice they cannot overrule the democratic decisions.

Just as the people who make decisions in the EU are the Council and Parliament, led by the 'European Council' meetings - the members of which are all elected.

Surely the No votes by France, Holland and Ireland on the Lisbon constitution/treaty show the will of these people, for it to then go ahead is a clear lack of democracy.

France and the Netherlands voted 'no' to the Constitutional Treaty, which was scrapped. Ireland voted no to Lisbon, and nobody knows quite what's going to happen to resolve that situation.

I personally don't think they should have been asked by referendum at all. Or, if there was, it should have been a referendum not of the member-states but of the whole EU.

Does it represent Britain's lack of democracy that the plans for Scottish devolution in the 1970s were scrapped despite it getting the support of over 50% of voters?

I am afraid your post has not in anyway changed my view on the EU, but i find it interesting that you (like many other pro-EU people) will become annoyed that anyone dare disagree with europe and you brand me a "crackpot", what have I said to lead you to this conclusion? You state that I have "no authority to do any of these things". What i have no right to exercise my right to free speech? to disagree with the EU? yeah your probably right, how dare I?!

You don't have any authority; I was of course answering your point about the EU and said 'they', not 'you'. A fairly straightforward statement.

You are a crackpot if you believe the EU is going around suppressing your freedom of speech and stopping you from protesting.

But I can curious as to whether you really are happy with the EU, do you really think the EU is a legitimate thing, and is it good for the UK?

Yes, I believe it is perfectly legitimate, democratic enough (although I'd like a more supranational approach, ending the veto powers of national governments) and a very good thing for the UK. Ultimately though, my judgement on it is not based foremost on how it benefits British people, but of how it benefits European people and the wider world.

[Overground]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/socs...o=list&page=10

Join here.

[Bagration]

(Original post by Democracy)
36/46 so 78%

ffffff 45/46 98%, 135s

just put Monaco in the Balkans

[Rob 106]

(Original post by L i b)
Just as the people who make decisions in the EU are the Council and Parliament, led by the 'European Council' meetings - the members of which are all elected.



France and the Netherlands voted 'no' to the Constitutional Treaty, which was scrapped. Ireland voted no to Lisbon, and nobody knows quite what's going to happen to resolve that situation.

I personally don't think they should have been asked by referendum at all. Or, if there was, it should have been a referendum not of the member-states but of the whole EU.

Does it represent Britain's lack of democracy that the plans for Scottish devolution in the 1970s were scrapped despite it getting the support of over 50% of voters?



You don't have any authority; I was of course answering your point about the EU and said 'they', not 'you'. A fairly straightforward statement.

You are a crackpot if you believe the EU is going around suppressing your freedom of speech and stopping you from protesting.



Yes, I believe it is perfectly legitimate, democratic enough (although I'd like a more supranational approach, ending the veto powers of national governments) and a very good thing for the UK. Ultimately though, my judgement on it is not based foremost on how it benefits British people, but of how it benefits European people and the wider world.

But why have an unelected council at all? Why were people like Peter mandleson running parts of this, this is man who was forced to resign from the British government, and who would not have been voted in.

France and Holland both rejected the consitution, which is almost exactly the same as the lisbon treaty, yet the EU is bringing it back again. Ireland have
rejected the treaty - the only country to hold a public vote! This is the only country which actually allowed its people to decide. So in every EU country that asked its people it was rejected. Yet it continues.

The EU does restrict freedoms, they also do not like protests against them. For example when the lisbon treaty was signed, many members of the parliament protested, and held banners demanding a democracy, the EU security moved in saying, that "cannot be filmed" why not? Because they are by passing democracy and don't want you to know. We have unelected people making decisions and protests cannot be held or filmed! what is going on?

I fail to see how teh UK benefits from the EU in anyway. We pay £40million everyday into this corrupt and undemocratic union, (thats over £240 for every man, woman and child per year) and for this we have our democracy ignored and our culture removed?

How do we benefit?

[L i b]

(Original post by Rob 106)
But why have an unelected council at all? Why were people like Peter mandleson running parts of this, this is man who was forced to resign from the British government, and who would not have been voted in.

You're confusing two different bodies: the Council of the EU (the Council of Ministers) and the Commission.

Ultimately, I believe Peter Mandelson probably would have been re-elected in Britain had he not gone to the European Commission. He had a very large majority.

The point of the Commission (which is essentially approved by the European Parliament in debate with the member-states) is to have an executive implementing policy without any formal loyalty to any particularly member-state, thus allowing them to be independent and (hopefully) above bias.

France and Holland both rejected the consitution, which is almost exactly the same as the lisbon treaty, yet the EU is bringing it back again. Ireland have
rejected the treaty - the only country to hold a public vote! This is the only country which actually allowed its people to decide. So in every EU country that asked its people it was rejected. Yet it continues.

Well, the Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitution, and I think it perfectly valid not to hold a vote on it.

But EU reform is necessary. Ireland is in a uniquely silly position of having to approve all of its EU treaties by referendum - the government doesn't want it, but it has been considered part of the constitution. Ultimately, it will have to be approved by Ireland - but it may, perhaps, be amended somewhat, or alternatively a different campaign may be launched. After all, one of the common complaints was that people did not know enough about it, and were often voting against it on that basis.

The Irish vote is a hurdle, it must not stop a process which - to be fair - nobody really has a credible argument against.

The EU does restrict freedoms, they also do not like protests against them. For example when the lisbon treaty was signed, many members of the parliament protested, and held banners demanding a democracy, the EU security moved in saying, that "cannot be filmed" why not? Because they are by passing democracy and don't want you to know. We have unelected people making decisions and protests cannot be held or filmed! what is going on?

In the Chamber? I imagine in Britain the House would be dissolved and the cameras turned off if that happened to. Indeed, the last protest which occurred in the Scottish Parliament resulted in the members being banned from the chamber.

Holding a view contrary to that of the rest of the elected parliamentarians does not give you a decent reason to protest and break the rules of the body which you sit in and promise to respect.

It is by no means 'unelected people' - both the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are approved of by the elected governments and parliaments of each and every country in the European Union, as well as the directly-elected European Parliament.

I fail to see how teh UK benefits from the EU in anyway. We pay £40million everyday into this corrupt and undemocratic union, (thats over £240 for every man, woman and child per year) and for this we have our democracy ignored and our culture removed?

How do we benefit?

I pay far more than £240 a year into the British government, and it has done far more to destroy British culture and undermine democracy in its time than the EU ever has.

Anyway, we're in a Union - it's not just about 'us' benefiting, but the whole of Europe.

[gamer91]

(Original post by Rob 106)
France and Holland both rejected the consitution, which is almost exactly the same as the lisbon treaty, yet the EU is bringing it back again. Ireland have
rejected the treaty - the only country to hold a public vote! This is the only country which actually allowed its people to decide. So in every EU country that asked its people it was rejected. Yet it continues.

Imagine if there was a vote in this country - NIMBY Britain would be out in force to vote against it, the majority of them not knowing more about it than the daily mail's version of events. In my opinion its almost a double bind situation, if you don't have a referendum your being undemocratic and if you do chances are the vote will be led by the opinions of the various media institutions.

(Original post by Rob 106)
I fail to see how teh UK benefits from the EU in anyway. We pay £40million everyday into this corrupt and undemocratic union, (thats over £240 for every man, woman and child per year) and for this we have our democracy ignored and our culture removed?

does objective one mean anything to you?

how about the development of the poorer European countries - is this a bad thing? (apply the same theory as the right wing does to aid- there are benefits when they are in a better position to trade with us - and the EU free trade and external tariffs will focus this on other EU members e.g. us)
How about an economy less US dependant - according to the EC the downturn will have a lesser impact in France and Germany due to a reduced reliance on the US due to the internal EU trade.

[Rob 106]

I disagree to both previous posts, the Eu is NOT good for Britain, I am yet to see one advantage.
Objective 1 is socialist, we are not here to spread the wealth.
The EU is unecessary, and the majority of British people want to leave it because of its aims with legal and political intergration.

Love Europe, hate the EU.

[gamer91]

(Original post by Rob 106)
Objective 1 is socialist, we are not here to spread the wealth.

so its a bad thing to help regions with a GDP per capita 75% below the European average?

(Original post by Rob 106)
The EU is unecessary, and the majority of British people want to leave it because of its aims with legal and political intergration.

statistics please.

[L i b]

(Original post by Rob 106)
I disagree to both previous posts, the Eu is NOT good for Britain, I am yet to see one advantage.

I didn't make that point though: I would only defend the EU in being good for the whole of Europe.

Anyway, the obvious benefits of free trade are what keep us in it.

and the majority of British people want to leave it

I don't think that's true by any manner of means.

[Tamora]

(Original post by L i b)
I didn't make that point though: I would only defend the EU in being good for the whole of Europe.

Anyway, the obvious benefits of free trade are what keep us in it.



I don't think that's true by any manner of means.

And you'd still defend the EU even though it's bad for the UK? And the obvious benefits of having the EU run UK trade policy are what?

We don't actually know how many people would leave given the choice. The political establishment is too scared to put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum despite the political promises it made, never mind a referendum on a straightforward in or out option. Of course the public is more aware now than they were when the last referendum took place, and they would be much harder to con now.

[L i b]

(Original post by Tamora)
And you'd still defend the EU even though it's bad for the UK?

Yes.

[Rob 106]

(Original post by gamer91)
so its a bad thing to help regions with a GDP per capita 75% below the European average?



statistics please.

Why should help Europeans above Africans or Asians, or indeed anyone?

Stats:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-with-EU.html

"The Global Vision/ICM survey found that when British voters were asked about their ideal relationship with Europe, 41 per cent chose one based simply on trade and co-operation. Some 27 per cent wanted Britain to stay a full EU member while 26 per cent wanted to withdraw altogether.

If the "trade-only" option were offered in a referendum, 64 per cent said they would vote in favour. Asked what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move, 57 per cent said the UK should leave the EU, while 33 per cent said it should stay in."

ANd it should be noted the a trade only option is available through the European Economic Area (EEA), of which Norway is a member whilst not being in the EU.

The majority want to leave, and an even greater majority want the right to have the opporunity to vote on it!

[Tamora]

(Original post by L i b)
Yes.

That's quite some admission. Thanks for your honesty.

[Tamora]

(Original post by Rob 106)
Why should help Europeans above Africans or Asians, or indeed anyone?

Stats:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-with-EU.html

"The Global Vision/ICM survey found that when British voters were asked about their ideal relationship with Europe, 41 per cent chose one based simply on trade and co-operation. Some 27 per cent wanted Britain to stay a full EU member while 26 per cent wanted to withdraw altogether.

If the "trade-only" option were offered in a referendum, 64 per cent said they would vote in favour. Asked what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move, 57 per cent said the UK should leave the EU, while 33 per cent said it should stay in."

ANd it should be noted the a trade only option is available through the European Economic Area (EEA), of which Norway is a member whilst not being in the EU.

The majority want to leave, and an even greater majority want the right to have the opporunity to vote on it!

I hadn't seen that poll. It's not surprising the political establishment won't risk a referendum.

[Kolobok]

If the EEA is more beneficial to states, then why do so many pursue EU membership? Allow me to answer: it's because they'd rather be part of a community that writes the rules rather than simply being subject to those rules.

And as for all those statistics out of context... well, yeah, consider the context.
Surveys on public opinion show as much ignorance as they do understanding. Just consider the recent Irish 'no' vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Fear based on misunderstanding will only take us back to isolation, and to believe that we can achieve economic betterment in that way is simply naive.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know it will make no difference