The European Union

[Strokes]

Hang on, so you accuse them of being undemocratic, then have a problem with the democratically elected Majority party. They were not elected to be good for Britain, they were elected to be good for Europe. If you don't like it then perhaps you should start tactically voting as Alf suggested.

I was asking questions based on alfs response, not complaining but just for you I will.

The fact that a governing body can be elected that we have no party affiliated with, concerns me just as much as if it was dictated. the British vote cant matter much if a party can gain a majority without it.

[Webbo]

That just reads like a trade deal to me (I can't watch the videos from here, apologies). A particularly bad one but a trade deal nonetheless. We sign then all the time and aren't required to vote on them. That's representative democracy for you.

Anyway, I doubt many of us pro-EU lot would claim that the union can't improve it's democratic process. I'll go into my own ideas later if I find the time. What I reject is the notion that the EU is an entirely undemocratic institution. It's a false and lazy argument.

It tends to be used by those too afraid to just say 'I don't want our country to be run by foreigners'. I just wish people would be brave enough to say that. I don't agree with it but I'd certainly never label anybody xenophobic or racist for holding that viewpoint. It's perfectly legitimate.

I've already said I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. I also think it's perfectly acceptable to want to be in a united Europe, but only if you do it honestly and give us a vote on it. We can all see we are inevitably moving towards that but British politician's, if not the European ones, keep denying it. we'll get to the point where we'll be so integrated that they'll say " We're too far in to change it now, we'd better just accept it". That's undemocratic by anyone's definition. 

[Captain...]

I was asking questions based on alfs response, not complaining but just for you I will.

The fact that a governing body can be elected that we have no party affiliated with, concerns me just as much as if it was dictated. the British vote cant matter much if a party can gain a majority without it.

 

We currently have 78 of 738 MEPS, just over 10% there can easily be a majority without any of them, our vote doesn't matter much, but more so than most countries in the EU. It is like complaining because all Leicestershire voted Tory, but Labour got a majority, that's democracy, the illusion of choice.

[Strokes]

We currently have 78 of 738 MEPS, just over 10% there can easily be a majority without any of them, our vote doesn't matter much, but more so than most countries in the EU. It is like complaining because all Leicestershire voted Tory, but Labour got a majority, that's democracy, the illusion of choice.

Not really, Leicestershire could have voted for labour if they wanted. We can't even vote for this party that's in power, is that not a bit odd?

A TRUE democracy should give all options to all people.

[LJS]

I've already said I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. I also think it's perfectly acceptable to want to be in a united Europe, but only if you do it honestly and give us a vote on it. We can all see we are inevitably moving towards that but British politician's, if not the European ones, keep denying it. we'll get to the point where we'll be so integrated that they'll say " We're too far in to change it now, we'd better just accept it". That's undemocratic by anyone's definition.

.

I suppose it depends how you look at it. I agree that people should have a vote. But then the move towards integration isn't new. Ever closer union has been the transparent aim of the EU in all its historic guises. It isn't a secret. It's right there in its mission statement and always has been, even when the British people voted to join what was then the EC.

It was never intended to be just a trading block so I don't know where that idea comes from. I can only imagine that UK politicians sold it that way in the 1970s. I wasn't born so I don't know. But then you could easily ask why people didn't just go and read up themselves. It's a big vote to go into ignorantly. I'm probably being unfair. Information wasn't as easy to come by as it is now, I suppose.

But what happens if there is a vote and we stay in? Do we hold a referendum every forty years so the next couple of generations can have a say? Genuine question. I'd suggest that that's what the elections we have already are for.

[Captain...]

I've already said I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. I also think it's perfectly acceptable to want to be in a united Europe, but only if you do it honestly and give us a vote on it. We can all see we are inevitably moving towards that but British politician's, if not the European ones, keep denying it. we'll get to the point where we'll be so integrated that they'll say " We're too far in to change it now, we'd better just accept it". That's undemocratic by anyone's definition. 

 

Are we now saying that the EU is undemocratic over something that might happen?

 

Cameron has pledged a referendum in 2015, UKIP are gaining in popularity and feelings towards the EU are worsening. There will be a vote at some point, and you will have your chance to opt in or out I am fairly sure of that, as being on the fence as we currently seem to be helps nobody.

[Zingari]

.

I suppose it depends how you look at it. I agree that people should have a vote. But then the move towards integration isn't new. Ever closer union has been the transparent aim of the EU in all it's historic guises. It isn't a secret. It's right there in its mission statement and always has been, even when the British people voted to join what was then the EC.

It was never intended to be just a trading block so I don't know where that idea comes from. I can only imagine that UK politicians sold it that way in the 1970s. I wasn't born so I don't know. But then you could easily ask why people didn't just go and read up themselves. It's a big vote to go into ignorantly. I'm probably being unfair. Information wasn't as easy to come by as it is now, I suppose.

 

.

I suppose it depends how you look at it. I agree that people should have a vote. But then the move towards integration isn't new. Ever closer union has been the transparent aim of the EU in all it's historic guises. It isn't a secret. It's right there in its mission statement and always has been, even when the British people voted to join what was then the EC.

It was never intended to be just a trading block so I don't know where that idea comes from. I can only imagine that UK politicians sold it that way in the 1970s. I wasn't born so I don't know. But then you could easily ask why people didn't just go and read up themselves. It's a big vote to go into ignorantly. I'm probably being unfair. Information wasn't as easy to come by as it is now, I suppose.

always the intention of a move to integration ?

maybe it was but i don't really remember it being sold to us in that way , 

if it's not a secret now , i'm pretty sure it wasn't common knowledge back then .it seems like it's  a secret that's gradually been allowed to seep out as each stage is accepted 

[Webbo]

.

I suppose it depends how you look at it. I agree that people should have a vote. But then the move towards integration isn't new. Ever closer union has been the transparent aim of the EU in all its historic guises. It isn't a secret. It's right there in its mission statement and always has been, even when the British people voted to join what was then the EC.

It was never intended to be just a trading block so I don't know where that idea comes from. I can only imagine that UK politicians sold it that way in the 1970s. I wasn't born so I don't know. But then you could easily ask why people didn't just go and read up themselves. It's a big vote to go into ignorantly. I'm probably being unfair. Information wasn't as easy to come by as it is now, I suppose.

We weren't given a vote on whether to join the Common Market as it was called then, unless you count voting for Ted Heath in the G E who said he would take us in, only 1 on whether to pull out. It was definitely stated at the time that it was only a trading bloc we were joining and we wouldn't be losing any sovereignty. 

[Captain...]

Not really, Leicestershire could have voted for labour if they wanted. We can't even vote for this party that's in power, is that not a bit odd?

A TRUE democracy should give all options to all people.

 

A true democracy doesn't exist anywhere, in the last election there wasn't a Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru, ulster unionist or Monster raving looney party candidate for me to vote for. Any candidate can run in any election, if there was an EPP candidate nothing would stop him running, the fact there isn't doesn't make it undemocratic.

[LJS]

always the intention of a move to integration ?

maybe it was but i don't really remember it being sold to us in that way ,

if it's not a secret now , i'm pretty sure it wasn't common knowledge back then .it seems like it's a secret that's gradually been allowed to seep out as each stage is accepted

It was the plan from the start. That it wasn't common knowledge is the key phrase there. It's an interesting question as to who should be responsible for disseminating/discovering the truth. The politicians with an agenda or the people with the vote? I'd argue a bit of both.

[Strokes]

It was the plan from the start. That it wasn't common knowledge is the key phrase there. It's an interesting question as to who should be responsible for disseminating/discovering the truth. The politicians with an agenda or the people with the vote? I'd argue a bit of both.

Seriously?

[LJS]

We weren't given a vote on whether to join the Common Market as it was called then, unless you count voting for Ted Heath in the G E who said he would take us in, only 1 on whether to pull out. It was definitely stated at the time that it was only a trading bloc we were joining and we wouldn't be losing any sovereignty.

Then I suppose our politicians lied. Or we're just plain wrong. But the EU was committed to ever closer union from as far back as the Treaty of Rome.

Mind you there have always been those who favour different degrees of integration and it tends to move in waves. There was very little integration in the 1970s and early 1980s, loads in the late 80s and the 1990s, and not so much since.

It's difficult to comprehend that the sovereignty argument washed with people. When you pool resources you also pool sovereignty. Being part of the UN, NATO, WHO, and the countless others, all result in some sacrifice of sovereignty.

[Webbo]

Are we now saying that the EU is undemocratic over something that might happen?

 

Cameron has pledged a referendum in 2015, UKIP are gaining in popularity and feelings towards the EU are worsening. There will be a vote at some point, and you will have your chance to opt in or out I am fairly sure of that, as being on the fence as we currently seem to be helps nobody.

It's not a might, it's fairly clear that's the direction we're heading.

 

As for the referendum we'll only get that if the Tories get in which isn't certain by any means and if Labour and the Libs don't block it in the House of Lords like they did with the last attempt. If we do get to vote and then we vote to get out I'm not certain we won't get another referendum, and then another until we get the right result. 

[LJS]

Seriously?

Yes. Politicians have a responsibility to be honest with us but we also have a responsibility to make informed choices.

[Zingari]

Yes. Politicians have a responsibility to be honest with us but we also have a responsibility to make informed choices.

We could  only make an informed choice if they had been honest.

The one thing is dependent on the other , it's  an not equal responsibility.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

OUT! OUT! OUT!

[LJS]

We could only make an informed choice if they had been honest.

The one thing is dependent on the other , it's an not equal responsibility.

.

Really? We can't do our own research? I don't know about you but I don't just take the word of politicians for stuff. More difficult in times past I'll grant you, but nobody on this forum can excuse ignorance. We all have internet access.

Of course politicians should be honest and I think the vast majority are. It's just that they have an agenda in line with their beliefs and that's the line they're bound to promote. We have to see past that. I'm a lefty but I get my news from sources across the political spectrum. I've no desire make choices on the basis of argument from only one perspective.

[davieG]

I'm pretty sure I was asked whether i wanted to remain in the Common 'Market' having already been taken in.

 

The debate at the time was all about making it easier through regulation and harmonisation to trade between the countries. no one at anytime as far i was aware mentioned political integration and I was very active/interested politically at that time and i think I would have been aware if that was a publicised aim.

 

Being in an electrical engineering industry where there was wide differences in the various standards I thought it was a good idea if i'd known that where we've reached today was the aim, political integration I wouldn't have had anywhere near a positive view on it.

[Zingari]

I'm pretty sure I was asked whether i wanted to remain in the Common 'Market' having already been taken in.

 

The debate at the time was all about making it easier through regulation and harmonisation to trade between the countries. no one at anytime as far i was aware mentioned political integration and I was very active/interested politically at that time and i think I would have been aware if that was a publicised aim.

That's pretty much how i remember it too , They now seem to claim we should have been in no doubt what the ultimate aim was back then , 

Well i think some rewriting of history has taken place.

In fact i seem to remember vigorous denials that it was the goal to become ever more unified . Anyone suggesting this back then was branded a conspiracy nut .

So maybe the ultimate aim is a one world government ( NWO)  after all , They 'll gradually bring it in and tell us we should have known all along 

[davieG]

.

Really? We can't do our own research? I don't know about you but I don't just take the word of politicians for stuff. More difficult in times past I'll grant you, but nobody on this forum can excuse ignorance. We all have internet access.

Of course politicians should be honest and I think the vast majority are. It's just that they have an agenda in line with their beliefs and that's the line they're bound to promote. We have to see past that. I'm a lefty but I get my news from sources across the political spectrum. I've no desire make choices on the basis of argument from only one perspective.

Even with the internet it's nigh on impossible to get an unbiased view on anything whatever one party says are facts about something the other party will say the opposite. Trying to delve deeper is no help either because those that control the media are just as biased and self serving as the politicians. Even apparent non political businesses and organisations are sponsored/controlled in this money driven society.

That's pretty much how i remember it too , They now seem to claim we should have been in no doubt what the ultimate aim was back then , 

Well i think some rewriting of history has taken place.

In fact i seem to remember vigorous denials that it was the goal to become ever more unified . Anyone suggesting this back then was branded a conspiracy nut .

I remember that as well.

[Guest MattP]

Then I suppose our politicians lied. Or we're just plain wrong. But the EU was committed to ever closer union from as far back as the Treaty of Rome.

Mind you there have always been those who favour different degrees of integration and it tends to move in waves. There was very little integration in the 1970s and early 1980s, loads in the late 80s and the 1990s, and not so much since.

It's difficult to comprehend that the sovereignty argument washed with people. When you pool resources you also pool sovereignty. Being part of the UN, NATO, WHO, and the countless others, all result in some sacrifice of sovereignty.

 

It's good that a few people are starting to admit this, but we weren't all told.

 

Thatcher for example was very anti EU in her later years yet raved about it at the start of the common market, maybe it was just the socialists of europe who knew what it was really going to be and they didn't want to tell any of us?

 

I'm all for trade parts and relaxations of working agreements, when you start going towards countries not in control of borders, companies paying tax elsewhere despite profiting here and the ECHM decided who we can and cant deport is when you will get people deciding enough is enough.

[LJS]

I'm pretty sure I was asked whether i wanted to remain in the Common 'Market' having already been taken in.

The debate at the time was all about making it easier through regulation and harmonisation to trade between the countries. no one at anytime as far i was aware mentioned political integration and I was very active/interested politically at that time and i think I would have been aware if that was a publicised aim.

Being in an electrical engineering industry where there was wide differences in the various standards I thought it was a good idea if i'd known that where we've reached today was the aim, political integration I wouldn't have had anywhere near a positive view on it.

.

I can't comment about the political campaign as I wasn't born. But it is certainly the case that ever closer union has always been the ultimate aim of the EU and it's predecessors. Indeed the integration we have seen in latter years was initially planned for much earlier. The French vetoed what would have essentially been a single European military in 1954 and the single currency was meant to be in place as early as 1980 before economic stagnation put paid to it.

[Guest MattP]

.

I can't comment about the political campaign as I wasn't born. But it is certainly the case that ever closer union has always been the ultimate aim of the EU and it's predecessors. Indeed the integration we have seen in latter years was initially planned for much earlier. The French vetoed what would have essentially been a single European military in 1954 and the single currency was meant to be in place as early as 1980 before economic stagnation put paid to it.

 

Would have made the Falklands war interesting.

[LJS]

It's good that a few people are starting to admit this, but we weren't all told.

Thatcher for example was very anti EU in her later years yet raved about it at the start of the common market, maybe it was just the socialists of europe who knew what it was really going to be and they didn't want to tell any of us?

I'm all for trade parts and relaxations of working agreements, when you start going towards countries not in control of borders, companies paying tax elsewhere despite profiting here and the ECHM decided who we can and cant deport is when you will get people deciding enough is enough.

Thatcher was euro sceptic in rhetoric only. She signed the SEA which was the greatest sacrifice of sovereignty to the European project up to that point and paved the way for Maastricht and the accelerated integration of the later 1990s.

[LJS]

Even with the internet it's nigh on impossible to get an unbiased view on anything whatever one party says are facts about something the other party will say the opposite. Trying to delve deeper is no help either because those that control the media are just as biased and self serving as the politicians. Even apparent non political businesses and organisations are sponsored/controlled in this money driven society

You will never get an unbiased view but then why would you want one? Everything is written by somebody and everybody has one view or another. Read from different sources and make your owning up based on what feels right to you.