Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    It's because of silly misconceptions like this that the Westminster politicians are able to get away with this.
    Oh please explain then. This isn't my area of expertise.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I prefer the term 'Eurosceptic'. I do NOT hate Europe. I do NOT like the EU. They are two very different things.
    I don't really like the EU either. Norway isn't a member, and most Norwegians don't want to join. Nothing against Europe though.
    I'm tired of some people constantly including Norway in EU. Just because a country is European doesn't automatically it's a member of the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok admittedly the eu isn't perfect, but I would rather we stay in forever to help us become more culturally like greece/spain etc rather than becoming more and more closer to the USA!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if everyone is so worried about trade they should read about the EEA - the swiss and i think norway are not in the EU but are doing just fine in the EEA - which is for trade

    there is no need for mass movement of so called labour - its is better for them to apply for work visa and there is a real demand this can be extended - the money that is being poured in to the EU (which many will agree is money down the drain ) can be better spent here in the UK such as defense which is better than depending on the french (no offense) - but I think a country should be able to defend it self and not depend on another country

    more and more countries want to join - to suck wealth from the rich countries

    UK has zero benefit from the EU but I still do not understand why people in this country - born in this country defend the EU

    It just seems like what Hitler was trying to do but with a lot money and paperwork

    sad to think all those soldiers died in WW2 trying to keep UK free and independent and now we are being ruled by some bunch of nobodies who none of have even heard of or even seen

    EU is too big and I hope it fails in the coming months and years
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luceria)
    I don't really like the EU either. Norway isn't a member, and most Norwegians don't want to join. Nothing against Europe though.
    I'm tired of some people constantly including Norway in EU. Just because a country is European doesn't automatically it's a member of the EU.
    Most Europeans don't/didn't want to join, but apparently that doesn't matter. The politicians know what's best for us...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    Most Europeans don't/didn't want to join, but apparently that doesn't matter. The politicians know what's best for us...
    There was a vote to join the EU in the 70's and the 90's. Both times the "No" side won. Most didn't want to join. So we didn't join. Norwegian politicians don't
    like talking about EU these days, and most try to avoid the subject.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    so you don't know then? thanks for clearing that up. quick! frantically check google for the answer!



    err, no. it acted as a psychological barrier to the initial negotiationing process, and still does in relation to continued british membership.

    do us both a favour and pick up a history book before your next garbage post

    You didn't give me a reason to answer your question, but on your reasoning you don't know either! Anyone who wants to know as you do "what the EU regulates" just needs to look at the source, the European Commission's website. It's all laid bare for anyone to see and there's far too much to put into a simple message board post.

    Utterly wrong. De Gaulle's opposition acted as a legal barrier to the initial negotiating process. Harold MacMillan was very much in favour of our joining as was Harold Wilson, though Hugh Gaitskill, Labour leader at the time of the first application, was ridiculed for his principled opposition in which disappointment at not being an "imperial power" played no part.

    Try to debate with facts not prejudice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Eventually. We will have to leave. Be it when we are sinking into the ocean, when human race is dieing out or at the big crunch. But the answer you are looking for my friend is YES.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    You didn't give me a reason to answer your question, but on your reasoning you don't know either! Anyone who wants to know as you do "what the EU regulates" just needs to look at the source, the European Commission's website. It's all laid bare for anyone to see and there's far too much to put into a simple message board post.

    Utterly wrong. De Gaulle's opposition acted as a legal barrier to the initial negotiating process. Harold MacMillan was very much in favour of our joining as was Harold Wilson, though Hugh Gaitskill, Labour leader at the time of the first application, was ridiculed for his principled opposition in which disappointment at not being an "imperial power" played no part.

    Try to debate with facts not prejudice.
    lmfao, so we've established that you've got no idea.

    utterly wrong? the initial negotiationg process that led to the creation of the ECSC in the 1950s shouldn't be confused with britain's application for membership to the EEC in the 1960s.

    find a better wiki next time!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    lmfao, so we've established that you've got no idea.

    utterly wrong? the initial negotiationg process that led to the creation of the ECSC in the 1950s shouldn't be confused with britain's application for membership to the EEC in the 1960s.

    find a better wiki next time!
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stop being an apologist statist and look into some facts.
    Honestly some of these eu-fanatics sound just as bad as the nationalists and little englanders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stop being an apologist statist and look into some facts.
    Honestly some of these eu-fanatics sound just as bad as the nationalists and little englanders.
    that's funny, because I'm probably one of the few people on this thread whose knowledge extends beyond what they read in the telegraph and daily mail.

    in fact, I've just completed an essay titled "why and with what consequences was british membership of the european community delayed until 1973?" and received a first-class mark, so I would like to think I have a reasonably sound knowledge of britain's history with the EU.

    ...and aren't you the same person who I've systematically annhilated at every turn? the same person whose opinions are based on a summary review of one eurosceptic piece of literature?! ahahaha, next please!

    POS repped you for the amusement
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    ...and aren't you the same person who I've systematically annhilated at every turn? the same person whose opinions are based on a summary review of one eurosceptic piece of literature?! ahahaha, next please!
    I think you'll find it was the other way round. Go back a few pages for a fresh reminder :cool:

    (Original post by x=o)
    POS repped you for the amusement
    Good boy, at least you admit you're wrong, that's very respectful of you. Now stop reading the tabloids.

    :cool: [email protected]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    I think you'll find it was the other way round. Go back a few pages for a fresh reminder :cool:

    Good boy, at least you admit you're wrong, that's very respectful of you. Now stop reading the tabloids.

    :cool: [email protected]
    oh dear. ignorance really is bliss

    keep reading those book reviews!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    lmfao, so we've established that you've got no idea.

    utterly wrong? the initial negotiationg process that led to the creation of the ECSC in the 1950s shouldn't be confused with britain's application for membership to the EEC in the 1960s.

    find a better wiki next time!
    The only thing we've established is that you're an EU supporter and I'm not.

    Oh very cute! This is about the EU, not the ECSC which you hadn't even mentioned when I replied to your post. Any confusion caused was of your making, not mine. Was this a deliberate tactic or just carelessness on your part? If you want to widen this discussion to take in the ECSC, then say so.

    Try a straight argument next time. Try that after taking your head out of the EU propaganda machine, and looking at what informed dissenters say before you air your views, not what the pro-EU camp portray them as saying. And if you received a "first class" mark for your essay displaying the same attitude you've displayed here, I'd can only think whoever marked it shows a naked pro-EU bias that you're too much of an EU supporter to see!

    Do we at least agree the European Commission website is a good source for anyone who wants to know what it regulates?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The only thing we've established is that you're an EU supporter and I'm not.

    Oh very cute! This is about the EU, not the ECSC which you hadn't even mentioned when I replied to your post. Any confusion caused was of your making, not mine. Was this a deliberate tactic or just carelessness on your part? If you want to widen this discussion to take in the ECSC, then say so.
    you do appreciate that when britain joined the EEC, the EU didn't even exist either? so whether we're talking about the initial negotiations that led to the ECSC, which I clearly stated, or the negotiations when britain applied for membership of the EEC, you're STILL wrong. don't try and worm your way out of your mistake, just acknowledge it and move on.

    Try a straight argument next time. Try that after taking your head out of the EU propaganda machine, and looking at what informed dissenters say before you air your views, not what the pro-EU camp portray them as saying. And if you received a "first class" mark for your essay displaying the same attitude you've displayed here, I'd can only think whoever marked it shows a naked pro-EU bias that you're too much of an EU supporter to see!
    what part of "the initial negotiating process" don't you quite grasp? the initial negotiations were clearly not when britain applied for membership. they were subsequent to the negotiations which led to the creation of the ECSC. then again, you'd know that if you had any idea what you're talking about.

    I'm well aware of what so-called informed dissenters have to say, by the way. I most likely know more of their arguments than you!

    the first-class mark was awarded to an essay that was entirely objective. it clearly asks why britain delayed membership, and with what consequences (of which you clearly have no idea!). it does not ask whether we should remain within the EU.

    Do we at least agree the European Commission website is a good source for anyone who wants to know what it regulates?
    lmfao, I never asked whether the EC website is a good source for anyone wanting to know what the EU regulates, did I? I asked YOU what the EU regulates, and which regulation britain could do without should it leave. still waiting for that answer... oh wait, you don't know! quick! last chance to google it! ahaha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    you do appreciate that when britain joined the EEC, the EU didn't even exist either? so whether we're talking about the initial negotiations that led to the ECSC, which I clearly stated, or the negotiations when britain applied for membership of the EEC, you're STILL wrong. don't try and worm your way out of your mistake, just acknowledge it and move on.

    what part of "the initial negotiating process" don't you quite grasp? the initial negotiations were clearly not when britain applied for membership. they were subsequent to the negotiations which led to the creation of the ECSC. then again, you'd know that if you had any idea what you're talking about.

    I'm well aware of what so-called informed dissenters have to say, by the way. I most likely know more of their arguments than you!

    the first-class mark was awarded to an essay that was entirely objective. it clearly asks why britain delayed membership, and with what consequences (of which you clearly have no idea!). it does not ask whether we should remain within the EU.

    lmfao, I never asked whether the EC website is a good source for anyone wanting to know what the EU regulates, did I? I asked YOU what the EU regulates, and which regulation britain could do without should it leave. still waiting for that answer... oh wait, you don't know! quick! last chance to google it! ahaha
    Yes, I appreciate that. [Even the FCO does not differentiate, probably for ease of reference. It says "Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973".] I haven't made any mistake. I'm not wrong at all, we simply disagree.

    My grasp of the "initial negotiating process" of both the ECSC and our own entry to the EEC is quite sufficient, but you did NOT state that you were referring to the ECSC in your first reference to this "initial negotiating process", but I don't expect you to acknowledge this. I don't know how much you know about this subject, but I haven't seen anything from you so far to suggest that you can teach me anything about it. The possibility that you know more of the dissenting arguments than I do made me laugh out loud, especially after you've shown such a poor grasp of them here!

    I am quite well aware of the circumstances of the initial negotiations of the ECSC, but as I have not seen your essay, I can only base my assessment on what you have actually posted in this thread, and you've certainly shown no objectivity here. I know your essay is not about membership or withdrawal from the EU. I didn't say it was. Nor did I say you asked whether the European Commission's website was a good source. Nevertheless, that was the question I asked. Could you answer it please? Do you think the European Commission's website is a good source for anyone wanting to know what the EU regulates. It's a simple enough question, is it not? Yes or no will do.

    And don't be an idiot. Why would I need to Google anything when these regulations are on the European Commission's website for anyone to look at? The Commission itself acknowledges that its red tape is excessive and whilst promising to reduce it, actually increased the amount it generates. (It even has "Red Tape Reduction" awards.) Ask any business owner if he expects red tape to be reduced and he'll laugh in your face. Britain could do without all that to start with.

    I don't think, for you, that this is a discussion about the thread subject or anything related to it. It's about point scoring, and you're failing miserably at that! I hope you can prove me wrong by answering my question, but if all you can manage is pathetic point scoring, you're wasting my time. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    Yes, I appreciate that. [Even the FCO does not differentiate, probably for ease of reference. It says "Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973".] I haven't made any mistake. I'm not wrong at all, we simply disagree.

    My grasp of the "initial negotiating process" of both the ECSC and our own entry to the EEC is quite sufficient, but you did NOT state that you were referring to the ECSC in your first reference to this "initial negotiating process", but I don't expect you to acknowledge this. I don't know how much you know about this subject, but I haven't seen anything from you so far to suggest that you can teach me anything about it. The possibility that you know more of the dissenting arguments than I do made me laugh out loud, especially after you've shown such a poor grasp of them here!

    I am quite well aware of the circumstances of the initial negotiations of the ECSC, but as I have not seen your essay, I can only base my assessment on what you have actually posted in this thread, and you've certainly shown no objectivity here. I know your essay is not about membership or withdrawal from the EU. I didn't say it was. Nor did I say you asked whether the European Commission's website was a good source. Nevertheless, that was the question I asked. Could you answer it please? Do you think the European Commission's website is a good source for anyone wanting to know what the EU regulates. It's a simple enough question, is it not? Yes or no will do.

    And don't be an idiot. Why would I need to Google anything when these regulations are on the European Commission's website for anyone to look at? The Commission itself acknowledges that its red tape is excessive and whilst promising to reduce it, actually increased the amount it generates. (It even has "Red Tape Reduction" awards.) Ask any business owner if he expects red tape to be reduced and he'll laugh in your face. Britain could do without all that to start with.

    I don't think, for you, that this is a discussion about the thread subject or anything related to it. It's about point scoring, and you're failing miserably at that! I hope you can prove me wrong by answering my question, but if all you can manage is pathetic point scoring, you're wasting my time. :rolleyes:
    lmfao, this is like having a discussion with a politician, and one with a particularly facile knowledge of the EU. I'm incorrect to discuss the ECSC when discussing the EU (despite it being the foundational institution of the EU, lol), but when it comes to discussions of the EEC, you're not incorrect to label it as the EU, but rather we simply disagree? pathetic what levels people will stoop to to salvage their pride

    there's very little merit in throwing counter-questions at me about where is best to look for information on EU regulation (like it even matters), though I appreciate it's a particularly poor way for you to evade a proper discussion.

    for the last time, I'm asking you to justify what you claimed earlier in the thread, and to explain to me why you think britain wouldn't need to absorb the costs of maintaining EU regulation should it leave.

    now, when you're actually prepared to answer my questions (I think that's the third time I've asked now), and when you're actually prepared to back up the garbage that you're coming out with with facts, I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you.

    (Original post by Tamora)
    Who says Britain would need to regulate the areas it does for the EU?
    (Original post by Tamora)
    Britain could do without all that to start with.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus... this potentially interesting thread has descended into a dreary battle for the last word.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.