• European leaders begin negotiations on new EU treaty to implement Eurozone fiscal union
    89 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The fox;33538633]Practically all of them rode out the financial crisis without much damage at all, while the Euro zone crashes and burns.[/QUOTE] Except well, you know [B]AMERICA[/B].
[QUOTE=The fox;33539434] How, exactly, will putting double the amount our law enforcement into the EU, so, for example, other countries can grow crops and food in their own countries, then sell that, in their own countries, help us? How does the cash we pay, that help repair roads and do such things, in other countries, not talking about any international roads, help us? Is it truely reasonable that the EU should recieve 40 billion SEK, just because we are in it, and then pull shit like the things I listed above or on the first page, and then let our law enforcement, which is horribly outmanned and has its resources stretched thin, only have 20 billion SEK? How in hell can you justify that? Or even our own schools, medical care, jobs, markets, infrastructure etc. [/QUOTE] Sure, I agree with you, it wasn't necessary at all to change how much you pay BUT: I'm not sure if you read everything I write. It's easy: - Sweden pays money to the EU > lost money at that moment. - EU gives money from other countries who also pay to countries like Poland or any other east European country. - Receiving countries get a boost by the money, it helps their economy, living standard gets higher and as that rises so will the amount of things people buy. Obviously countries like Poland can't produce EVERYTHING there is, so they import from countries like Sweden. The more they import from you the more you profit from them. - You export more, the few billions you give to the EU are back in your country and you even made profit. You even profit from THEM building up new buildings or whatever, your country is one, if not the biggest, iron producer in Europe. What I want to say is: Sure you pay more, but in the end you get more from it. [QUOTE=The fox;33539516]Alright then, if its just "discussions" why does it explicity state "[b][u]began work[/b][/u] on a new international agreement"? Did you even read what I posted?[/QUOTE] And then it got denied. Your point?
[QUOTE=The fox;33539282] "Herring banned by the EU" - [url]http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7643734.ab[/url] - This type of fish is considered a delicacy in Sweden. Certainly, I am glad that the EU is banning us from eating fish, I am so glad we pay double the amount our law enforcement gets for this.[/QUOTE] You do know why right? It's for a very good reason. Hint: Strömming is poisonous, it's pretty well known here in Sweden.
+ How is aftonbladet.se even a reliable news source? Isn't it Sweden's Daily Mail or The Sun?
[QUOTE=Haxxer;33538113]Wouldn't EU be considered a superpower then?[/QUOTE] It already is by some, like it sits on the G20 as a country.
Good thing Norway isn't in the EU, so you guys can go fuck yourself. Kidding, i hope you won't drag us with you down the drain. :v:
[QUOTE=The fox;33538760]First off, holocaust denying. Not saying the holocaust didn't happen, but the fact that you are not allowed to voice your opinion certainly seems like a intrusion into free speech. Second off, IPRED, allows companies to subpoena your IP and get your name from it, to then bring you to court and sue your ass to hell and back. Third off, Ignored Sweden when the government implanted FRA, catching all in and outgoing internet, email and telephone trafic. I can go on and on, but like I said, people blindly defending the EU will hardly accept cold hard facts. And I have to take my dog out for a walk, so perhaps we can continue this fun once i'm back.[/QUOTE] Holocaust denial: Its illegal for a very good reason, its an undisputed fact that it did happen and denying it is extremely offensive to a large population of Europe. Moving on. IPRED is pretty bad, but your government voted on turning it into Swedish law, its only a directive. They were under no obligation to do so. Lastly, you are bitching about the EU not stepping in and protecting your rights when you just moaned about them having too much power? Make up your mind...
[QUOTE=Jsm;33540894]Holocaust denial: Its illegal for a very good reason, its an undisputed fact that it did happen and denying it is extremely offensive to a large population of Europe. [/QUOTE] So we should ban saying anything that gets people upset, everything that challenges current convention? Society would stagnate.
[QUOTE=The fox;33538760]I can go on and on, but like I said, people blindly defending the EU will hardly accept cold hard facts. And I have to take my dog out for a walk, so perhaps we can continue this fun once i'm back.[/QUOTE] While the EU isn't perfect and it has flaws that CAN be criticise, I'm baffled on you, Euroskeptics, for being hilariously stupid that you focus on attacking the EU based on bullshit claims instead of its legit flaws.
Jesus christ, Fox and firewarrior. You guys still fuckin around here?
[QUOTE=The fox;33539516]Alright then, if its just "discussions" why does it explicity state "[b][u]began work[/b][/u] on a new international agreement"? Did you even read what I posted?[/QUOTE] Because they started helping work on it after it was launched by the U.S. and Japan. You're really not too quick on the uptake, are you? Or maybe it's a language thing. "Began work" means "we started working on it" not "we started it."
[QUOTE=Radley;33541177]Jesus christ, Fox and firewarrior. You guys still fuckin around here?[/QUOTE] That's what you do in a forum: have an argumentation. Seriously, what's the problem? Isn't this thread about the EU?
[QUOTE=Firewarrior;33541468]That's what you do in a forum: have an argumentation. Seriously, what's the problem? Isn't this thread about the EU?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/forums/403[/url]
Personally I'd support a more unified Europe. The EU seems to have passed decent consumer protection laws and blocked not as helpful legislation, and with newer, hopefully more efficient governments in Italy and Greece, greater cooperation can be only good.
[QUOTE=Radley;33541536][url]http://www.facepunch.com/forums/403[/url][/QUOTE] So, according to you, you are only allowed to argue in that subforum? No. The article is about the EU, the whole thing before this was about the EU, nothing wrong with it. Seriously. But fine, I will stop posting in this thread then.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33541546]Personally I'd support a more unified Europe. The EU seems to have passed decent consumer protection laws and blocked not as helpful legislation, and with newer, hopefully more efficient governments in Italy and Greece, greater cooperation can be only good.[/QUOTE] What happened to your love of democracy?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33542641]What happened to your love of democracy?[/QUOTE] I don't know too much about how MEPs are elected, but if they're directly elected then I don't see the issue.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33542641]What happened to your love of democracy?[/QUOTE] The EU is an elected body.. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;33542694]I don't know too much about how MEPs are elected, but if they're directly elected then I don't see the issue.[/QUOTE] Every citizen in the EU can vote for MEPs for their country, I dunno how the numbers work out but the region I am in the UK ("South East") has 10.
So now they want a economic death lock on everyones fucking money? What happend to democracy? [QUOTE=Jsm;33543469]The EU is an elected body.. [/QUOTE] Eu is a group of people who elect themselves. 95% of the fucking population of Europe don't even know who the fuck the presidents of the commission and council are and no one voted for them.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33542694]I don't know too much about how MEPs are elected, but if they're directly elected then I don't see the issue.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the Italian and Greek technocracies.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33543943] Eu is a group of people who elect themselves. 95% of the fucking population of Europe don't even know who the fuck the presidents of the commission and council are and no one voted for them.[/QUOTE] But the people who elected him were elected by the people of Europe. In an ideal world the various presidents of the EU should be elected directly but I can't see that happening.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33544433]I'm talking about the Italian and Greek technocracies.[/QUOTE] Well it's certainly not preferable, but it's pretty dire in those countries. Berlusconi was pretty corrupt, and Greece had problems with tax collection, so they need some folks with integrity. However, I'm not sure if their new governments can do it, but it's worth a try.
[QUOTE=Radley;33541536][url]http://www.facepunch.com/forums/403[/url][/QUOTE] So it's completely wrong to post about something news related [B]IN[/B] the news thread about it?? The fuck.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33543943]Eu is a group of people who elect themselves. 95% of the fucking population of Europe don't even know who the fuck the presidents of the commission and council are and no one voted for them.[/QUOTE] Agree. Which is why Federalisation and the transfer of powers to Brussel (at least on Fiscal Policy, Defence, Immigration, and Foreign Policy) would make the EU democratic. You cannot have national sovereignty and a populus-driven democratic EU at the same time. Let's take a look at the boring and complex European government. You have the MEPs, elected by the people using the MMP voting system. Good. You have the Commissioners (the executive branch). Each member state sends one representative by your elected government and before a candidate takes the position of Commissioner, the EU parliament, whom are elected by the people, can question the candidate and can even reject him and that includes the Commission President. The Commission President is elected by the European Council. The European Council composed of the head of the member states. Eg presidents and prime ministers. Whom all are elected. Imagine this as a G26 summit that is happening every year. It has a President but he has no power whatsoever. Like the President of Ireland and other ceremonial presidents, he's just an expensive decoration. The Council of the European Union is the upper house of the EU. It is made up of the government ministers of the 27 member states. If the topic is agriculture then the Minister of Agriculture from every member state would meet up etc etc. They also have their own president whom the position is being passed to every member state every 6 years. Comparing this to Britain, it's actually fairly more democratic. My only criticism is that we have presidents (I hate presidents!) and for such position, they are indirectly elected. I don't like that. I also would like to add that the Council of Europe is not part of the EU nor is the European Court of Human Rights. I know. Confusing.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33543943]So now they want a economic death lock on everyones fucking money? What happend to democracy? Eu is a group of people who elect themselves. 95% of the fucking population of Europe don't even know who the fuck the presidents of the commission and council are and no one voted for them.[/QUOTE] The council is indirectly elected, because they consist of government officials elected in the countries they represent. They are essentially the upper house of the EU (where the lower house is the European parliament). Having two chambers is not unusual in any way, though I can see why especially Swedes are criticising that structure, as they are used to an unicameral parliamentary legislature.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33541546]Personally I'd support a more unified Europe. The EU seems to have passed decent consumer protection laws and blocked not as helpful legislation, and with newer, hopefully more efficient governments in Italy and Greece, greater cooperation can be only good.[/QUOTE] The main problem is the current unwillingness of the individual member states's populations for treaties. Considering the EU takes power away from individual governments and that in the EU, the smaller countries like Denmark, The Netherlands, etc. would have no real power to go against decisions we might not like, if it was to be passed legislation in said countries. What power does a 5 million population country have against a 60-90 million country like Germany or the UK?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.