• Nigel Farage speaks at Donald Trump rally
    121 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946426]no you can't just make it a semantic argument because you have no evidence of actual corruption with the EU so i'm going to assume you actually have nothing give me another point[/QUOTE] Well it is worth noting that the EU would fail it's own prerequisites of democracy allowed by the EU, and that it's entire history is rooted in the idea of a european superstate dating back to a 1918 movement based on a paper called "Paneuropa", and that the [URL="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1652145/eu-boss-jean-claude-juncker-says-borders-are-the-worst-invention-ever-as-he-hits-out-at-brexit-in-nationalism-rant/"]president of the EU openly condemns the concepts of boarders[/URL], despite hundreds dying as a direct consequence of weakening them. Or how the EU has constantly pushed for it's own standing army which answers to its politicians which the people of the member states have no democratic ability to elect. Their overt and obvious goal is a european superstate under a single body's control, with an open contempt for it's member state's cultures. And all this from something which is officially described as a "Trade Bloc" So on those grounds, i dearly oppose the EU. Any individual counts of corruption are frankly irrelevant in the larger picture.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50946801]Well it is worth noting that the EU would fail it's own prerequisites of democracy allowed by the EU, and that it's entire history is rooted in the idea of a european superstate dating back to 1918 called "Paneuropa", and that the [URL="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1652145/eu-boss-jean-claude-juncker-says-borders-are-the-worst-invention-ever-as-he-hits-out-at-brexit-in-nationalism-rant/"]president of the EU openly condemns the concepts of boarders[/URL], despite hundreds dying as a direct consequence of weakening them. Or how the EU has constantly pushed for it's own standing army which answers to its politicians which the people of the member states have no democratic ability to elect. Their overt and obvious goal is a european superstate under a single body's control, with an open contempt for it's member state's cultures. And all this from something which is officially described as a "Trade Bloc" So on those grounds, i dearly oppose the EU. Any individual counts of corruption are frankly irrelevant in the larger picture. Also i find it very telling that the age groups who remember a pre EU UK are the ones who overwhelmingly voted to leave[/QUOTE] The Sun, yeah, nice source. I don't know what you mean by "hundreds dying as a consequence of weakening them", I assume it's something stupid like how immigrants bring crime or how EU regulations are somehow responsible for terrorists attacks, just know that the majority of the UKs prison population is white British men. And, the European parliament is formed by democratically elected representatives of each of its member states, who also in the particular case of the UK have veto power.
Here's some more sources then [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/national-borders-worst-invention-ever-eu-chief.html[/URL] [URL]http://uk.businessinsider.com/jean-claude-juncker-borders-european-union-immigration-2016-8[/URL] [URL]https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/juncker-criticised-saying-national-borders-are-worst-invention-ever[/URL] And i don't want to turn this into an islam debate, so please let's not go there. But that aside, to back up the point i made here, a majority of the terrorist attacks of recent, barring things like the iranian nazi kid, were comitted by economic migrants. And a very small number were commited by genuine refugees. Leading to a [URL="http://www.bild.de/wa/ll/bild-de/unangemeldet-42925516.bild.html"]conservitive internal estimate[/URL] of a rise of 80% in crime, though this internal report only accounts for "solved crimes", so god knows what the reality is. The point i was making is that at a time when open boarders policy is causing an upsurge in crime, terrorism and cost to the state, the president of the eu says boarders are "the worst invention". So either he's so absolutely disconnected from the events on the ground, or is so devoted to an agenda that he sticks to it in the face of blatant failure. So yes, i would say it's safe to say that EU policy of open boarders and mass immigration is responsible for an upsurge in crime and terrorist attacks, when a large number of terrorist attacks were committed by recent migrants. And to say that a majority of the UK prisons are populated by white people is true, the official statistics for 2014 put the number at 75%, but that's a comparison by pure volume, which isn't the point, and it's rather distanced from the problems the EU is facing anyway. And while the member states do send in representatives that their populations elect, it is my understanding that they cannot propose new legislation, only veto legislation proposed by the UN council, which is self elected. As the people of the member states have no way to elect representatives that directly affect or put forward new legislation, it is undemocratic. The EU is a financial institution that grew a goverment, and is doing its best to expand and take control. It's the same entity from 1918 that formed around Pan Europa, nothing has changed.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50947026]Here's some more sources then [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/national-borders-worst-invention-ever-eu-chief.html[/URL] [URL]http://uk.businessinsider.com/jean-claude-juncker-borders-european-union-immigration-2016-8[/URL] [URL]https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/juncker-criticised-saying-national-borders-are-worst-invention-ever[/URL] And i don't want to turn this into an islam debate, so please let's not go there. But that aside, to back up the point i made here, a majority of the terrorist attacks of recent, barring things like the iranian nazi kid, were comitted by economic migrants. And a very small number were commited by genuine refugees. Leading to a [URL="http://www.bild.de/wa/ll/bild-de/unangemeldet-42925516.bild.html"]conservitive internal estimate[/URL] of a rise of 80% in crime, though this internal report only accounts for "solved crimes", so god knows what the reality is. The point i was making is that at a time when open boarders policy is causing an upsurge in crime, terrorism and cost to the state, the president of the eu says boarders are "the worst invention". So either he's so absolutely disconnected from the events on the ground, or is so devoted to an agenda that he sticks to it in the face of blatant failure. So yes, i would say it's safe to say that EU policy of open boarders and mass immigration is responsible for an upsurge in crime and terrorist attacks, when a large number of terrorist attacks were committed by recent migrants. And to say that a majority of the UK prisons are populated by white people is true, the official statistics for 2014 put the number at 75%, but that's a comparison by pure volume, which isn't the point, and it's rather distanced from the problems the EU is facing anyway. And while the member states do send in representatives that their populations elect, it is my understanding that they cannot propose new legislation, only veto legislation proposed by the UN council, which is self elected. As the people of the member states have no way to elect representatives that directly affect or put forward new legislation, it is undemocratic. The EU is a financial institution that grew a goverment, and is doing its best to expand and take control. It's the same entity from 1918 that formed around Pan Europa, nothing has changed.[/QUOTE] ??? What the fuck do refugees have to do with anything? We had complete control over that and the EU freedom of movement is granted to only people with EU passports. Also if we want to join the single market (we really, really do) we'll have to agree to freedom of movement anyway so the whole open border issue is moot since we'll be having it back regardless.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946240]i actually value the opinions of americans and people foreign to the UK more than british people on the subject of brexit typically an argument from someone outside of the UK is going to be more than just "WE'VE TAKEN BACK OUR ENGLAND" *beats chest*[/QUOTE] From the American point of view it looks like the UK traded a lot of tangible benefits of remaining in the EU for the vague feeling of independence from Europe but not it's consequences, which it can no longer effect the same way it did before.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;50947228]??? What the fuck do refugees have to do with anything? We had complete control over that and the EU freedom of movement is granted to only people with EU passports. Also if we want to join the single market (we really, really do) we'll have to agree to freedom of movement anyway so the whole open border issue is moot since we'll be having it back regardless.[/QUOTE] He wasn't talking about freedom of movement between EU member states, he was talking about the basic concept of a boarder, specifically to justify letting in more refugees. The only reasonable explination with this fascination of dismantling the concept of the boarder is to erode the individual identities of the individual nation sates inside the EU, nothing else really makes sense to me. This had nothing to do with internal movement of EU citizens
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50947026]Here's some more sources then [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/national-borders-worst-invention-ever-eu-chief.html[/URL] [URL]http://uk.businessinsider.com/jean-claude-juncker-borders-european-union-immigration-2016-8[/URL] [URL]https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/juncker-criticised-saying-national-borders-are-worst-invention-ever[/URL] And i don't want to turn this into an islam debate, so please let's not go there. But that aside, to back up the point i made here, a majority of the terrorist attacks of recent, barring things like the iranian nazi kid, were comitted by economic migrants. And a very small number were commited by genuine refugees. Leading to a [URL="http://www.bild.de/wa/ll/bild-de/unangemeldet-42925516.bild.html"]conservitive internal estimate[/URL] of a rise of 80% in crime, though this internal report only accounts for "solved crimes", so god knows what the reality is. The point i was making is that at a time when open boarders policy is causing an upsurge in crime, terrorism and cost to the state, the president of the eu says boarders are "the worst invention". So either he's so absolutely disconnected from the events on the ground, or is so devoted to an agenda that he sticks to it in the face of blatant failure. So yes, i would say it's safe to say that EU policy of open boarders and mass immigration is responsible for an upsurge in crime and terrorist attacks, when a large number of terrorist attacks were committed by recent migrants. And to say that a majority of the UK prisons are populated by white people is true, the official statistics for 2014 put the number at 75%, but that's a comparison by pure volume, which isn't the point, and it's rather distanced from the problems the EU is facing anyway. And while the member states do send in representatives that their populations elect, it is my understanding that they cannot propose new legislation, only veto legislation proposed by the UN council, which is self elected. As the people of the member states have no way to elect representatives that directly affect or put forward new legislation, it is undemocratic. The EU is a financial institution that grew a goverment, and is doing its best to expand and take control. It's the same entity from 1918 that formed around Pan Europa, nothing has changed.[/QUOTE] Lmao, "I don't wanna turn this into an Islam debate"? Nobody even fucking mentioned Islam until you came along First of all: [U]Borders[/U]. That's how you spell it, I have no idea how you as an English speaker can manage to be so overwhelmed over an issue which you can't even spell correctly. Second, there have been terrorist attacks committed by people from the same countries the refugees are coming from, long before they ever even arrived, that's because a terrorist will find its way in if it really wants to commit an act of terrorism in European soil, they don't [I]need[/I] to be refugees or immigrants to do so, they can suicide bomb a place with a tourist visa just fine. Third, the UK actually has allowed [I]a tiny amount of refugees[/I] into the country compared to the rest of Europe, what they're complaining about is not refugees, it's not even Islam (There has been a significant Islamic population in the UK for a long while, Pakistan and Palestine were once part of the British Empire), they're complaining about European immigrants and the Schengen visa, specifically they're often talking about Polish and other Eastern European immigrants, statistically the areas where these Eastern European immigrants live are not experiencing any discernible increase in crime. The worst part about using the whole immigration deal when referring to the UK is that of all European countries the UK is one of the least affected countries in this refugee crisis compared to Mediterranean countries, Germany, and Sweden. Also I don't understand what you're complaining about in the European parliament. I don't think you understand that there IS a British parliament that can legislate, even if the European law has primacy. The European Commission, which is formed by one commissioner appointed by every member state, is the body responsible for proposing legislation, yes they're not directly elected like the parliament, however they're unable to do anything without it, in fact, the parliament can draw a vote of no confidence if it so desires and replace the entire Commission. There is a LOT of oversight on the Commission, it's possibly one of the most criticized bodies of the EU often by a misunderstanding on how the whole thing actually works.
The UK have given up on all vestiges of sovereignty by voting to brexit. The idea they gained anything is evidently false. The UK gave up all of its bargaining power within the EU but will attempt to retain a similar status but that won't happen so I have no idea where people like metist got his info but it's patently absurd
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50947447]He wasn't talking about freedom of movement between EU member states, he was talking about the basic concept of a boarder, specifically to justify letting in more refugees. The only reasonable explination with this fascination of dismantling the concept of the boarder is to erode the individual identities of the individual nation sates inside the EU, nothing else really makes sense to me. This had nothing to do with internal movement of EU citizens[/QUOTE] It's [B]border[/B] not [I]boarder[/I]. A [I]boarder[/I] is a person. You've still failed to address how leaving the EU is going to actually bring about this border security for the UK since the UK intends to still to be a member of the European Single Market. As a member of the EU, the UK has more say in EU policy than members of the EFTA, which the UK would likely join if they actually leave the EU. The EFTA is still subject to the EU policies on free movement. Every member of the EFTA is currently part of the Schengen area. The UK opted out of the Schengen Agreement as a EU member, but what makes you think they would be granted that privilege if they tried to leave the EU and then join the EFTA?
It's funny that Brexit posters follow an almost formulaic posting habit: -"Brexit is great because we tell the immigrants to go and stick it to the EU!" -"Okay maybe the immigrants can stay, but we got our country back so things will be great!" -"Fine maybe we can't actually make any major changes, but hey, at least we have all that money!" -"I didn't realize how little money that actually was and how it can't fix everything, but we stuck it to the EU!" -"Brexit has pretty much done nothing other than bad things for Britain, and only bad things for the foreseeable future, but country back etc. etc." It's like, it always starts with the rhetoric but by the end they even admit that it was a major fuckup :v:
[QUOTE=Big Bang;50947619]Lmao, "I don't wanna turn this into an Islam debate"? Nobody even fucking mentioned Islam until you came along First of all: [U]Borders[/U]. That's how you spell it, I have no idea how you as an English speaker can manage to be so overwhelmed over an issue which you can't even spell correctly. Second, there have been terrorist attacks committed by people from the same countries the refugees are coming from, long before they ever even arrived, that's because a terrorist will find its way in if it really wants to commit an act of terrorism in European soil, they don't [I]need[/I] to be refugees or immigrants to do so, they can suicide bomb a place with a tourist visa just fine. Third, the UK actually has allowed [I]a tiny amount of refugees[/I] into the country compared to the rest of Europe, what they're complaining about is not refugees, it's not even Islam (There has been a significant Islamic population in the UK for a long while, Pakistan and Palestine were once part of the British Empire), they're complaining about European immigrants and the Schengen visa, specifically they're often talking about Polish and other Eastern European immigrants, statistically the areas where these Eastern European immigrants live are not experiencing any discernible increase in crime. The worst part about using the whole immigration deal when referring to the UK is that of all European countries the UK is one of the least affected countries in this refugee crisis compared to Mediterranean countries, Germany, and Sweden. Also I don't understand what you're complaining about in the European parliament. I don't think you understand that there IS a British parliament that can legislate, even if the European law has primacy. The European Commission, which is formed by one commissioner appointed by every member state, is the body responsible for proposing legislation, yes they're not directly elected like the parliament, however they're unable to do anything without it, in fact, the parliament can draw a vote of no confidence if it so desires and replace the entire Commission. There is a LOT of oversight on the Commission, it's possibly one of the most criticized bodies of the EU often by a misunderstanding on how the whole thing actually works.[/QUOTE] Ok come on now, i'm not talking about the UK, i was responding to someone asking for some arguments against the EU. And i was mentioning the terrorism to show why open borders is a bad idea, while they desperately cling to it. I said "let's not make this about islam, i'm just using this as an example". A large amount of migrants and refugees are muslims and the crime rates went up when they came in, which was my argument against open boarders. I'm just saying the relation between the two is a discussion for another time, let's not bring it up. And if you want to talk domestic terrorists, sure, the RAF and extreme leftwing terrorists of the 1970's was a huge problem and were a bigger problem then than the problem we have now. However, people with far left views who may have had terrorists amid them were not a distinct group that were allowed from other countries en mass under a morale umbrella of a seperate group. I do support taking in genuine refugees from warzones and giving them a new life, however a majority of people on both sides cloud the issue by directly clumping together war refugees with economic migrants. And make no mistake, the migrants are a problem, with no obvious benefits [QUOTE]there have been terrorist attacks committed by people from the same countries the refugees are coming from, long before they ever even arrived, that's because a terrorist will find its way in if it really wants to commit an act of terrorism in European soil, they don't need to be refugees or immigrants to do so, they can suicide bomb a place with a tourist visa just fine.[/QUOTE] And with an argument like this, the only logic i can see is "this is going to happen anyway, so why bother trying to stop it, or use it as an example to criticize policies that enable it". I mean if you could elaborate further, maybe i'm missing something. But opening the doors to swathes of migrants because bad people will get in anyway is absurd. Surely we should do everything we can to stop violent, anti west people getting in, without infringing on the rights of the individuals? As for the EU council, i don't care how many bodies are [U]overseeing[/U] it, or how many failsafes or regulatory bodies are built into it, if the people cannot directly elect representatives to a legislative body of their government, it's not a democracy. Honestly i was reading the gathering storm last week, and i remember seeing similar rationalizations for hilter's establishment of elections in the '30's. That's absolute madness. The EU is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow, but if it continues on it's current path, it will turn into something awful. [sp]And i don't want to get snarky, but for someone who's so aggresively pedantic about words, you should probably know that Oversight is failing to notice a problem, but overseeing is a position of authority to watch over and guide something. Although i do agree there is plenty of oversight with the EU government, so maybe that's just something we agree on[/sp]
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;50944964]Trump: Its looking like a very wise decision. No, no it isn't, our economy has already taken a turn for the worse, [B]we have seen a rise in hate crimes[/B], in my town we saw an increased police presence (barely noticeable, just a few more officers than usual on the streets). So, can you tell me one good thing to come from this referendum Mr Trump? (Because trump checks facepunch right guys?)[/QUOTE] Considering how they talk around here, wouldn't be surprised if most of the Brexit/Trump supporters see that as a plus.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946426]no you can't just make it a semantic argument because you have no evidence of actual corruption with the EU so i'm going to assume you actually have nothing give me another point[/QUOTE] Corrupt people brought to power in the EU without being accountable to the public isn't evidence of corruption? Really? Either way you have failed to address most of my arguments and you dodge them every time they are asked. Why have you failed to answer [quote]Why are you ok with non democratically elected people creating laws?[/quote] [quote]Why are you ok with the EU acting like children and hurting both themselves and the UK because the UK wanted to exercise their right to leave?[/quote] What does you accusing me of being a Trump supporter have to do with anything? What is your evidence that I even support Trump? Are you ok with the EU creating an army effectively being a superstate? Are you ok with the EU forcing mass immigration onto countries that don't want it? Why must Europe be controlled by the laws of he EU if really all that they should be doing is allowing free trade between Europe? These are all questions I have asked and I have asked over and over and you continue to ignore them. Your definition of corruption is different than mine but besides that you have not answered any of my issues. Corrupt people being put into power without the consent of the people is only one issue I have out of many.
:snip:
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;50947778]It's funny that Brexit posters follow an almost formulaic posting habit: -"Brexit is great because we tell the immigrants to go and stick it to the EU!" -"Okay maybe the immigrants can stay, but we got our country back so things will be great!" -"Fine maybe we can't actually make any major changes, but hey, at least we have all that money!" -"I didn't realize how little money that actually was and how it can't fix everything, but we stuck it to the EU!" -"Brexit has pretty much done nothing other than bad things for Britain, and only bad things for the foreseeable future, but country back etc. etc." It's like, it always starts with the rhetoric but by the end they even admit that it was a major fuckup :v:[/QUOTE] Except none of that happened in the thread. Your shitty strawman don't reflect reality. My argument has been the same from the start and that is an unelected undemocratic group of people should not make laws for Europe. Their horrible failure with the immigration crisis only shows that they are incompetent, but that is besides the main point.
[QUOTE=Metist;50949228]Except none of that happened in the thread. Your shitty strawman don't reflect reality. My argument has been the same from the start and that is an unelected undemocratic group of people should not make laws for Europe. Their horrible failure with the immigration crisis only shows that they are incompetent, but that is besides the main point.[/QUOTE] But the UK leaving didn't give them any extra power to make those laws for themselves
[QUOTE=Metist;50949228]Except none of that happened in the thread. Your shitty strawman don't reflect reality. My argument has been the same from the start and that is an unelected undemocratic group of people should not make laws for Europe. Their horrible failure with the immigration crisis only shows that they are incompetent, but that is besides the main point.[/QUOTE] If, in your opinion, the laws are shitty, then work to change them. Don't just run out of the EU because of that Think of it like this: A police force is having trouble with corruption among its ranks. Do you destroy the police force and replace it with vigilantism, or do you work to rid it of corruption? You work to rid it of corruption.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50949399]But the UK leaving didn't give them any extra power to make those laws for themselves[/QUOTE] How can you say that when they haven't left yet? [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50949420]If, in your opinion, the laws are shitty, then work to change them. Don't just run out of the EU because of that [/QUOTE] Except the laws are shitty because the makers aren't democratically elected and hold too much power. This is the problem with the EU. Europe is made of different European nations with different cultures and ways of doing things. Forcing the same laws to all nations is a horrible idea and has lead to disaster.
[QUOTE=Metist;50948234]Corrupt people brought to power in the EU without being accountable to the public isn't evidence of corruption? Really? Either way you have failed to address most of my arguments and you dodge them every time they are asked. Why have you failed to answer What does you accusing me of being a Trump supporter have to do with anything? What is your evidence that I even support Trump? Are you ok with the EU creating an army effectively being a superstate? Are you ok with the EU forcing mass immigration onto countries that don't want it? Why must Europe be controlled by the laws of he EU if really all that they should be doing is allowing free trade between Europe? These are all questions I have asked and I have asked over and over and you continue to ignore them. Your definition of corruption is different than mine but besides that you have not answered any of my issues. Corrupt people being put into power without the consent of the people is only one issue I have out of many.[/QUOTE] nope the shitty strategy of throwing out loads of questions so you can worm around the ones that i answer isn't working pal, you might have gotten away with it earlier in the thread, but that's finished i've asked you to show evidence of the guy you talked about being corrupt in the EU, you haven't. I asked you to show evidence of that guy being corrupt in public office, to which I can find NOTHING, and you've shown a single news article that seems to be autotranslated or translated poorly. you've critically failed to answer my questions regarding corruption, to the extent that you attempted to divert it into a semantic argument so we're done on that so let's move on "why are you OK with non democratically elected people creating laws" you're talking about the EU commission. The EU commission is a team of commissioners that are put forward by the elected heads of the nation-states that form the EU. Before this commission can be formed, they put forward a manifesto to the european parliament, which is then discussed and then voted on. If they are rejected by the EU parliament, then the commission fails and changes have to be made. Even when this commission comes into power, it can then be censured by the european parliament as happened in the incident I linked earlier. I have no problem with this because there are democratic procedures in place to ensure accountability to the parliament, and there are certain advantages that come with having legislation come from commissioners who are appointed for the role rather than elected (such as actually being excellent in their field, rather than being just popular) - consider that the UK doesn't functionally elect the Prime Minister, we elect the party and that we have the house of lords. There are countless positions in every government that people are APPOINTED to, not elected - consider that the US Secretary of State is appointed to the position and then confirmed by the US senate, not elected to be that role. how much of this did you actually know before criticizing the EU or did you decide to just drool out the word "DEMOCRACY" and think that was enough
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950451]nope the shitty strategy of throwing out loads of questions so you can worm around the ones that i answer isn't working pal,[/QUOTE] So wait, you are saying you were willingly ignoring my arguments for half a dozen posts aren't even going to play on arguing them? Then why even make another post? [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950451]i've asked you to show evidence of the guy you talked about being corrupt in the EU, you haven't.[/quote] I never said I have evidence of him being corrupt in the EU, but that he was corrupt. It's amazing how you will make up false arguments and pretend you won when I don't answer them. [quote] I have no problem with this because there are democratic procedures in place to ensure accountability to the parliament[/quote] But not the commission. The people making the laws don't have to answer to it and the parliament wont get in trouble from a bad commission. [quote]and there are certain advantages that come with having legislation come from commissioners who are appointed for the role rather than elected (such as actually being excellent in their field, rather than being just popular)[/quote] And yet this amazing system has forced mass immigration on citizens who don't want it as just one example. But no, democracy would hurt the EU right? So you are in favor of the origin point of the legislative branch (arguably the most important part of government) not being accountable to the people their laws effect because you believe it will mean better people get in? Apparently if this were the case then the UK wouldn't have left. Even if you think leavers as dumb, the fact that the majority of the UK wanted to leave proves that the EU wasn't doing what it should be correctly. I know you must get tired of the immigration crisis being brought up over and over again but it is simply the best and perfect example of a horrible system that wasn't wanted by the people who had to have it forced on them. Again, this is the same undemocratically elected committee that we can thank for failure of the Euro and the future plans to great again, a superstate with a European army. There is no way a committee possibly make laws that would work for every European nation. Western Europe is a huge place with many different cultures. The entire idea of trying to make them share the same laughs is laughable. The EU is basically a worse functioning version of The United States except with less guaranteed rights and a less functional constitution. Every country should have to right to determine it's own borders and laws. Without it you get what lead to Brexit to begin with. Every few years the EU tries to gain more and more power. Europe should not become the united states of Europe. The fact of the matter is that democracy showed what the people want and the people don't want the EU. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] Oh and the EU acting like children because "the UK spat in their face" shows how the EU wont act in good faith or act logical.
[QUOTE=Metist;50950569] But not the commission. The people making the laws don't have to answer to it and the parliament wont get in trouble from a bad commission. And yet this amazing system has forced mass immigration on citizens who don't want it as just one example. But no, democracy would hurt the EU right? So you are in favor of the origin point of the legislative branch (arguably the most important part of government) not being accountable to the people their laws effect because you believe it will mean better people get in? Apparently if this were the case then the UK wouldn't have left. Even if you think leavers as dumb, the fact that the majority of the UK wanted to leave proves that the EU wasn't doing what it should be correctly. I know you must get tired of the immigration crisis being brought up over and over again but it is simply the best and perfect example of a horrible system that wasn't wanted by the people who had to have it forced on them. Again, this is the same undemocratically elected committee that we can thank for failure of the Euro and the future plans to great again, a superstate with a European army. There is no way a committee possibly make laws that would work for every European nation. Western Europe is a huge place with many different cultures. The entire idea of trying to make them share the same laughs is laughable. The EU is basically a worse functioning version of The United States except with less guaranteed rights and a less functional constitution. Every country should have to right to determine it's own borders and laws. Without it you get what lead to Brexit to begin with. Every few years the EU tries to gain more and more power. Europe should not become the united states of Europe. The fact of the matter is that democracy showed what the people want and the people don't want the EU.[/QUOTE] [I]"But not the commission. The people making the laws don't have to answer to it and the parliament wont get in trouble from a bad commission. "[/I] nope, they do, because unsurprisingly when you have a bad commission and the entire EU gets a bad wrap from the bad commission, the parliament doesn't like to let that go, as seen with the Santer Commission. Oh and also the parliament is elected so they have good reason to deal with a poor commission. [I]"And yet this amazing system has forced mass immigration on citizens who don't want it as just one example. But no, democracy would hurt the EU right?"[/I] can you show me when and where the EU forced mass immigration on citizens? [I]"Again, this is the same undemocratically elected committee that we can thank for failure of the Euro and the future plans to great again, a superstate with a European army."[/I] actually it was the european council as well, as they bought the euro out of being mothballed, and repeatedly pushed forward the process, though i imagine it's easier to blame the commission than the elected politicians of europe right? I imagine you're desperately ignoring the european council because, if you didn't, you'd be forced to come to terms with the heads of european nations that sit behind the EU the rest of your post is just the typical bollocks of "united states of europe" and "sovereignty!!!!" which is the same tired old arguments that we've seen again and again, no content, all hyperbole. So we're going to go forwards with you calling the commission undemocratic as i've already said, there's multiple democratic checks in place to ensure that the commission isn't going against the will of parliament, on account of parliament being able to censure, being able to deny the commission, and the multiple independent bodies responsible for ensuring that the commission operates as it should - if you're unhappy with the european commission, i imagine you're extremely unhappy with the house of lords and i imagine you're extremely unhappy with the US Secretary of State? the commission is ONLY EVER brought up by people that fundamentally don't understand the operations of the EU pillars, so i am entirely unsurprised that you've raised it
[QUOTE=Metist;50943357]How is giving the UK the ability to decide their own laws, immigration, trade and personal freedoms going to ruin the UK?[/QUOTE] Hey umm... so like... I hate to break it to you, but we could do all of those things before we left the EU. Also, having left the EU we'll have less influence over the EU on top of all of that...
[QUOTE=Rossy167;50951073]Hey umm... so like... I hate to break it to you, but we could do all of those things before we left the EU. Also, having left the EU we'll have less influence over the EU on top of all of that...[/QUOTE] There are laws that the EU enacts on a union level meaning all member states have to enact the law in their countries. That's not to say the UK wasn't free to form their own laws, as long as they stuck to the ones required by the EU. Many of the enforced EU laws are good though, but you're still wrong(or intentionally ignoring the legislative powers of the EU government).
I dont see how leaving the EU benefits the UK in any tangible way at all. All this does is essentially force the EU into giving the UK a horrible trade deal so that then leaving doesn't undermine the integrity of the EU. They most certainly wouldnt give them a favorable or even comparable one because that would essentially say "Leaving the EU gets you a good trade deal" and kinda defeat the purpose of the EU. Leaving the EU also puts the UK in a position where the EU can bully the UK into doing as it says or it'll fuck up the British economy. If anything Brexit will liky end up decreasing Britains "Independence" instead of strengthening it.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950596][I]"But not the commission. The people making the laws don't have to answer to it and the parliament wont get in trouble from a bad commission. "[/I] nope, they do, because unsurprisingly when you have a bad commission and the entire EU gets a bad wrap from the bad commission, the parliament doesn't like to let that go[/quote] Really, that is funny since the UK has hated the commission and parliament and that didn't change. These are the same idiots behind the migrate quotas. [quote] can you show me when and where the EU forced mass immigration on citizens?[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/eu-to-fine-countries-that-refuse-refugee-quota/[/url] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/hungary-viktor-orban-will-call-referendum-on-eu-refugee-quotas[/url] [quote]actually it was the european council as well[/quote] You realize this isn't helping your argument right? [quote] as i've already said, there's multiple democratic checks in place to ensure that the commission isn't going against the will of parliament, on account of parliament being able to censure, being able to deny the commission[/quote] They are still the ones who start the law making process. This means the starting point of policy is undemocratic. [QUOTE=Rossy167;50951073]Hey umm... so like... I hate to break it to you, but we could do all of those things before we left the EU. Also, having left the EU we'll have less influence over the EU on top of all of that...[/QUOTE] Unless of course the EU over rides it with their own policy To perfectly explain why this could be a great thing for Britain I will quote a statement from the Board of No to EU in Norway. [quote]Britain, do not listen to the Scaremongering! Statement from the Board of No to EU in Norway From the campaign in 1994 to keep Norway out of EU, No to EU is familiar with the tactics the British people currently are experiencing. No to EU is watching the debate in the UK with great interest. Whether the UK leaves the EU or remains in the union is entirely for the British people to decide. The EU Commission in Brussels must also respect this fact. We know from our own experience the EU system and the government apparatus will do everything possible to inject fear into people about the consequences of leaving the EU. The disaster stories of lost jobs and a plummeting pound if the UK would dare leave the union, sound desperately familiar to No to EU. Prior to the referenda on EU membership in Norway in 1972 and 1994, the Norwegian people were told the industry would flee the country and 100,000 jobs would be lost if we voted no to the EU. The reality has turned out to be quite the opposite. Since 1994, the Norwegian economy has developed and grown much more than the economies in EU member states. Norway has full sovereignty in the agricultural and fishery sectors, and the management of the Norwegian fisheries has been a great success. British EU supporters, with the help of the Norwegian government, present Norway’s association to the EU through the EEA Agreement as a disaster. The British government has repeated the myth that Norway must accept three‐quarters of EU laws and regulations. The reality is that Norway has implemented less than 10 percent of the laws and regulations, which the EU has adopted in the period 2000‐2013. In addition, the EEA Agreement has a clause enabling Norway to refuse the implementation of new EU rules, a right EU member states do not have. The Norwegian Government claims the EEA Agreement is a poor model for the UK. On the other hand, it is not willing to look at alternatives to the EEA Agreement for Norway, or use the flexibility permitted by the refusal clause. No to EU wants to end this undemocratic paradox, by replacing the EEA Agreement with a modern trade agreement with EU. From the beginning of No to EU’s history, our aim has been to safeguard our democracy, defend our sovereignty and our natural resources. Our stance is based on international solidarity with people, both in the EU and in developing countries. Outside the EU, Norway has an independent voice on the international scene. A UK outside the EU will be an interesting partner for Norway in achieving a modern trade agreement with the EU, preferably through EFTA, where we have cooperated previously.[/quote] This is a possible soon future for Britain. Instead of crying about no longer feeling the rule of the EU now is the time to make the best of your new freedom.
[QUOTE=Metist;50957188]This is a possible soon future for Britain. Instead of crying about no longer feeling the rule of the EU now is the time to make the best of your new freedom.[/QUOTE] speak for yourself, i'm applying for EU citizenship and i might emigrate too
[QUOTE=Metist;50957188] This is a possible soon future for Britain. Instead of crying about no longer feeling the rule of the EU now is the time to make the best of your new freedom.[/QUOTE] They had freedom before, though? The EU never imposed draconian laws over the whole of the UK, that's a fucking ludicrous idea. The laws and standards being enforced across the EU that Britain had to follow were benign things like basic human rights and workers protections.
[QUOTE=Metist;50957188] This is a possible soon future for Britain. Instead of crying about no longer feeling the rule of the EU now is the time to make the best of your new freedom.[/QUOTE] Again, American perspective, but it seems like people felt they were generally pretty free under the EU and don't miss it's tyrannical rule but rather the benefits the came with it, such as being at the negotiating table for things like trade and immigration. Is there any positive to exiting the EU that isn't covered in a vague "more freedom" sort of way?
I want to know how Brexit is going to tangibly improve my life, or my family's lives, or hell [i]anybody[/i]'s life except Farage's. So far the result is a poorer, weaker, more divided country with fewer opportunities and less influence.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;50959040]I want to know how Brexit is going to tangibly improve my life, or my family's lives, or hell [i]anybody[/i]'s life except Farage's. So far the result is a poorer, weaker, more divided country with fewer opportunities and less influence.[/QUOTE] uh get our country back [sp]no one still knows what this means[/sp] [sp]truth be told, i think nobody actually knew what it meant[/sp]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.