Politics - What do you think?

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by jrs77

Funny you mention atheism and describe exactly what I would've said what it means

As I said, it's a very Finnish trait from my experience. Perfectly understanding given the agglutinative language you guys use. I've noticed it's very common for Finns to deconstruct words to find their meaning, as opposed to asking or looking them up.

Anyways, I'm aswell not thinking, that the people should vote about everything, as that's why we have a government to begin with. But when it comes to questions, that touch everyones daily lives, then yeah, everyone should have a vote.

So you're suggesting we should leave the small issues to the experts but let the uneducated masses decide the most important things?

And I'm sure not one of those, who wants to see everything simplified. I'm all for better education, so that people don't need to have everything simplified and still understand. Additionally, better eductated people can make better and more mature decisions.

And in Finland you have that better education. In the UK many adults are barely literate.

[mucgoo]

Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip

a.) We don't want a 'full say' because we are in the EU solely for the financial gain of the common market.

Its worth noting that Switzerland and Norway are subject to much of the EU's regulation with zero say in it as the trade-off for the single market access.

[javaman]

Originally Posted by walle

England and Polen are two sovereign nations, are they not? And as such they set their own laws, rules and regulations. Why should a central point of authority be in a position to dictate and impose its will onto sovereign nations telling those nations what they can and cannot do?

I've got news for you, and anyone like you.

The majority of people don't want the centralization of power and Orwellian control you are alluding to, why so many Scots want out of the Union for instance (the United Kingdom) would be an expression of this, one of many.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...0-000-each-day

To add to what you said, This is how Europe Dictates. Daily Mail also carried the article with a little more detail.
Anyone remember the "Get it right this time" Lisbon treaty?

Originally Posted by Nexxo

See N. Ireland: Catholics vs Protestants.

I'd prefer you to use Nationalist vs Unionist as Northern Ireland isn't a religious conflict, it's a political view point one. Yes the majority of Protestants would share Unionist view points and Catholics Nationalist but in reality the vast majority have barely stepped inside a Church in their life never mind could tell you what the bible is or who Jesus was and many from different religious backgrounds don't want to rock the Status Quo. Its simply not as black and white as that. Religion just happened to be one differences due to how the country was formed but the conflict itself is not actually about religion and by reducing it to a religious conflict creates tensions that shouldn't be dragged into an already complicated and muddy situation.

[Xir]

Originally Posted by Mankz

Holland is to Netherlands as Surrey is to England. A county/province.

More like England/UK. An important part that gets mistaken for the latter.

Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip

Has the remit of The European Union grown beyond what was initially envisioned? Yes.
Is this entirely justified? No.

That probably depends on who's vision you're speaking of...
it's certainly grown beyond what UK politicians envisioned when they joined, I wouldn't be so sure it's grown beyond what DeGaulle and Adenauer envisioned when they kicked it off to begin with.

Originally Posted by mucgoo

Its worth noting that Switzerland and Norway are subject to much of the EU's regulation with zero say in it as the trade-off for the single market access.

Correct, that possibility is always open.

[Blazza181]

Originally Posted by Xir

That probably depends on who's vision you're speaking of...
it's certainly grown beyond what UK politicians envisioned when they joined, I wouldn't be so sure it's grown beyond what DeGaulle and Adenauer envisioned when they kicked it off to begin with.

I highly doubt that on DeGaulle's side. He was notably patriotic, disliked the British, and I believe he would not be the kind to desire France to join a sort of quasi-federal state.

[Xir]

True, his goal was one of strong national states, BUT with common policies, for example a common foreign policy.
(If my remembrance of the Fouchet-Plans are correct.)

Which is more than we have now really.

[Action_Parsnip]

[quote=Xir;3274429]That probably depends on who's vision you're speaking of...
it's certainly grown beyond what UK politicians envisioned when they joined, I wouldn't be so sure it's grown beyond what DeGaulle and Adenauer envisioned when they kicked it off to begin with.QUOTE]

So is the EU France and Germany?

[Xir]

[quote=Action_Parsnip;3274602]

Originally Posted by Xir

... DeGaulle and Adenauer envisioned when they kicked it off to begin with.QUOTE]

So is the EU France and Germany?

Well, the starting Vision would have been from the original founders, thats France, Germany, the BeNeLux und Italy, isn't it?

[Action_Parsnip]

[quote=Xir;3274914]

Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip

Well, the starting Vision would have been from the original founders, thats France, Germany, the BeNeLux und Italy, isn't it?

It would be .... but what is the vision today? How can it reconcile with members in the Euro and out of the Euro? Is there even a vision except 'The EU must exist'? Does it in it's current form serve the member states? or does it serve a political ideal held by what is potentially a minority of people even inside the euro-area countries?

I mean ..... I think this is the crux of the problem re: Britain and the EU. We have precious little collective realisation here what it is for. Outside of arguments about the trade benefits and the foreign (non-EU) investment potential the pro-EU voices - and don't be fooled these are quiet, meek ones - find it extremely hard to argue any sort of case for it.

Although I would say the idea of a political body across the English channel having any sort of direct influence on the U.K. creates a sort of low-level resentment amongst it citizens, the number of things that could be listed as making it 'worth the trouble' outside of trade reasons are very few indeed. It remains extremely easy to sling mud at the institutions of the EU and this mud sticks like super glue. For instance:

Far, far too many well payed people with great privelege working in far, far too many shiney and expensive buildings using far, far too many shiney and expensive cars to achieve ...... what exactly? how much of what is done by these people in these premises is actually necessary? It would be very fair to say we are talking about more than a little excess 'fat' here.

Any willingness to change any of that? No.

How about the various sacred cows within the EU's budget? Say, The Common Agricultural Policy? or The common Fisheries Policy?

Any chance that will be changed? No.

How about not accepting the results of national referendums? Say, the Lisbon Treaty? the second attempt to put a treaty to the EU member states. For some reason the 'no' by the Dutch and the French in the 2005 rounds of voting was not explicit enough.

High-handed we-know-better from the European commision? Close both eyes and it just might not look like it.

How about the elephant in the room and guilt by association: the sovereign debt crisis and the abject failure of all the economical and regulatory mechanisms that were in place up until that point together with a total inability to move towards addressing the situation until the evening before one or the other bankrupt state was days away from running out of money.

The number of pigeons that came home to roost in 2009 turned the financial skies black.

In short: mud sticks.

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip

How about the elephant in the room and guilt by association: the sovereign debt crisis and the abject failure of all the economical and regulatory mechanisms that were in place up until that point together with a total inability to move towards addressing the situation until the evening before one or the other bankrupt state was days away from running out of money.

To address this one point it has been widely acknowledged that Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl firmly believed in the vision of a united Europe and actively worked towards a federal European super state. The Euro was seen as one of the main tools of achieving this aim. The economists who worked on the Euro project expressly warned that with out a central bank directly controlling the economic policies of the member countries a financial crisis was inevitable. The response from the politicians was it was an respectable risk as a crisis would then force the member countries into forming a federal banking union to survive. The BBC documentary below speaks to the people involved and explains it better.

[Snips]

I grew up at a time where I live with everybody calling the "Bloody Tory Scum" for everything. I just didn't understand it to be honest as they were all f'n and blinding about them but I don't really think they knew why themselves. They just did it because everyone else did. However, Labour at the time were just absolutely useless at anything. Pretty much what they are like now but nowadays Labour seem to be holding back for some reason, almost as if they can't say too much since they stayed in power too long and worried that something is going to come back and bite them.

Sorry to offend the good ol U S of A but the politics in the states is baffling. The personal attacks in the adverts are hilarious. No word of a lie, I saw one in florida that stated the other candidate approves of pornography on county offices computers o.0

However, there are a few positive things I like about the American political system. The maximum two term for Pres is a good thing. Like the quote from The Dark Knight says "You either die the Hero or live long enough to become the Villian!" So usually, when the 8 years is up, the party of the outgoing president doesn't always get back in with a new face at the helm.

Everybody loved Blair when he turned up but by the 3rd term, his whiter than white term of office had gone a bad shade of grey. If he had stepped down before that 3rd election, Labour would not have gone on to win it.

Anyway, the People's Front of Judea.......SPLITTERSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Waynio]

Sorry about my recent outburst related to a couple of awful things recently, been having to normalise myself since.

Serious things scare me because it's scarily way over my head, I really try to ignore it leaving it for serious & good people who know what they are doing to sort things out which they were doing from the look of it, some of the online world seemed to be going nuts & it was spilling over to reality, I don't like serious, it scares me, I like normality & geekyness, that's why I come here.

My serious side in reality would be jumping in the middle & yelling stop this madness, it might kill or seriously hurt me but I'd be trying to prevent something bad from happening, I know the sane thing is to ignore it unless myself or others are in immediate danger but if government doesn't tell us what is OK & what isn't how am I to know any better.

Serious scares me & makes me ill, I do everything I can to stay well other than rarely commenting in serious because it's classed as serious for a reason.

I'll never enter serious again, I need to keep to what I really know which is modding so I don't fall too ill to function or add to a problem.

Politics, I think if I was PM, I would be silver in 2 days, bald in 5 & possibly dead from stress in a week.

That's what I think of politics, you need a rock solid mind with awesome intelligence around them, not something I have got.

I'm not subscribing, just saying since things had me very concerned, I don't like sheer madness.

[Porkins' Wingman]

Originally Posted by Waynio

... but if government doesn't tell us what is OK & what isn't how am I to know any better.

It's ok, they'll look after you

[Bede]

Originally Posted by Waynio

if government doesn't tell us what is OK & what isn't how am I to know any better.

I wish fewer people thought like that. The world needs more people who don't trust a) the government, b) the media, c) people telling them things. On the other hand, a nice world requires people to trust each other. Confusion.

[Snips]

tin foil hats all round everyone?