Britain in the EU

[ralphchadkirk]

Christ you really have been brainwashed.

I prefer to debate on facts, rather than insults.

How do you think we managed before grocer Heath took us in?

The world has changed hugely since then. It's not comparable.

Ashton has been constantly criticised by officials for being totally non-commitive on meetings and for not even bothering to learn French

People must think she's good for the job, otherwise she wouldn't be doing it. Simples.
And yes, she does know French but is not fluent. I don't really see the problem with that, although it is a little embarrassing.

What was her qualification(s) for this important post? Chair of a health authority.

You are wrong on that. Previous to her first EU position as Trade Commissioner (she is now a First Vice President, and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) she was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Skills, Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the new Ministry of Justice, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council. I think all that's qualification enough.

This is an organisation who are so deeply corrupt that no-one has signed off the accounts for seven, SEVEN years!

That's as a result of member states not doing the numbers properly. There is no evidence of corruption.

The one person who exposed the deeply flawed expenses system was hounded out of her job by another failed Labour politician,

Evidence?

He and his money grubbing wife were soon on the E.E.C. gravytrain and make no mistake, it is a gravy train financed and paid for by taxpayers. The E.E.C. and all it's employees are all self serving beaurocrats who are nothing more than self-serving meddlers. We don't need a European Economic Community, we've got our own

The EEC hasn't existed since 1993. I will assume that you didn't do your research, and it's now the European Community. As to your last couple of sentences, I debate on fact, not rhetoric and insults.

We're still harbouring criminals, terrorists and child molesters because of judges in Belgium - a country that hasn't had a government for over a year - telling us that we have to.

Evidence? In any case, for the third time, that's as a result of the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the European Convention of Human Rights, which was drafted in 1950 of which the drafting was guided by a British MP.

 

[Zoe]

It creates social disharmony. It also gives us a nice welfare bill to pay the terminally lazy in our indigenous population who are far less employable than hard working people from Eastern Europe.

How about leaving the generalizations for the Daily Mail? Not everyone claiming benefits is lazy, yes there are a few people that cheat the systems but there are penalties for this. The cost of living in Eastern Europe is lower, people there can afford to work for lower wages. In a profit making business it's quite logical to maximize profit by employing people that will work for lower wages.

 

[Ferret]

How about leaving the generalizations for the Daily Mail? Not everyone claiming benefits is lazy, yes there are a few people that cheat the systems but there are penalties for this. The cost of living in Eastern Europe is lower, people there can afford to work for lower wages. In a profit making business it's quite logical to maximize profit by employing people that will work for lower wages.

Nowhere did I make a generalisation. Nowhere did I say everyone claiming benefits was terminally lazy, merely that there are such people in society. Would you care to actually read what's said instead of yet again making a fool of yourself?

 

[Zoe]

Nowhere did I make a generalisation. Nowhere did I say everyone claiming benefits was terminally lazy, merely that there are such people in society. Would you care to actually read what's said instead of yet again making a fool of yourself?

These people would most likely be in a minority so it wasn't even worth mentioning. You were saying it creates a nice welfare bill to pay the lazy. I would say that most people claiming benefits are not lazy. At the end of the day it's quite simply just cheaper for companies to employ people from abroad. You may not agree with my opinion but you don't have to say I am a fool for it. You can't take a jobs that are not there or that you can't afford to live on due to low wages.

 

[WestCoast]

How about leaving the generalizations for the Daily Mail? Not everyone claiming benefits is lazy, yes there are a few people that cheat the systems but there are penalties for this. The cost of living in Eastern Europe is lower, people there can afford to work for lower wages. In a profit making business it's quite logical to maximize profit by employing people that will work for lower wages.

I don't see how Ferret made any "Daily Hate" generalisations?

Of course, many benefit claimants are not lazy and are honest. However, the "underclass" of non-workers in the country is a very real issue, let's not deny that. There are some people who expect to be paid without ever working a day in their lives, they expect a council house and a range of benefits to support themselves (and any children they have) without any effort whatsoever. My mother used to be an administrator at the local council's benefit office and she thought the attitude of some claimants was ungrateful, demanding and aggressive. Payments were seen as a right and not a privilege.

 

[Ferret]

These people would most likely be in a minority so it wasn't even worth mentioning. You were saying it creates a nice welfare bill to pay the lazy. I would say that most people claiming benefits are not lazy. At the end of the day it's quite simply just cheaper for companies to employ people from abroad. You may not agree with my opinion but you don't have to say I am a fool for it. You can't take a jobs that are not there or that you can't afford to live on due to low wages.

No, your making a fool of yourself by accusing somebody of quoting from the Daily Mail and making generalisations when I'd done no such thing. But then, you often seem to either take things out of context or add your own spin to things so it shouldn't surprise me.

I'm well aware that there are many on benefits who aren't lazy, but I'm also fully aware that there are many who are terminally lazy and perfectly capable of work, just can't be arsed. Not that I blame any immigrant for that - it's hardly their fault that some of our indigenous population have chosen to make themselves unemployable. My beef is with the successive Governments that have allowed this to happen. And part of that is the poverty trap that you correctly described - it pays more for some to be out of work than in work, which reflects badly on us as a society.

 

[Zoe]

However, the "underclass" of non-workers in the country is a very real issue, let's not deny that. There are some people who expect to be paid without ever working a day in their lives, they expect a council house and a range of benefits to support themselves (and any children they have) without any effort whatsoever. My mother used to be an administrator at the local council's benefit office and she thought the attitude of some claimants was ungrateful, demanding and aggressive. Payments were seen as a right and not a privilege.

Here we go again with the underclass word, this is how the Daily Mail seems to like to describe people on benefits. How do you expect people to live on jobs that pay low wages or that do not exist at all?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, your making a fool of yourself by accusing somebody of quoting from the Daily Mail and making generalisations when I'd done no such thing.

I said leave it to the Daily Mail. The comment you made that there is a large welfare bill to fund lazy people is the type of thing that would appear in the Daily Mail. I doubt very much of it at all goes on people that are actually "lazy" as you say. How do you proporse people live on jobs that either don't exist if if they do, pay very low wages.

 

[Ferret]

I don't see how Ferret made any "Daily Hate" generalisations?

Of course, many benefit claimants are not lazy and are honest. However, the "underclass" of non-workers in the country is a very real issue, let's not deny that. There are some people who expect to be paid without ever working a day in their lives, they expect a council house and a range of benefits to support themselves (and any children they have) without any effort whatsoever. My mother used to be an administrator at the local council's benefit office and she thought the attitude of some claimants was ungrateful, demanding and aggressive. Payments were seen as a right and not a privilege.

I know somebody who up until recently worked in the benefits office, and now works in a YOI (out of the frying pan and into the fire!) - she tells me exactly the same story. People who don't want work, think that life owes them - same old story, but yet some would prefer to pretend they don't exist or smear those who say exactly what is going on. Just because they for less than 49% of benefit claimants does not mean they shouldn't be mentioned. I work with some Polish/Slovakian/Czech people and these guys work really hard - they're an example to all of us, be it the bone idle or those of us actually in employment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here we go again with the underclass word, this is how the Daily Mail seems to like to describe people on benefits. How do you expect people to live on jobs that pay low wages or that do not exist at all?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I said leave it to the Daily Mail. The comment you made that there is a large welfare bill to fund lazy people is the type of thing that would appear in the Daily Mail. I doubt very much of it at all goes on people that are actually "lazy" as you say. How do you proporse people live on jobs that either don't exist if if they do, pay very low wages.

Where's people's self-respect though? There was a time when people would baulk at the idea of living on handouts. Nowadays, some see handouts as a right - which I suppose you could argue that they are. Odd though that the jobs are out there - indeed my local paper has a whole pullout section devoted to vacancies every Thursday... Just out of interest, do you actually believe some of what you post on here?!

 

[Zoe]

But the cost of living in Eastern Europe is lower. If wages were higher here then more British people could afford to do the jobs.

 

[WestCoast]

But the cost of living in Eastern Europe is lower. If wages were higher here then more British people could afford to do the jobs.

The Eastern Europeans that are supposedly doing all this work still have to live here too - they tend to manage without handouts.

Look, I am not criticising most claimants AT ALL. I feel sympathy for those who genuinely can't find a job - but they keep searching. Although, I have to question how hard some people try? Those who don't even try and sit back on their laurels are the group of people that annoy me.

Plus, what about the huge families living solely on benefits? Is it responsible to keep having kids that you know you CAN'T support without the state's handouts and highly subsidised accommodation?

I blame successive governments for making benefits far more attractive than a modest low-paid job!

 

[Zoe]

The Eastern Europeans that are supposedly doing all this work still have to live here too - they tend to manage without handouts.

And many are living in substandard accomodation.

 

[SS4]

Where's people's self-respect though? There was a time when people would baulk at the idea of living on handouts.

Back in that time there were more jobs and they were less concentrated in London and the South East.

Nowadays, some see handouts as a right - which I suppose you could argue that they are. Odd though that the jobs are out there - indeed my local paper has a whole pullout section devoted to vacancies every Thursday... Just out of interest, do you actually believe some of what you post on here?!

Have you actually read it though? A huge proportion is telesales and various other commission only jobs. A couple of weeks ago I had trouble finding the jobs "section" in the paper - it was only a page.
It's very easy to pick on the unemployed and while some are undoubtedly bone idle they're the craftiest - you won't catch them out. Like it or not though you're making a generalisation, it would be like me saying that all Conservatives suck up to the bankers

 

[Ferret]

SS4 - you've lost me. How is it making a generalisation to point out the fact that there are *some* who are bone idle and have no intention of finding work. I'm perfectly happy to engage in reasoned debate, but when all the opposing view can do is post nonsense like that it's ridiculous - I mean, is that the best you can do to come up with a counter-argument? I have to say it's a pretty poor one if so.

I have read through the jobs pages though - yeah, there are some telesales jobs in there, and some sales jobs too, but that's not all that's in there!

 

[yorksrob]

Fortunately we've already set a precedent with Shengen and the Euro. Who knows, our partners may even decide to adopt this approach more readily. It's the classic Europe a la carte.

 

[LE Greys]

It was apparent from my studies in politics that the EU interference is largely incorrect. I don;t know how much things have changed, but in 1995-1996 when I passed the module on EU, UK and US political structures, the real power was in the Council of Ministers, rather than the Commission or the Parliament.

People seem unaware that the Council of Ministers is/was made up of elected representatives from the government of each country. The Transport Secretary, for example, would attend meetings with their corresponding colleagues from other EU states. This was where policy was really decided.

Sadly, the press seems fixated on unelected Commissioners, who act more as the civil service in putting forward proposals for others to consider.

You and I would disagree as to what constitutes "elected" in this case. The Council of Ministers is not directly elected by the people it is supposed to represent, therefore it is not representative, therefore it is not democratic. The US War of Independence started over a similar issue, taxation without representation, while this is governance without representation. My belief is that is should be elected, just as the US Senate is elected (actually Senatus Europa sounds like a good name), directly by the people on an opposed basis to the European Parliament.

The counter-argument is that this would introduce party politics to the Council/Senate. Well, if it really does have such a great influence in our lives, then that is probably a price worth paying. I don't entirely agree with the American system, they give their president far too much power, but I reckon that the Senate does fairly well in the job it does of representing the people.

 

[thefab444]

they give their president far too much power, but I reckon that the Senate does fairly well in the job it does of representing the people.

Does it? The House of Representatives arguably does a better job of representation given the more frequent elections and the fact the number of representatives per state corresponds with size rather than a fixed number. The huge amount of money required to stand for office in either the House or the Senate is also an obstacle to proper representation, although I suppose that is countered by the relatively weak whip system.

The President has a lot of power both in terms of foreign policy and defence policy, even though strictly speaking the Senate determines whether to fund wars (rarely do they turn the President down). Domestically the President is less powerful than our Prime Minister.

I don't really see a need to make the Council of Ministers directly elected, as they are already elected representatives of their respective countries. It would be just be far too complicated.

 

[imagination]

1) Should Britain have a referendum on EU membership? No, because most people are too brainwashed by the Daily Mail et al to understand how much we benefit from being in the EU.
2) What would be the outcome should we have one? It would probably be to leave because of previously mentioned people.
3) Should we be in the EU? Yes. Definately.

 

[yorksrob]

1) Should Britain have a referendum on EU membership? No, because most people are too brainwashed by the Daily Mail et al to understand how much we benefit from being in the EU.
2) What would be the outcome should we have one? It would probably be to leave because of previously mentioned people.
3) Should we be in the EU? Yes. Definately.

I'm sure Mr Dacre would love to be able to count all those in this country with misgivings about the European Union as being amongst his readership

 

[Greenback]

You and I would disagree as to what constitutes "elected" in this case. The Council of Ministers is not directly elected by the people it is supposed to represent, therefore it is not representative, therefore it is not democratic. The US War of Independence started over a similar issue, taxation without representation, while this is governance without representation. My belief is that is should be elected, just as the US Senate is elected (actually Senatus Europa sounds like a good name), directly by the people on an opposed basis to the European Parliament.

The counter-argument is that this would introduce party politics to the Council/Senate. Well, if it really does have such a great influence in our lives, then that is probably a price worth paying. I don't entirely agree with the American system, they give their president far too much power, but I reckon that the Senate does fairly well in the job it does of representing the people.

Yes, we would disagree then! Although you have a point when you say that Ministers are not elected - they are not elected to be Minsiters, but they are elected as representatives. Does this make our system undemocratic? We elect a party to form a government, and the Ministers then help to formulate national policy,a dn co-operate with others to agree EU policy. I see little difference in practice.

As to the US, well in my opinion the checks and balances used over there are no better or worse than we have, just different. There are strengths and weaknesses in both systems, as indeed there are within the EU model (I never said it was perfect!). It may be down to people's instincts and social outlook as to which system they think is more effective in practice, as far as I am concerned they are all limite din one way or another.

 

[LE Greys]

Yes, we would disagree then! Although you have a point when you say that Ministers are not elected - they are not elected to be Minsiters, but they are elected as representatives. Does this make our system undemocratic? We elect a party to form a government, and the Ministers then help to formulate national policy,a dn co-operate with others to agree EU policy. I see little difference in practice.

As to the US, well in my opinion the checks and balances used over there are no better or worse than we have, just different. There are strengths and weaknesses in both systems, as indeed there are within the EU model (I never said it was perfect!). It may be down to people's instincts and social outlook as to which system they think is more effective in practice, as far as I am concerned they are all limite din one way or another.

Well, at the risk of sounding like Sir Humphrey, yes and no. If we're looking at the formation of a Cabinet (something where we have no direct choice) the cabinet is usually formed from the governing party (or coalition :/ ) and is thus a partial reflection of the election result. In our somewhat less-than-democratic system, sometimes it includes various people appointed to the House of Lords, but I won't go into that. OK, so what's the difference between that and what we have with the Council of Ministers? Yes, the government chooses someone to serve on the Council, but this is someone with a clear power of governance (Cabinet ministers cannot pass laws without parliamentary scrutiny - but then in theory the Council of Ministers can't either). Essentially, these people are elected by a constituency of the legislators of each country, in our case 650-odd MPs. Is this two-step democracy really a democracy? Parliament does some strange things, like privatising the railways, increasing tuition fees and voting for war in Iraq. I just don't think I can trust Parliament to make a decision that I think should be in the hands of the electorate.

 

[Greenback]

I suppose your viewpoint depends on whether you believe we have democracy or not. it is an over used word, and you make a good point when you refer to what we have as a two step democracy. I don't think we can ever have a democracy where there is a party political system in place, but that is a seperate discussion which is perhaps best left for anothe rtime and place!

 

[LE Greys]

I suppose your viewpoint depends on whether you believe we have democracy or not. it is an over used word, and you make a good point when you refer to what we have as a two step democracy. I don't think we can ever have a democracy where there is a party political system in place, but that is a seperate discussion which is perhaps best left for anothe rtime and place!

Fair enough, let's agree to disagree here, and that we can agree on.

 

[313103]

There is only two choices:

Either we are fully in or we are fully out!

Simples!

 

[Hydro]

Either we are fully in or we are fully out!

As the actress said to the bishop...

 

[The Barlow Boy]

1) Should Britain have a referendum on EU membership? No, because most people are too brainwashed by the Daily Mail et al to understand how much we benefit from being in the EU.
2) What would be the outcome should we have one? It would probably be to leave because of previously mentioned people.
3) Should we be in the EU? Yes. Definately.

...and the benefits are?

 

[yorksrob]

There is only two choices:

Either we are fully in or we are fully out!

Simples!

Funnily enough, current experience seems to suggest the opposite !