US voices concern over UK exit from EU

Lol.

GOTCHA! BRITS TELL FROGS TO HOPPIT.

TWO WORLD WARS AND ONE WORLD CUP, HELMUT!

That sort of thing?

[video=youtube;dC6iQwoXc-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=dC6iQwoXc-w[/video]

 

This from the days when we gave those bloody Argies a good old fashioned, boarding school, over the knee, barebottom thrashing.

BLOODY GOOKS.

 

Yes that sort of thing I can only hope that some how we get a clear and fair debate, but that really is a pipe dream along with scrapping the monarchy!

 

Well, until you had a top to bottom clean up of politics and news media, you are probably going to have to settle for drawing your conclusions from a range of sources, rather than one or two. Notwithstanding, there is no question that all matters of this type should be voted on, by way of asking the people. Who are they to sit miles away, in Belgium, dictating what is good for us?

And as I said before, if the EU had any nuts about it, that may be different.

But it dithers and shuffle it's feet, if the issue is Israel, making the odd noise here and there, when they could do so much more. But they never will, since the entire construct is Kosher friendly.

I always tend to find in these EU debates, that those that sing it's virtues, do not bring much forward in the way of actual and measurable achievements, and how in benefits? They speak in rehearsed lines, which have no substance. I just fail to see how anyone can support the EU, knowing that they are another (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) construct for a terrorist state, I don't want the freaking EU telling us who we can, and who we cannot trade with. Remember, it was some snooty mare that no one here would know, that endorsed the EU sanctions on Iran, which, btw, are entirely immoral, and unjust.

Like I say, they can only do that while part of a collective body, if each country self Gov's, according to it's own needs, then they can decide who they want to trade with, and who they do not.

 

Actually, poorer nations tend to be more protectionist. America is much freer in trade than a lot of its poorer trade partners.

China is actually rather protectionist as is much of Asia in general.

The First World is generally more supportive of free trade than the developing world.

That being said, when you say "socialist democracy", do you mean social democracy or democratic socialism? Those are 2 different things.

 

James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker. He was notably well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and "father" of the Federal Reserve system. After World War II, Warburg helped organized the Society for the Prevention of World War III in support of the Morgenthau Plan.

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

- - - Updated - - -

James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker. He was notably well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and "father" of the Federal Reserve system. After World War II, Warburg helped organized the Society for the Prevention of World War III in support of the Morgenthau Plan.

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

 

Well, I will give you this much. We have spent more time invading other countries than invading each other.

I'm not sure if that's a good omen for progressing with the EU though.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure if the majority of the related populations feel the same.

I understand what you're getting at, but this actually brings up an interesting point.

A one-world government isn't really even feasible until the entire world is living at the same standard of living.

As long as vast differences in standard of living exist between countries, that makes fiscal unity very difficult.

While globalization has an effect of evening standard of living out, we're still a long way off from this "meeting in the middle."

Even the standard of living throughout Europe varies dramatically between some countries. Because the EU covers such a wide range of standards of living, that makes it harder for the poorer countries in many respects. Portugal felt the brunt of continental inflation, since prices rose there while wages stagnated.

Greece experienced something similar.

So again, this idea of getting everyone to use the same currency sounds nice, but it's not very practical unless wages adapt to reflect this.

 

Another thing, in any arrangement of this kind, the less well off countries end up feeding from the better off countries.

Look, I have nothing against any of the other countries, but stand on your own two feet, shape your own destiny, in accordance with your own culture and needs, if Poland has a problem in Poland, then it is up to Poland to fix that problem, if Lithuania have an issue with whatever, let them sort it out, and, by the same token, let's focus on taking care of our own affairs.

 

"Up Yours, Krauts".

- - - Updated - - -

"Up Yours, Krauts".

 

Yep, and the'll be the pro-Eurosceptic variety.

 

By and large, industrial capitalists favour greater European integration and financial capitalists and speculators less so. It terms of a WG, the point is ensuring that its democratic. That's the consent bit. You seem to want to focus constantly on the negatives.

 

That's a recipe for continued financial instability. Like I've previously alluded to, flawed democracy at the national level and the process of decison-making that flows from this, has been upscaled to the EU level. You have in the past, admitted (correctly), that national state democracy is flawed but now you want to trump it over a collective form of decision-making that if taken to its logical federalist fiscal conclusion offers the potential remedy for economic ills predicated at the national level. Can't you see the contradiction of your argument?

 

So what??????????....Your entire argument is based on a contradictory position. I don't know whether you are playing dumb or being deliberately obtusive.

 

A national state democracy is only as flawed as those that conceive it, and carry it forward.

As I have said, there are plenty of good countries who are not in the EU, and who go about their business all the better for it.

The sky is not falling in on them, and the sky would not fall in on us, either.

I want to be further away from anything which dilutes the rights of each nation, to self determine, along it's own lines, free from outside meddling. I don't see what is not to like about that, to be honest.

I don't want, nor do I feel nations are best placed, being part of a pretty undemocratic + highly expensive entity, such as the EU, for many of the reasons that I have already gone through, the fact that it means we are dictated to who we can trade with, that fact that a nation that may not want to, get's more implicated with Israel, because of the EU kissing their arse, and being deferential.

What I find it hard to understand is why you refuse to see that there are already countries that flourish fine, who are not in the EU?

I also find it hard to understand that you want to take away more of the decision making powers, and devolve it to the sorts of fat cats that sit and lord it up in Brussels.

I find it hard to understand, that you don't care that support for the EU is, by extension, tacit support for Israel.

It's all v well to talk about reforms etc, but you know as well as I do, this = lots more public money, to shuffle deckchairs on the titanic.

I for one am glad that we at least kept our own currency, and I am confident if the people of Italy, Spain, Greece etc were asked, they would wish they had, as well.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

I have been clear and consistant.

If anything, it is you who must reconcile your apparent dislike of Israel, with your apparent like of the EU.

How you are able, I do not know, esp in light of what Alexa added, a few pages back..

 

Your arguments are confused and contradictory.

 

But to me, and for the reasons (which are all valid), that would be akin to my saying to you 'Israel? But you only focus on the negatives'.

Sometimes it is possible to do that, because there ARE more negatives.

And I am just one of many people pointing them out.

I know why the US suddenly wants us to remain in, and it is not their business, to be honest. This is our business. I truly do not want the view of the state machine of that country, and anything they wanted, I would likely choose the opposite.

And, as I keep trying to say, a strong and united Europe would not be pandering to freaking Israel.

Why do so? We are one large and thriving continent of countries. They are a state of about 3mill adults. It would be like dancing around and pandering to Latvia, that would not even be as bad, given they are European.

Any construct that kisses Israel's arse, and doesn't use the legal and ethical powers it does have, is not my friend.

However, for all of that said, there is no reason at all why good relations and trading could not still be done, between European countries.

- - - Updated - - -

I really do not see what you find hard to understand.

 

The EU costs the UK alone a staggering £40 million every day.

75% of all new laws that get brought into the UK emanate directly from the EU.

Now.

Some basics.

Did anyone vote to join?

Who elects the commission?

Who elects the President?

 

Also, the best way to protect the NHS (that which is left of it), is to leave the EU.

NHS under strain by migration

New figures released yesterday have shown the pressure that immigration places on the NHS.

The research, undertaken by Migrationwatch, found that in the years of 2007-8, 605,000 who arrived from abroad registered with a GP in England and Wales, equivalent to one registration a minute. This was nearly 100,000 more than recorded by the International Migration Statistics in the same period, suggesting that short-term migrants have registered. Only 69,000 of the 605,000 were British citizens returning from overseas.

The amount of those arriving from overseas registering with the NHS has increased by 50 per cent in the past seven years, but it is only the last three years were the registrations have exceeded the inflow of migrants. The study revealed that 330,000 migrants who left England and Wales, but the churn with the greater population adds to the strain of the NHS.

The GP registration data are not overly precise as they have been compiled for statistical purposes, and understate the pressure of immigration on the National Health Service as migrants who move practices within the year would not show up as arrivals from overseas. Additionally, young men who make up a large amount of the migrants are less likely to register with GPs than other groups.

At present, there are no checks on the entitlement of those who register with a GP, and doctors have the discretion to register whoever they choose.

In May 2004, the Government issued a proposal to exclude international visitors from eligibility to free NHS primary and medical services, which the former Secretary of State promised to, ensure that the NHS was first and foremost for the benefit fresidents of the country. However in July this year, the government issued a proposal to allow GPs to maintain discretion as to registering a non-resident as private patients.

Chairman of Migration Watch, Sir Andrew Green, said this amounted to an open door policy to primary care which can also lead to secondary care. He believed the government had been dithering while the NHS was struggling to cope with the increase caused by mass immigration.

http://www.emigrate.co.uk/news/886342.html

 

Oh, I understand your muddled thinking on this alright.

You posted the views of one capitalist, Warburg. My point is what was your point for so doing? It made no sense in the context of the discussion and proves nothing either way. All you have illustrated by citing Warburg is to show that capitalists want a world government on their terms ...shock, horror!. How about I post some views of academics and writers who favour a conception of a WG on OUR terms? In and of itself, your Warburg quote proved nothing other than to highlight a negative. Just pointless.

The US have a view and they have a right to express it. Again, what's the big deal?

Who says it's a strong and united Europe? Not me.

Our negotiating powers are weakened from without as opposed to within. It's better to be part of the club than isolated outside. Helping shape an inclusive democratic EU is the way forward Jack.

 

I'm not even contesting this as my previous posts made clear so what's the point of this strawman?

 

Again, you are projecting.

 

The first world being less protectionist and more supportive of free trade than the developing world may well have to do with the first world well knowing that their subsidized agricultures for example can undercut any given price for corn and with the first world's politics being dominated by international corporations.

You may not like him, but Chavez - all the best to his health - is not a fool.

 

Well, Europe’s been there and seen it. As you could see in the Iraq-war Europeans tend to be rather reluctant about invading places these days, at least the general population is, even in Britain.

That may depend on the segment of the population you ask. I put great hopes in younger generations. I’m not exactly a spring chicken anymore, but even within my age group (I’m in my 30ies) I barely know anyone who does not have some contacts with Europeans from other nations. That’s the one good thing about “facebook“, “skype”, Easy Jet” and Co. If you're a European in your twenties and don't happen to be a right wing loonie, you're more and more likely to reserve your nationalist feelings for soccer-games. Of course I might be living in a nice bubble here, but that'smy general impression.

It’s certainly more of a long term goal. But I do think that for the sake of justice an equal standard of living throughout the world is what we should aim for. While the middle-class is being (*)(*)(*)(*)ed all throughout Europe these days, poorer European member states have seen a rise of living-standards up until the big crash. A crash that was partly due to bankers betting on currencies.

 

This must be a joke , my father built three houses with only his wage and without any bank loans in the 70's (Greece joined the union in 1981) and even before the crash all the economic activity was around loans that nobody afford to pay back , fake prosperity.

 

Hmm’ I would say that comment, is faulty. In reality the weak leaders of the USA is probably afraid we will have to prop up the UK in addition to the other nations we support. Then I read the quote "self determine" bit. I have to wonder what you mean by 'self determine' ? I say that IMO, only the naïve feel they can truly self-determine their destiny. However, a nation, or an citizen sure can attempt to determine its path or destiny. So, if the latter is what is meant by self determination in your citizens I can agree with you somewhat. You should know that our (USA) founding fathers such as Jefferson did clarify what the right of self determination meant. Also it was mentioned as desirable in many early documents including the Declaration of independence. In that document the founders articulated the highest ideals of the (American) Revolution. Those ideals were beliefs in liberty, equality, and the right to self-determination. We Americans held a heartfelt view of the world in which a person's position was determined, not by birth, rank, or title, but by talent, ability, and enterprise. So maybe you should give credit where credit is due Jack instead of criticize the USA you should paradise the intent of our founders. Of course I realize and bemoan the current situation the USA finds itself in, and place a huge part of the blame on practices of the current and fairly recent past leaders. So as I have said many times here at PF, I love the USA, its people the intent of the original documents, however I hold a special detest for the leaders past and present that have whored our country in one way or another.

Considering the above in what document does your country declare or express the right for self-determination that is better ethically or morally than those in our bill or rights ? It seems to me only a hypocrite would criticize another’s country on one hand and choose to live in a country that has the same criticized flaws on the other.

That is far too subjective a task for a credible answer. Maybe again you are measuring from your own cup?

How is a nation tricked? Maybe a better assessment would be that Greece etc made a bad (if it really was a bad, not good decision) to join the EU? The USA had a similar bad decisions etc occur some on a much larger, vastly so, scale. Example of the latter; the civil war. Depending on who one asks the north or the south made a bad decision. No one tricked anyone into anything.

I agree. No one need join a group for strength either individually or national. I have always suspected the EU would not succeed in a manner that the USA did for a bevy of reasons. However lately I feel the EU may survive intact in light of some recent developments.

I am doubly glad for the countries that refuse to suck off the USA, to them I say; GO AWAY ye hipporcrite! Yes, we are in agreement on that issue, maybe not in method but in the end result. That said in my rather harsh manner I would like to say I am 100% for the USA as a nation and her citizens assisting nations or people that need help after a disaster natural or man made, including fammine etc. Even if they have back stabbed the USA in the past...er well the backstabber comment is conditional.

reva