If the Conservatives gave us a referendum on EU membership... Page 5

  • Syrok Designer, Tarsier Studios 5 Nov 2009 12:09:27 14,104 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:

    Why don't you go get a good nights kip and do it tomorrow then? I'll patiently await your explanation of how the EU works, of how it is unlike any other supranational body and how it all operates in a completely aimless fashion without the intervention of human beings.

    Well for one there aren't really any supranational organisations, most are intergovernmental. Even the EU isn't completely supranational. :)
  • Khanivor 5 Nov 2009 15:40:01 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Here are some direct questions to answer; maybe you can C&P them into google and get some 'answers':

    1 - What is the purpose of the EU over the coming decades?

    2 - Will the Lisbon Treaty be the final expansion and codification?

    3 - What designs do those who run the EU, from the politicians to the career bureaucrats, have for its future?

    I look forward to your rewording of the wikis.

    The intenet is not just for porn

    That will answer your first question.
    Honestly Khani, I expected better from you. Take your information from the horses mouth.

    The EU is a form of supra national government, it's not static. No governments are.

    Well I had a dig around that link and it didn't answer the question for me.

    Obviously no form of government is static; they are always expanding and very occasionally contracting. I'd just like to know what designs the EU has on this front in the future.

    To me, the current setup seems akin to getting a builder in to work on your house but without having anything specific for him to fix. So he keeps on finding new things to fix, handing you over bills to pay and then discovering even more work for him to do, and more bills for you to pay. At no point do you stop and ask him when he will be finished and if that was the last bill you will have to pay.

    No one knows when it is going to stop. Will the EU tidy up its house and be satisfied to operate as it does now, or will it continue to roll on and become more of a federation, chipping away at the sovereignty of its members? No one knows, and I think it would be diligent to actually find out an answer to this.

    Obviously I'm not going to get one out of mowgli as he has chickened out once again.
    Maybe the excuse is he broke his l and o keys.
  • Deleted user 5 November 2009 15:50:51
    Actually I just can't be bothered. The answers appear obvious to everyone else in this thread, and you have even been provided with direct links. But, well, you are refusing to actually read them. Why you think I can be arsed explaining all of this to you is a bit odd, the information is there, you are the only person not getting it. And fwiw, I've learned from debating with you in the past that the moment I (or anyone) proves you wrong the first thing you do is start doing your best to subtly change the argument or the entire point of the debate. It is like clockwork with you and it would be funny if it wasn't so fucking tedious.

    Otto recommended a great book on the EU a while a go (can't remember which thread) by Anand Menon. I recommend starting with that. :)
  • Khanivor 5 Nov 2009 15:57:04 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    As I thought. I've learned from past discussions with you that you'll ridicule someone else, claim superior knowledge, then come up with some lame reason - usually that you can't be bothered - as to why you can't divulge this superior knowledge of yours.

    Claiming I'm the only person not getting it is a new one though, as is the claim you know what I've read and not read.
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 09:52:04
    Khanivor wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Here are some direct questions to answer; maybe you can C&P them into google and get some 'answers':

    1 - What is the purpose of the EU over the coming decades?

    2 - Will the Lisbon Treaty be the final expansion and codification?

    3 - What designs do those who run the EU, from the politicians to the career bureaucrats, have for its future?

    I look forward to your rewording of the wikis.

    The intenet is not just for porn

    That will answer your first question.
    Honestly Khani, I expected better from you. Take your information from the horses mouth.

    The EU is a form of supra national government, it's not static. No governments are.

    Well I had a dig around that link and it didn't answer the question for me.

    Obviously no form of government is static; they are always expanding and very occasionally contracting. I'd just like to know what designs the EU has on this front in the future.

    To me, the current setup seems akin to getting a builder in to work on your house but without having anything specific for him to fix. So he keeps on finding new things to fix, handing you over bills to pay and then discovering even more work for him to do, and more bills for you to pay. At no point do you stop and ask him when he will be finished and if that was the last bill you will have to pay.

    No one knows when it is going to stop. Will the EU tidy up its house and be satisfied to operate as it does now, or will it continue to roll on and become more of a federation, chipping away at the sovereignty of its members? No one knows, and I think it would be diligent to actually find out an answer to this.

    Obviously I'm not going to get one out of mowgli as he has chickened out once again.
    Maybe the excuse is he broke his l and o keys.

    The EU's purpose is in the treaty of rome. There's your clue. Go find it.
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 09:53:59
    In fact, just go here

    You clearly didn't look hard enough.
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 15:40:56
    Found it yet khani?
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 15:44:18
    He'll be changing his point.
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 15:49:28
    He doesn't normally walk away from an argument. Odd. Perhaps he's sleeping.
  • Deleted user 6 November 2009 15:52:52
    He doesn't walk away, he just does his best to hide defeat by changing the argument completely. To the point where either everyone gets fed up or confused.
  • Khanivor 6 Nov 2009 16:06:26 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Aye, I found the link. Still searching for that answer you said it had. All I can find is a history of how the purpose and scope of the ogranisation has changed and grown over time. I see the well-known expansion from a common market to a much wider and more involved over-arching set of pan European rules and guidelines. For example, I don't see mention of a pan-European laws, a president or a European armed forces in the original documents. Sure, you have vague language about closer integration and prosperity but where are the specifics? Where is it clearly spelled out what will be done to achieve this and what will be in place when the project can be considered complete?

    Your link shows how you had a group of disparate ogranisations which over time grew in power and scope, were merged into an ever more powerful and broad organisation which continued to grow in size, reach and power. I mean, who really thought when their governments signed up to European Coal and Steel Community that 50 years down the line they would be waiting for an unelected person to be nominated to act as figurehead that represented all their interests?

    Which all tend to back up my concerns over exactly what they final point of the whole project is an just how much 'mission creep' is going to occur over the decades.
  • Khanivor 6 Nov 2009 16:07:52 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    He doesn't walk away, he just does his best to hide defeat by changing the argument completely. To the point where either everyone gets fed up or confused.

    No mowgli, the discussion develops as new points are raised. If you can't keep up that doesn't mean others are struggling.

    And you want to be a solicitor? Fucking hell.
  • wizbob 6 Nov 2009 16:28:52 917 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Yet again you're just shouting at the walls long after the rest of the forum has walked away.

    I think people agree with you on most points but I suspect you don't really hear what the tone of your posts sound like to the reader.
  • Khanivor 6 Nov 2009 16:44:24 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Aye, you've probably got a point there; I know I can be quite aggressive with my posting style. I guess I never moved on from the old skool habit of calling a tard a tard. Obviously that's not directed at mcm, who is at least making an effort to back up what he is saying even if, imo, it's not getting to the core of the problem.
  • grey_matters 6 Nov 2009 16:59:13 4,779 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    McCreevey is an utter gobshite whose word on anything shouldn't be used as proof. Your point stands though (even stronger without mention of him).
  • Khanivor 6 Nov 2009 17:01:42 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    I think that's a central issue, in that people are being told to take the whole thing on good faith and trust that the politicians and bureaucrats have nothing but their best interest in mind. If you question the wisdom of this you are likely to have all sorts of derogatory labels stuck on you and instructed to go off and read and believe more official literature.

    Naturally there are people out there who have a totally ill-informed view of the whole thing but there are lots of people in the middle who can see the potential good yet would both like to have some unbiased information and analysis. As well as seeing the all too obvious failings of the system addressed rather than swept under the carpet and any questions shooshed away as if from a dismissive auntie.
  • wizbob 6 Nov 2009 17:13:00 917 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    The EU hate him. A German MEP detailed a list of horse-racing fixtures he had attended instead of turning up for work. He's also one of the chief architects of Ireland's economic collapse, so he's not welcome back here either.

    I watched Barroso and Wallstrom give a joint conference after the Irish vote and they specifically mentioned the role that the EU's democratic deficit played in the initial No vote. I wonder if they actually intend to address that and how they would do it.
  • Xerx3s 6 Nov 2009 18:01:14 23,959 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    ram_300 wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    Can't help feeling the pro-european polititians/eu/whoever did a terrible job of explaining it. I tried reading it (and I've been know to have fleeting moments where I'm not a total idiot) and could not hack it.

    That was of course the entire point. The treaty is a less readable rehash of the late EU constitution, designed as an end run around the pesky voters of the UK, France and the Netherlands.

    Also, I can't help but feel that the standard applied by Otto - "Have you actually read it?" is just ridiculous even at a glance. I would be surprised if even a majority of MEP:s have "actually read it".

    Of course, you shouldn't merely trust my take on that,
    so instead take it from an actual EU commissioner:

    Speaking in Dublin on Friday, McCreevy, European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, said "I don't expect ordinary decent Irish people, or anywhere in the globe, to be sitting down and spending hours and hours reading sections about subsections referring to articles about sub-articles. But there is sufficient analysis done."

    The former Irish finance minister admitted he hasn't read the entire treaty himself and said he doesn't expect "any sane and sensible person" to read it from cover to cover.

    So because MEP didn't read it, that makes it oke. On the flip side, do you know all the ins and outs of your own government agreements? Are you happy with those?
  • Xerx3s 6 Nov 2009 18:07:44 23,959 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    ram_300 wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Which all tend to back up my concerns over exactly what they final point of the whole project is an just how much 'mission creep' is going to occur over the decades.

    The most worrying thing is perhaps not the "mission creep" itself (which is not unintentional creep, but more of a controlled and steady expansion of powers) - it is the manner in which the expansion of powers is accomplished.

    It has now been conclusively demonstrated that there is in practice no practical way for voters to stop the expansion of EU power.

    - If you vote "No" to expanding EU power in a referendum, one of two things will happen:

    a) The referendum will be re-run as soon as the political conditions are deemed favorable to the EU.

    b) The referendum will be ignored, and legal maneuvers applied as necessary to implement whatever you voted "no" to anyways.

    Add in the always ridiculously lopsided resource imbalance in any EU-related referendum, and the fix is always, always in. Similar actions taken in some backwater like Afghanistan would be (rightly) frowned upon by our elites. But, alas, it is our elites who are riding the EU train, so..

    - If you instead put your trust in parliamentary democracy, you will still lose to the EU, as the primary loyalty of establishment politicians now lies with the EU, not with the voters.

    In practice, this means that the UK premier will willingly lie to the voters (falsely promising a referendum), making the parliamentary vote meaningless.

    Overall, the EU is moving away from democracy, towards a more imperial model. This is not surprising - keeping a diverse and empire-sized entity in line usually jives badly with the traditional conception of democracy.

    Shocking news! Our constitutional monarchy isn't actually a democracy at all and the non democratic super national institutes it created don't work in a democratic way. More at 11.

    Soooo, yeah, politicians have been lying to you since the dawn of time. It's what they do.
  • Khanivor 6 Nov 2009 19:01:45 44,105 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    I think it's a shame people are so blasé about 'business as usual' when an opportunity to set a new path and a new example is being thrown away.

    It's more of a shame when something trumpeted as progressive beats so many hallmarks of methods from eras I'm sure everyone was glad they had seen the back of.

    I suppose people really do get the form of government that they deserve :
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.