h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What are the EU playing at?

First they decided they wanted a constitution. But having a constitution requires referenda in many countries. It was rejected by two countries and hurriedly dropped before any more countries got a chance to hold further public votes.

Next they came up with a treaty. Treaties are good because most countries don't need to hold a referendum on treaties. They argued that the treaty was not the same as the constitution. Well, some of them did. Many European leaders openly admitted it was identical. What they said depended on who they were talking to though.

So they pushed forward with their Treaty - mollifying sceptics by reassuring them that all EU countries had to ratify it or it wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, Ireland had to have a referendum because of the nature of their constitution.

Ireland rejected the treaty at the referendum. To be fair, many of the No voters admitted they rejected it because it was written in such a way that it baffled everyone. Not accidentally either, said the sceptics.

So, the Treaty is dead then. After all, *every* country had to agree, or it wouldn't happen, right? Wrong. The ratification process is to continue and Nicolas Sarkozy is going to pop over to Ireland for a word or two.

WTF?

Why is the EU hell-bent on this constitution/treaty? Why are they prepared to ignore voters who have rejected it at every opportunity?

I don't pretend to be an expert on the EU. I know it costs every UK citizen £1000 each a year to be in this club. I know it's where the UK sends it's liars, the corrupt, the inept and the failures (Mandelson, Kinnock et al).

So, is the EU worth abandoning democracy for?

F19585?thread=5599036

Boooooorrrriiiinnggggg!!

Didn't get the answers you wanted in the last thread...? Decided to reword your question and put it across another way?

Hmmmm... Isn't this exactly what you're accusing the EU of doing?

Actually, I'd forgotten about that thread. That's what happens when you're on meds & fading in and out.

Sorry.

A thousand pounds each?!?!?

That would be £65,000,000,000, are you sure the UK pays sixty five billion more than it gets out?

Hands up, I am a Europhile. This little Island, an ex-colonial but now a medium sized power, maintains it's wealth, to the benefit of it's inhabitants, by trading in manufactured goods and services. Now, much as we would all like to live in a free trade world, pragmatically that just ain't so and is unlikely to be so for the forseeable future. Hence we trade with our Eorpean neighbours on favourable terms. Europe is our biggest customer.

Fast forward a little and imagine how we would secure such favourable terms from China, India and the USA. Britain alone just does not have the population or clout to be taken seriously. Europe does. And now I hear voices off talking about the special relationship, Atlanticists. From the beginning of the 20th century America has been aciduously beavering away to reduce our position globally and commercially. Read Andrew Marr's Modern History of Britain to realise just how near they came to bankrupting us after WW2 and before the Marshal plan.

The special relationship has gotten us into two wars that I still cannot fathom the reasons for or an exit strategy from. What I do see are the body bags and the increased chance of Islamic terrorist retaliation.

I also believe NATO is an agressive fig leaf. It's time is done. Do you see Russia invading Germany. Maybe that's why NATO is in Afghanistan. Why shouldn't a European army replace NATO. The Americans want Europe to increase it's defense spending and become more self reliant.

But until the broken down record that Nigel Farage and his cronies keeps playing and News International's Moredick tabloids along with the Christpher Bookers and the Mail keep spinning their anti-European cant I suppose we will continue to see anomolies such as Ireland, a nation that has expoded economically to become the Celtic Tiger, due to it's being European and a member of the Euro, voting no to the treaty.

The OP was dumb. I wish this place had an edit function. As Whisky pointed out, there's a perfectly adequate thread already running on this.

"The special relationship has gotten us into two wars that I still cannot fathom the reasons for or an exit strategy from. "

That goes both ways WA.


"Read Andrew Marr's Modern History of Britain to realise just how near they came to bankrupting us after WW2 and before the Marshal plan."

weak. At least you qualified before the Marshall plan, but still that is weak, to complain about something that was done, even after the correction (Marshall Plan) was applied.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. After reading hootoo, the next time the UK gets in a massive, World-War, I will be loudly arguing that the US should not help.

>I suppose we will continue to see anomolies such as Ireland, a nation that has expoded economically to become the Celtic Tiger, due to it's being European and a member of the Euro, voting no to the treaty.

Isn't that exactly the same sort of rubbish that lead stupid people to argue that France had no right to oppose the Iraq war because America helped them in WWII? Just because Ireland benefits from EU membership it doesn't have some sort of duty or even reason to approve anything the EU lays down before it.

Frankly, as a moderate Europhile, I think Ireland and France have done the right thing by knocking the wheels off the constitution-train. EU citizens are simply given too little input into the way the Union works and is run and we're expected to rubber stamp everything put our way without even debating it properly first.

"After reading hootoo, the next time the UK gets in a massive, World-War, I will be loudly arguing that the US should not help."

I'm sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've ever read.

Picture it now:

May 8th, 1915
US Politician: "Gentlemen, yesterday morning the liner Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine, killing 114 American civilians. I believe that the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare poses a great threat to US interests - and the only way to safeguard our commerce and citizens is to declare war on Germany."
*enter Arnie Appleaide*
AA: "NO! STOP! Some people on a message board will say nasty, poorly thought out things about our involvement!"

or how about .
December 11th, 1941
US Politician: "Gentlemen, we have recieved a telegram from the German Chancellor that as of today, Germany and Italy will join the Empire of Japan in waging their war on the United States of America. The only way to safeguard our national security, our interests in both Europe and the Pacific, and our citizens is to go to war with Germany."
*enter Arnie Appleaide*
AA: "NO! STOP! Some people on a message board will say nasty, poorly thought out things about our involvement!"

I think the No votes indicate, especially with France and Ireland, that they prefer the status quo regarding CAP and corporate taxes and don't want the administration of the EU to improve. Even Neil Kinnock can't get the petty corruption and dodgy accounting out of the system with the current set up.

Why do you think that? Have French and Irish citizens been saying that they voted "no" because they prefer the status quo regarding the CAP and corporate taxes or have they had other reasons?

I think it was pretty obvious in France's case and the Yes campaign was so confused in Ireland they voted for the safe option i.e. no change.

Well Psycorp, that really shows how ignorant you are

I suppose it does.

But you have to admit Arnie, old chap, that it was bloody funny.........

>I think it was pretty obvious in France's case and the Yes campaign was so confused in Ireland they voted for the safe option i.e. no change.

I did a spot of research and it seems that the "no" vote was focused around several things: worry that Ireland would lose control over its own levels of corporate taxation, worry about it infringing on Ireland's policy of neutrality; there was also worry from the Catholic right about the EU "imposing" abortion and even prostitution on Ireland; importantly, a great deal on the Irish left also seem to distrust the Union for its "neo-liberal" economic tendencies and privatisation agenda which they felt would be forced on Ireland.

This post has been removed.

Hasn't he also got one of his kids a place at the trough too? A real family affair for the Kinnocks.

The first Kinnock in a thousand years to milk the system so spectacularly well.

Seems I'm guilty of defamation.

I fail to see how I could affect the thinking of right minded people, as I think they'd agree with me.