bq. I hope you don’t get sent my way. For your sake. I really do. I'll be in Greece. I shouldn't think I'll being seeing you over there. <blockquote> I hope you don’t get sent my way. For your sake. I really do. </blockquote> I’ll be in Greece. I shouldn’t think I’ll being seeing you over there.

2009-11-21T15:45:55-08:00

true

1483025

122

48738

2009-11-21T15:45:55-08:00

779740

In a lot of towns,, there simply aren't any other job options. It's either sit on your arse your whole life on the dole or join up. Then again, I do think there are some positive reasons people join the army, life experience, to pay for education, because they want a challenge etc. I myself am going into the military simply because I do not have a choice - national service. But I'm going to try to make the most of it, maybye learn a trade while I'm there. In a lot of towns,, there simply aren’t any other job options. It’s either sit on your arse your whole life on the dole or join up. Then again, I do think there are some positive reasons people join the army, life experience, to pay for education, because they want a challenge etc. I myself am going into the military simply because I do not have a choice – national service. But I’m going to try to make the most of it, maybye learn a trade while I’m there.

2009-11-21T10:38:47-08:00

true

1482091

118

48738

2009-11-21T10:38:47-08:00

779740

bq. Palestine attacked Israel. The Palestinians were living in Israel. Britain enters as a League of Nations mandate, but are essentially colonial style masters of the people. They rule indierectly, and hoping to curry favour in the US, support the Zionist movement. Thus they promise the Jews the land of Israel, however also promise the native Palestinians they will not suffer as a result of this. Obviously this is unworkable in the long term, and sporadic violence occurs throughout the years from Jews and Palestinians alike. bq. The Jews don’t want to move, seeing as it was their ancestral land when they got kicked out. The Palestinians don’t want to move, seeing it as their ancestral land. It's not just their ancestral land, but the land where they were living before they got kicked out. I don't know about you, but if literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants came to my country, kicked me out of house and home claiming it's their land because they lived there 2000 years ago, I would be pissed off too, and that's putting it lightly. bq. Israel is acting like Palestine used to towards Israel. What do you mean? Due to the Palestinian uprising against the British, their leadership was completely destroyed. They never had a chance to act in an oppressive nature towards the Palestinians, because they were never allowed to create any proper infrastructure under the British. bq. Jews can claim both winning wars and having first. Winning wars doesn't give you a right to take the land. Britain used to effectively have control over 1 quarter of the world population due to its military. That doesn't mean it had the right to rule over all the people that entailed. The British Isles were unpopulated for millions of years. Most of the people who eventually came here, were from what is now France. Does that mean the French currently have the right to British land? Of course not. bq. I say we move the Palestinians into a neighboring Arab country who supports them. What, like the massive refugee camps that exist in the neighbouring Arab states with practically no sanitation, services etc. Yes, that's been great so far. How about we give the Palestinian people their land back bq. Arabs will be the majority in 2012. So you're saying the size of your population should be the criteria for how much land you have? Odd you say that and also feel Israel's claims on the land are legitimate, as when they took the land from the Palestinians, they accounted for barely one third of the population. <blockquote> Palestine attacked Israel. </blockquote> The Palestinians were living in Israel. Britain enters as a League of Nations mandate, but are essentially colonial style masters of the people. They rule indierectly, and hoping to curry favour in the US, support the Zionist movement. Thus they promise the Jews the land of Israel, however also promise the native Palestinians they will not suffer as a result of this. Obviously this is unworkable in the long term, and sporadic violence occurs throughout the years from Jews and Palestinians alike. <blockquote> The Jews don’t want to move, seeing as it was their ancestral land when they got kicked out. The Palestinians don’t want to move, seeing it as their ancestral land. </blockquote> It’s not just their ancestral land, but the land where they were living before they got kicked out. I don’t know about you, but if literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants came to my country, kicked me out of house and home claiming it’s their land because they lived there 2000 years ago, I would be pissed off too, and that’s putting it lightly. <blockquote> Israel is acting like Palestine used to towards Israel. </blockquote> What do you mean? Due to the Palestinian uprising against the British, their leadership was completely destroyed. They never had a chance to act in an oppressive nature towards the Palestinians, because they were never allowed to create any proper infrastructure under the British. <blockquote> Jews can claim both winning wars and having first. </blockquote> Winning wars doesn’t give you a right to take the land. Britain used to effectively have control over 1 quarter of the world population due to its military. That doesn’t mean it had the right to rule over all the people that entailed. The British Isles were unpopulated for millions of years. Most of the people who eventually came here, were from what is now France. Does that mean the French currently have the right to British land? Of course not. <blockquote> I say we move the Palestinians into a neighboring Arab country who supports them. </blockquote> What, like the massive refugee camps that exist in the neighbouring Arab states with practically no sanitation, services etc. Yes, that’s been great so far. How about we give the Palestinian people their land back <blockquote> Arabs will be the majority in 2012. </blockquote> So you’re saying the size of your population should be the criteria for how much land you have? Odd you say that and also feel Israel’s claims on the land are legitimate, as when they took the land from the Palestinians, they accounted for barely one third of the population.

2009-11-20T07:10:33-08:00

true

1478994

33288

2009-11-20T07:10:33-08:00

779740

bq. What a person can do WITHOUT a license is have a child. You can create a human life without instruction/registration, but you can’t fish for catfish without permission from the state. It's certainly an interesting question. The liberal inside of me seems to believe that having children is an inalienable right. However, when you constantly hear children being abused by parents who are clearly unfit to have children, for various reasons, it does make me wonder whether the right to children should be universal. However, as people have already pointed out, the difficulty would be in enforcement and application of this law. For me, the solution seems to be invest much more in social services, and create conditions where having children is seen as a responsibility to prevent their neglect and abuse. <blockquote> What a person can do WITHOUT a license is have a child. You can create a human life without instruction/registration, but you can’t fish for catfish without permission from the state. </blockquote> It’s certainly an interesting question. The liberal inside of me seems to believe that having children is an inalienable right. However, when you constantly hear children being abused by parents who are clearly unfit to have children, for various reasons, it does make me wonder whether the right to children should be universal. However, as people have already pointed out, the difficulty would be in enforcement and application of this law. For me, the solution seems to be invest much more in social services, and create conditions where having children is seen as a responsibility to prevent their neglect and abuse.

2009-11-19T15:25:03-08:00

true

1477355

65427

2009-11-19T15:25:03-08:00

779740

bq. Israel should give the Palestinians some land. There is no doubt about. There simply isn’t enough room. Israel has rights to the land (they were attacked), but Palestinians also once had right to the land. Give them the Gaza Strip, no strings attached. That’ll shut up Hamas. It was the Palestinian's land first. They attacked them initially because of the mass Jewish immigration, and there not being enough land. Therefore your argument which you are using to defend Israel can be more effectively applied to Palestine's claims. Also, considering when Israel was handed to the Jews, they owned a mere 10% of the land, and reflected a third of the total population. In addition, the current 'borders' of Israel/Palestine are essentially those drawn up after the first Palestinian Israeli war of 1948. They were never intended to be permanent borders, nor should they be treated as such. bq. They have attacked Israeli civilians and Israeli military forces have attacked Palestinian civilians. Will they ever stop killing each other? One side has to hold out the olive branch long enough for the other to take it. Pessimistic rhetoric just prolongs the suffering of all involved. <blockquote> Israel should give the Palestinians some land. There is no doubt about. There simply isn’t enough room. Israel has rights to the land (they were attacked), but Palestinians also once had right to the land. Give them the Gaza Strip, no strings attached. That’ll shut up Hamas. </blockquote> It was the Palestinian’s land first. They attacked them initially because of the mass Jewish immigration, and there not being enough land. Therefore your argument which you are using to defend Israel can be more effectively applied to Palestine’s claims. Also, considering when Israel was handed to the Jews, they owned a mere 10% of the land, and reflected a third of the total population. In addition, the current ‘borders’ of Israel/Palestine are essentially those drawn up after the first Palestinian Israeli war of 1948. They were never intended to be permanent borders, nor should they be treated as such. <blockquote> They have attacked Israeli civilians and Israeli military forces have attacked Palestinian civilians. Will they ever stop killing each other? </blockquote> One side has to hold out the olive branch long enough for the other to take it. Pessimistic rhetoric just prolongs the suffering of all involved.

2009-11-19T15:20:47-08:00

true

1477345

33288

2009-11-19T15:20:47-08:00

779740

bq. He’s saying they learned revenge from, not getting revenge for the Holocaust. Speaking to his meaning, not the correctness of his assertion of course. I see. That assertion is indeed a fairly dubious one. bq. No? The Jews were just GIVEN this land, it is NOT THEIRS. They don’t belong in the middle east, they never have. It is not their land, it is NOT THEIR LAND. i can see why given the curet state of arrangements in Israel people would feel this way, however I think it's a tad far to say they have no claim at all. Culturally, historically, and even ethnically, the land of Israel holds more significance for the Jews than any other territory. Plus, the fact that the Holocaust demonstrated to many Jews, that integration into European society was impossible, therefore the solution was to go back to their homeland. That said, I don't agree with the current state of affairs, and I'd probably advocate a one state solution, despite how unlikely that now looks. bq. And to blame them for all of the middle easts problems is totally illogical. After reading up on the subject, I'd actually place a fair bit of blame on the British. If it hadn't been for their intervention in the area, and their support of the Zionist movement (eg. Balfour Declaration) a lot of the problems we face today would simply never have happened. And that's also disregarding the cynical strategic goals for the British even being in control of the area in the first place. That said, other parties should take the blame, namely the UN, the Americans, other Arab states as well as the Palestinian and Jewish communities. <blockquote> He’s saying they learned revenge from, not getting revenge for the Holocaust. Speaking to his meaning, not the correctness of his assertion of course. </blockquote> I see. That assertion is indeed a fairly dubious one. <blockquote> No? The Jews were just GIVEN this land, it is NOT THEIRS. They don’t belong in the middle east, they never have. It is not their land, it is NOT THEIR LAND. </blockquote> i can see why given the curet state of arrangements in Israel people would feel this way, however I think it’s a tad far to say they have no claim at all. Culturally, historically, and even ethnically, the land of Israel holds more significance for the Jews than any other territory. Plus, the fact that the Holocaust demonstrated to many Jews, that integration into European society was impossible, therefore the solution was to go back to their homeland. That said, I don’t agree with the current state of affairs, and I’d probably advocate a one state solution, despite how unlikely that now looks. <blockquote> And to blame them for all of the middle easts problems is totally illogical. </blockquote> After reading up on the subject, I’d actually place a fair bit of blame on the British. If it hadn’t been for their intervention in the area, and their support of the Zionist movement (eg. Balfour Declaration) a lot of the problems we face today would simply never have happened. And that’s also disregarding the cynical strategic goals for the British even being in control of the area in the first place. That said, other parties should take the blame, namely the UN, the Americans, other Arab states as well as the Palestinian and Jewish communities.

2009-11-19T14:26:10-08:00

true

1477212

33288

2009-11-19T14:26:18-08:00

779740

bq. Seems the jews learned something from the holocaust, brutality and revenge! How can it be revenge, if the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Also, it seemed from yourt post (albeit with another account) on the first page, that you were anti Palestinian. Or is it just that you can't decide upon which minority you will irrationally hate more? Plus. Way to necro Zephyru. This had been dead for almost year. <blockquote> Seems the jews learned something from the holocaust, brutality and revenge! </blockquote> How can it be revenge, if the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Also, it seemed from yourt post (albeit with another account) on the first page, that you were anti Palestinian. Or is it just that you can’t decide upon which minority you will irrationally hate more? Plus. Way to necro Zephyru. This had been dead for almost year.

2009-11-19T08:39:45-08:00

true

1476496

33288

2009-11-19T08:39:45-08:00

779740

bq. Perhaps I should have explained the scenario better, the link is that he’s being executed under a confession signed under duress. The point was just because it could possibly have approval and some positive effects, does not make it legal. True, but for Wales and Scotland, they were incorporated hundreds of years ago. I think Ireland has a much stronger claim for independence, because a lot of the wrongs which occured there are still within living memory. However as for the Scottish and the Welsh (this also applies to your second point), they were incorporated so long ago that I suppose that have become Anglicised to some degree. However a lot of the ideals that were present when they were taken over which they don't hold any more, are not really applicable in modern society, and I don't think the populations themselves would want it because of this. Plus if you look at Scotland's case, the Prime Minister is Scottish, they have their own parliament with legislative powers, with an SNP majority. The case for Welsh nationhood is much weaker. Most Welsh people don't want to be an independent state, but would rather preserve their cultural heritage. It is these groups that attract popular support, not the groups that want full independence there. Also, if they have indeed been indoctrinated by the English, then surely they are happier the way it is, even if it is for the wrong reasons? <blockquote> Perhaps I should have explained the scenario better, the link is that he’s being executed under a confession signed under duress. The point was just because it could possibly have approval and some positive effects, does not make it legal. </blockquote> True, but for Wales and Scotland, they were incorporated hundreds of years ago. I think Ireland has a much stronger claim for independence, because a lot of the wrongs which occured there are still within living memory. However as for the Scottish and the Welsh (this also applies to your second point), they were incorporated so long ago that I suppose that have become Anglicised to some degree. However a lot of the ideals that were present when they were taken over which they don’t hold any more, are not really applicable in modern society, and I don’t think the populations themselves would want it because of this. Plus if you look at Scotland’s case, the Prime Minister is Scottish, they have their own parliament with legislative powers, with an SNP majority. The case for Welsh nationhood is much weaker. Most Welsh people don’t want to be an independent state, but would rather preserve their cultural heritage. It is these groups that attract popular support, not the groups that want full independence there. Also, if they have indeed been indoctrinated by the English, then surely they are happier the way it is, even if it is for the wrong reasons?

2009-11-18T15:31:05-08:00

true

1474907

62492

2009-11-18T15:32:06-08:00

779740

bq. I’m criticising them for not caring enough to right past wrongs and do something about the status quo that’s been created by said ancestors. Well what do you think should be done to right these wrongs? In a sense, these wrongs have been institued for so long that people have gotten used to them, and in a lot of cases, would probably prefer the status quo to independence from the UK. bq. Would there be benefits to executing a murderer known to be guilty but couldn’t be proven? Would a lot of people like that? I’m really not seeing the difference here. I can't see the link you are making between the execution of an unproven murderer to the UK and independence. Please explain. <blockquote> I’m criticising them for not caring enough to right past wrongs and do something about the status quo that’s been created by said ancestors. </blockquote> Well what do you think should be done to right these wrongs? In a sense, these wrongs have been institued for so long that people have gotten used to them, and in a lot of cases, would probably prefer the status quo to independence from the UK. <blockquote> Would there be benefits to executing a murderer known to be guilty but couldn’t be proven? Would a lot of people like that? I’m really not seeing the difference here. </blockquote> I can’t see the link you are making between the execution of an unproven murderer to the UK and independence. Please explain.

2009-11-18T11:24:31-08:00

true

1474057

62492

2009-11-18T11:24:31-08:00

779740

bq. The UK still has former ties with many of its colonies. Some were broken over the years (prime example: Iran). I did not know that about Australia, though. Iran was never an official colony. <blockquote> The UK still has former ties with many of its colonies. Some were broken over the years (prime example: Iran). I did not know that about Australia, though. </blockquote> Iran was never an official colony.

2009-11-18T08:48:38-08:00

true

1473699

64754

2009-11-18T08:48:38-08:00

779740

bq. Parts of it were, yes, and it certainly wasn’t by choice of the empire. Still, its a bit harsh to criticise the current British for something their deceased ancestors did. bq. Confessions signed under duress are considered invalid. I don’t see why acts of union signed at gunpoint should be any different. The oher nations do benefit ecenomically, and get more status on the world stage from being part of the UK. Plus a lot of people actually want to remain part of it. <blockquote> Parts of it were, yes, and it certainly wasn’t by choice of the empire. </blockquote> Still, its a bit harsh to criticise the current British for something their deceased ancestors did. <blockquote> Confessions signed under duress are considered invalid. I don’t see why acts of union signed at gunpoint should be any different. </blockquote> The oher nations do benefit ecenomically, and get more status on the world stage from being part of the UK. Plus a lot of people actually want to remain part of it.

2009-11-17T23:30:40-08:00

true

1473357

62492

2009-11-17T23:30:40-08:00

779740

bq. line of thought that some British have smacked of hypocrisy with the colonial nature of the UK. I'd say that's a tad harsh considering the British Empire was dismantled decades ago, unless you are countng the countries within the UK who want sovreignty. I suppose ata stretch you could also consider Iraq and Afghanistan as somewhat colonial endeavours, but personally I think that's taking it a bit far. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that the EU is pretty undemocratic in make up and does remove a lot of sovreignty from parliament. <blockquote> line of thought that some British have smacked of hypocrisy with the colonial nature of the UK. </blockquote> I’d say that’s a tad harsh considering the British Empire was dismantled decades ago, unless you are countng the countries within the UK who want sovreignty. I suppose ata stretch you could also consider Iraq and Afghanistan as somewhat colonial endeavours, but personally I think that’s taking it a bit far. In any case, it doesn’t change the fact that the EU is pretty undemocratic in make up and does remove a lot of sovreignty from parliament.

2009-11-17T14:13:46-08:00

true

1471493

62492

2009-11-17T14:13:46-08:00

779740

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/64754?page=2#posts-1470728'>VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Does the UK not have some sort of control over Aussie land and Kiwi land? I really don’t know, they don’t teach it in schools here.</blockquote> I didn't word it correctly. They are mainstream, but they have an absolutely miniscule chance of getting elected, due to the election system. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/64754?page=2#posts-1470728'>VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Does the UK not have some sort of control over Aussie land and Kiwi land? I really don’t know, they don’t teach it in schools here.</blockquote> The UK has no formal control with Australia or New Zealand. They are part of the Commonwealth, but in practice it means quite little. Still, you don't need to be taught in school who world leaders are. I haven't been taught who the US president is, but I still know it's Obama. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/64754?page=2#posts-1470728">VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Does the UK not have some sort of control over Aussie land and Kiwi land? I really don’t know, they don’t teach it in schools here.</blockquote> I didn’t word it correctly. They are mainstream, but they have an absolutely miniscule chance of getting elected, due to the election system. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/64754?page=2#posts-1470728">VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Does the UK not have some sort of control over Aussie land and Kiwi land? I really don’t know, they don’t teach it in schools here.</blockquote> The UK has no formal control with Australia or New Zealand. They are part of the Commonwealth, but in practice it means quite little. Still, you don’t need to be taught in school who world leaders are. I haven’t been taught who the US president is, but I still know it’s Obama.

2009-11-17T10:47:20-08:00

true

1470952

64754

2009-11-17T10:47:20-08:00

779740

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/62492?page=3#posts-1470722'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> The hypocrisy is amazing.</blockquote> Was that directed at me? bq. One world government, etc. Two questions: (1) Why do you think this will happen? (2) How could this ever feasibly work? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/62492?page=3#posts-1470722">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> The hypocrisy is amazing.</blockquote> Was that directed at me? <blockquote> One world government, etc. </blockquote> Two questions: (1) Why do you think this will happen? (2) How could this ever feasibly work?

2009-11-17T10:37:46-08:00

true

1470943

62492

2009-11-17T10:38:01-08:00

779740

bq. If you voted for a MP/MEP that doesn’t do what you want the following you should do is tell your party and ask them to reprimand him/her or consider putting him out of the party. Firstly, one local MP cannot make a difference. Secondly, since Labour's stance is pro Europe, and my MP is a Labour MP, why would they reprimand him? bq. The democracy is in all the member-states, not just a single country! That doesn't justify why should I be subject to rules that Germans, French, Spanish or Dutch etc., deem appropriate, without being asked about it first. <blockquote> If you voted for a MP/MEP that doesn’t do what you want the following you should do is tell your party and ask them to reprimand him/her or consider putting him out of the party. </blockquote> Firstly, one local MP cannot make a difference. Secondly, since Labour’s stance is pro Europe, and my MP is a Labour MP, why would they reprimand him? <blockquote> The democracy is in all the member-states, not just a single country! </blockquote> That doesn’t justify why should I be subject to rules that Germans, French, Spanish or Dutch etc., deem appropriate, without being asked about it first.

2009-11-17T07:22:52-08:00

true

1470718

62492

2009-11-17T07:22:52-08:00

779740

Yes, I'd much rather STV, although I'd settle for almost any form of PR over FPTP. I just wish there was a mainstream politician brave enough to suggest this, which obviously isn't going to happen, since the two main parties benefit from the current arrangement. Yes, I’d much rather STV, although I’d settle for almost any form of PR over FPTP. I just wish there was a mainstream politician brave enough to suggest this, which obviously isn’t going to happen, since the two main parties benefit from the current arrangement.

2009-11-16T16:10:49-08:00

true

1469056

64754

2009-11-16T16:11:32-08:00

779740

bq. What we need is a system where MPs can be recalled by their constituency if they go too far away from the intentions of the people who voted for them. Essentially, a way of letting the people fire MPs if enough believe it is necessary. Perhaps constant accountability would fix things. I agree in principle, but I think this would be difficult to put into practice on such a small scale. I could also see it being abused by opposition parties or someone with a vested interest to bring a certain candidate down, especially in marginal constituencies. What really needs to happen is drastic reform of the parliamentary system. <blockquote> What we need is a system where MPs can be recalled by their constituency if they go too far away from the intentions of the people who voted for them. Essentially, a way of letting the people fire MPs if enough believe it is necessary. Perhaps constant accountability would fix things. </blockquote> I agree in principle, but I think this would be difficult to put into practice on such a small scale. I could also see it being abused by opposition parties or someone with a vested interest to bring a certain candidate down, especially in marginal constituencies. What really needs to happen is drastic reform of the parliamentary system.

2009-11-16T16:09:40-08:00

true

1469050

62492

2009-11-16T16:09:40-08:00

779740

bq. Let your mp know that you want the UK out of the EU? I don't want to be out of the EU. I just don't like the complete loss of sovreignty that comes with this new treaty. In any case, what good would me petitioning my MP actually do. It would have no effect whatsoever. bq. I was talking about the Irish elections. Why should you vote on the Lisbon treaty, most treaties are signed without referendums. I never saw the need for a referendum for it. We are giving away our sovreignty to a partially unelected body we can't properly scrutinise. In my view, people need to be consulted about this, just as they were for the referendum in 1975. bq. You voted for the president, indirectly. How exactly? Did Labour voters back in 1997 also vote for the Iraq war when they voted for Blair? Saying they are voted indirectly is not sufficient grounds to justify their ruling over us. You can stretch the logc of indirect consent pretty far, too far in this case. <blockquote> Let your mp know that you want the UK out of the EU? </blockquote> I don’t want to be out of the EU. I just don’t like the complete loss of sovreignty that comes with this new treaty. In any case, what good would me petitioning my MP actually do. It would have no effect whatsoever. <blockquote> I was talking about the Irish elections. Why should you vote on the Lisbon treaty, most treaties are signed without referendums. I never saw the need for a referendum for it. </blockquote> We are giving away our sovreignty to a partially unelected body we can’t properly scrutinise. In my view, people need to be consulted about this, just as they were for the referendum in 1975. <blockquote> You voted for the president, indirectly. </blockquote> How exactly? Did Labour voters back in 1997 also vote for the Iraq war when they voted for Blair? Saying they are voted indirectly is not sufficient grounds to justify their ruling over us. You can stretch the logc of indirect consent pretty far, too far in this case.

2009-11-16T14:31:09-08:00

true

1468627

62492

2009-11-16T14:32:41-08:00

779740

bq. One day, there’ll be someone worth voting for who stands for prime minister. One day… It's a sad state of affairs that no one ever votes for who they actually want the most, but for who they hate/dislike the least. However, I think that's as much to do with our ludicrous electoral system as it does with the quality of our politicians, although I acknowledge there aren't many who seem capable and/or trustworthy at the moment. <blockquote> One day, there’ll be someone worth voting for who stands for prime minister. One day… </blockquote> It’s a sad state of affairs that no one ever votes for who they actually want the most, but for who they hate/dislike the least. However, I think that’s as much to do with our ludicrous electoral system as it does with the quality of our politicians, although I acknowledge there aren’t many who seem capable and/or trustworthy at the moment.

2009-11-16T12:33:49-08:00

true

1468158

64754

2009-11-16T12:33:49-08:00

779740

bq. referenda sucks monkeyballs. The European Union is a co-operation between all member-states, if you can’t handle that, leave the EU then… How the hell would we decide if we wanted to leave the EU without holding a referendum on it? bq. There were changes made after the first referendum, if the people find the changes alright, they vote yes. quite simple. Remind me when the British public got to vote on these changes, and no MEP elections don't count. bq. The European council and the european commission are chosen by people representing the member-states. There aren’t a lot of countries where you can directly vote for ministers or even mayors, it’s chosen by the leading parties. I don't care about ministers, but yes pretty much every country I can think of has mayors who are elected, but I digress, the point here is about the President of Europe. So the fact that the person who will represent Europe on the global stage, and be a key decision maker within the European Union, which affects the millions of inhabitants of Europe, have no say whatsoever in voting for him/her, or whether that position should even exist in the first place. I don't care if he doesn't have total power, but anyone who has the power to affect people's lives should only recieve that power through the consent of the people he/she is governing. As it stands, that isn't the case, which is why I'm fairly anti EU right now. <blockquote> referenda sucks monkeyballs. The European Union is a co-operation between all member-states, if you can’t handle that, leave the EU then… </blockquote> How the hell would we decide if we wanted to leave the EU without holding a referendum on it? <blockquote> There were changes made after the first referendum, if the people find the changes alright, they vote yes. quite simple. </blockquote> Remind me when the British public got to vote on these changes, and no MEP elections don’t count. <blockquote> The European council and the european commission are chosen by people representing the member-states. There aren’t a lot of countries where you can directly vote for ministers or even mayors, it’s chosen by the leading parties. </blockquote> I don’t care about ministers, but yes pretty much every country I can think of has mayors who are elected, but I digress, the point here is about the President of Europe. So the fact that the person who will represent Europe on the global stage, and be a key decision maker within the European Union, which affects the millions of inhabitants of Europe, have no say whatsoever in voting for him/her, or whether that position should even exist in the first place. I don’t care if he doesn’t have total power, but anyone who has the power to affect people’s lives should only recieve that power through the consent of the people he/she is governing. As it stands, that isn’t the case, which is why I’m fairly anti EU right now.

2009-11-16T12:30:04-08:00

true

1468148

62492

2009-11-16T12:31:49-08:00

779740

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1467566'>VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Who is this leader of, Aussie land or New Zeal-and? ?</blockquote> The UK you ignoramus. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1467566">VintageVanguarde</a>:</cite> Who is this leader of, Aussie land or New Zeal-and? ?</blockquote> The UK you ignoramus.

2009-11-16T09:32:18-08:00

true

1467873

64754

2009-11-16T09:32:18-08:00

779740

bq. Ever heard of the word Union. It’s not “Union if it’s only good for the UK”… bq. If you sent a MEP to Brussels and he does a bad job, vote for someone else. works exactly the same as on national level. I'm not asking to change the Union fundamentally in favour of the UK, I merely resent the fact that unelected bodies can make decisions affecting us without having to face up to real scrutiny from us. Even if everyone in the UK voted for UKIP during the MEP elections, nothing would actually change within Europe, due to the much higher number of pro European MEPs. I also resent the fact that the British people were never given a referendum on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty. What I'm trying to say is that, it's not just the content of the European constitution that I take issue with, but that we never got any say in it whatsoever. bq. The President won’t hold that much of power. How do you know? Most of the details haven't even been decided yet. <blockquote> Ever heard of the word Union. It’s not “Union if it’s only good for the UK”… </blockquote> <blockquote> If you sent a MEP to Brussels and he does a bad job, vote for someone else. works exactly the same as on national level. </blockquote> I’m not asking to change the Union fundamentally in favour of the UK, I merely resent the fact that unelected bodies can make decisions affecting us without having to face up to real scrutiny from us. Even if everyone in the UK voted for UKIP during the MEP elections, nothing would actually change within Europe, due to the much higher number of pro European MEPs. I also resent the fact that the British people were never given a referendum on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty. What I’m trying to say is that, it’s not just the content of the European constitution that I take issue with, but that we never got any say in it whatsoever. <blockquote> The President won’t hold that much of power. </blockquote> How do you know? Most of the details haven’t even been decided yet.

2009-11-16T09:31:27-08:00

true

1467872

62492

2009-11-16T09:31:27-08:00

779740

bq. What do you call the European Parliament election? Does this count as an election? And we got EU-wide petitions, which isn’t exactly “we can do nothing about”. So? Laws are made in Brussles, which even if 100% of the UKs MEPs voted against, would not be changed. In addition to that, MEPs aren't exactly very accountable to the British public in the same way MPs are. To your second point, I didn't get to vote in a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, the one which created a President of Europe. Do I get a say in who this person is? Of course I don't, it's all horse trading in the corridors of Brussels. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the economic benefits that the free trade of the EU brings, but I resent the completely anti democratic institutions that exist within Europe. EDIT: Also, those petitions are a joke. If they don't get the answer they want, they keep asking until they get the desirable response. <blockquote> What do you call the European Parliament election? Does this count as an election? And we got EU-wide petitions, which isn’t exactly “we can do nothing about”. </blockquote> So? Laws are made in Brussles, which even if 100% of the UKs MEPs voted against, would not be changed. In addition to that, MEPs aren’t exactly very accountable to the British public in the same way MPs are. To your second point, I didn’t get to vote in a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, the one which created a President of Europe. Do I get a say in who this person is? Of course I don’t, it’s all horse trading in the corridors of Brussels. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the economic benefits that the free trade of the EU brings, but I resent the completely anti democratic institutions that exist within Europe. EDIT: Also, those petitions are a joke. If they don’t get the answer they want, they keep asking until they get the desirable response.

2009-11-15T14:38:12-08:00

true

1465672

62492

2009-11-15T14:38:56-08:00

779740

bq. But if you’re a capitalist of any sort then unless you’re a racist, to be against the EU would seem quite perplexing. Is a loss of sovreignty not a valid argument for a capitalist to be anti EU? Now that the Lisbon treaty has been ratified, there will be tons of decisions made in Brussels affecting the lives of everyone in Europe, made by bodies unelected by us, which essentially we can do nothing about. <blockquote> But if you’re a capitalist of any sort then unless you’re a racist, to be against the EU would seem quite perplexing. </blockquote> Is a loss of sovreignty not a valid argument for a capitalist to be anti EU? Now that the Lisbon treaty has been ratified, there will be tons of decisions made in Brussels affecting the lives of everyone in Europe, made by bodies unelected by us, which essentially we can do nothing about.

2009-11-15T09:49:03-08:00

true

1463916

62492

2009-11-15T09:49:03-08:00

779740

bq. Thankfully it was abandoned, but holding without charge for 90 days? 28 is tyrannical enough. The thing that puzzled me about it most, was that the police themselves deemd 90 days an unnecessarily long period. At least I could have understood where they were coming from (but still not agreed with it mind you) if it was supposedly useful to the police. bq. So much for “No such thing as political crime.” Indeed. Oh, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which tried to stop comedians making fun of religion. That one pissed me off aswell. <blockquote> Thankfully it was abandoned, but holding without charge for 90 days? 28 is tyrannical enough. </blockquote> The thing that puzzled me about it most, was that the police themselves deemd 90 days an unnecessarily long period. At least I could have understood where they were coming from (but still not agreed with it mind you) if it was supposedly useful to the police. <blockquote> So much for “No such thing as political crime.” </blockquote> Indeed. Oh, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which tried to stop comedians making fun of religion. That one pissed me off aswell.

2009-11-15T08:51:24-08:00

true

1463669

64754

2009-11-15T08:51:33-08:00

779740