EEU constitution

A forum to discuss local issues in England.
Post Reply
User avatar
Raven
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:21 am

EEU constitution

Post by Raven »

Has anyone here actually READ it?? Very scary stuff!

I fear we'll be playing the UK's requiem soon.

It's horrible to think that a parliament that took such pains to be THE source of government, (even to the killing of kings) would so readily give up the reins to BRUSSELS!! It's heartbreaking really. England is no longer english. Europe has robbed you of your national identity.

What I dont see is, whats in it for you? :-3
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

EEU constitution

Post by capt_buzzard »

Raven wrote: Has anyone here actually READ it?? Very scary stuff!

I fear we'll be playing the UK's requiem soon.



It's horrible to think that a parliament that took such pains to be THE source of government, (even to the killing of kings) would so readily give up the reins to BRUSSELS!! It's heartbreaking really. England is no longer english. Europe has robbed you of your national identity.



What I dont see is, whats in it for you? :-3 You have a final vote on the EU constitution in November next, Use it well
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

EEU constitution

Post by gmc »

posted by raven

Has anyone here actually READ it?? Very scary stuff!

I fear we'll be playing the UK's requiem soon.

It's horrible to think that a parliament that took such pains to be THE source of government, (even to the killing of kings) would so readily give up the reins to BRUSSELS!! It's heartbreaking really. England is no longer english. Europe has robbed you of your national identity.

What I dont see is, whats in it for you?


Hardly that, go to any international football match now and you see the ENGLISH flag being flown. It used just to be the Union Jack which believe me was always like a red rag to a bull so far as the other nations were concerned. You don't see any of the other nations complaining about loss of identity, far from it. If you really think the British will lose their identity you are clearly not British. If you have to worry about losing your identity you don't have much in the first place.

You are an expat american I think? Naughty, naughty England/Britain are not synonymous.

70% of our manufacturing trade is with the EEC, most of our farm exports are to europe. whether we like it or not what the EEC does affects us, as a part of it you have some say in what goes on, if we don't join we will be an insignificant backwater on the arse end of europe. Look at who opposes EEC membership, those who are most vehement don't trade with europe they have nothing to lose those that do trade might have complaints but in principle they want to be part of a european trading block. Most of the opponents are idiots living in some kind of idyllic past when all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds and don't want things to change.

Same in the far east, as a member of a larger trading block we have more chance of negotiating trade agreements with the chinese. Name me one large British company that is not international in it's outlook. British industry has always done well on an international scale it's when we think small there are problems and we fail.

Without EEC membership there would not have been all the inward investment that the Tories like to take the credit for Nissan came pretty close to placing the Micra factory in France if we were not in the EEC they would not be here, neither would Toyota, honda, mitsubishi, ford, hitachi.

The Scottish economy is doing well just now, little of that is due to Westminster a lot of it is the EEC regional fund. Same with Eire, they are doing singularly well out of the EEC, celtic tiger no less. Bet you won't see many Irish wanting to pull out.

Apart from that currently there is little check on the EEC commissioners, the constitution gives the EEC parliament power over them. It's not a perfect solution but what constitution is?

The European court is proving to be a valuable check on the government, especially this one, which is a bit ironic.

The sad thing is those on favour put their case badly, those against offer nothing as a viable alternative and are more like a bunch of kids threatening to take the ball away unless everybody plays by their, rules except they don't seem to realise that they have their own balls.

It's horrible to think that a parliament that took such pains to be THE source of government, (even to the killing of kings) would so readily give up the reins to BRUSSELS!! It's heartbreaking really




As to killing kings, why not? Military dictatorship and rule by the puritans was so bad having a king seemed a good idea by way of an alternative. Those who preached the equality of man (and women) and called for universal suffrage were very badly treated by the godly, after all only the godly can determine who is worthy-says so in the bible.
User avatar
Raven
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:21 am

EEU constitution

Post by Raven »

Maybe it's the way things were worded in what I read. According to what it said, member states transfer power of negotiating foreign policy, international trade agreements, and domestic policies on policing, borders, immigration and trade to Brussels. Not to mention losing control over military issues.

Heres the link to the document I read. I would be very interested in your thoughts.

http://www.v63.net/wellsconservatives/N ... tution.pdf

Being as it was written by an MP who was involved in the process, I found it very interesting stuff. True, there are good points to joining, but the bad are REALLY bad. And do please remember, even though I'm an american, I'm also living in Britain. I work and pay my taxes just like everyone else. These issues DO affect me. I'm just not allowed to vote on the matter. Doesnt mean I cant have an opinion, though. As far as national identity is concerned, tell me about the union jack again, when it's replaced by the boring circle of stars that I already see flying everywhere. The union flag was OUR flag too, once upon a time. We only ditched it because we couldnt get representation in parliament. As for getting big companies to operate in Britain, are you saying the only savvy mouthpieces can be found in europe? I dont believe for a minute, that THE nation who first introduced industrialization can be THAT backward now. Sounds to me, like you guys just dont believe in yourselves anymore. One united europe was Churchills idea. But did he idealise what it has turned out to be? I'm not so sure.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
User avatar
illuminati
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:00 pm

EEU constitution

Post by illuminati »

Raven wrote: Maybe it's the way things were worded in what I read. According to what it said, member states transfer power of negotiating foreign policy, international trade agreements, and domestic policies on policing, borders, immigration and trade to Brussels. Not to mention losing control over military issues.

Heres the link to the document I read. I would be very interested in your thoughts.

http://www.v63.net/wellsconservatives/N ... tution.pdf

Being as it was written by an MP who was involved in the process, I found it very interesting stuff. True, there are good points to joining, but the bad are REALLY bad. And do please remember, even though I'm an american, I'm also living in Britain. I work and pay my taxes just like everyone else. These issues DO affect me. I'm just not allowed to vote on the matter. Doesnt mean I cant have an opinion, though. As far as national identity is concerned, tell me about the union jack again, when it's replaced by the boring circle of stars that I already see flying everywhere. The union flag was OUR flag too, once upon a time. We only ditched it because we couldnt get representation in parliament. As for getting big companies to operate in Britain, are you saying the only savvy mouthpieces can be found in europe? I dont believe for a minute, that THE nation who first introduced industrialization can be THAT backward now. Sounds to me, like you guys just dont believe in yourselves anymore. One united europe was Churchills idea. But did he idealise what it has turned out to be? I'm not so sure.


I agree with your concerns Raven. On the other hand, gmc's comments ring true as well. It's a debate about sovereignty AND economic well being.

Europe desperately needs something to tie them together. Being lashed together with an economic rope may be a good thing. Just about everyone who conducts business now does so in English, so that barrier is going away.

The true test of the EU will happen when the EU jobs continue to be outsourced to Africa and SE Asia. The EU will also be tested when Russia begins to misbehave again. And lastly, when the nationalists in each country begin to feel un-represented in Brussels. Taxation without representation? It's a familiar ring here in America. Economic issues and feelings of nationalism have always been highly efficient war starters.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

EEU constitution

Post by gmc »

posted by Raven

These issues DO affect me. I'm just not allowed to vote on the matter. Doesnt mean I cant have an opinion, though. As far as national identity is concerned, tell me about the union jack again, when it's replaced by the boring circle of stars that I already see flying everywhere. The union flag was OUR flag too, once upon a time. We only ditched it because we couldnt get representation in parliament. As for getting big companies to operate in Britain, are you saying the only savvy mouthpieces can be found in europe? I dont believe for a minute, that THE nation who first introduced industrialization can be THAT backward now. Sounds to me, like you guys just dont believe in yourselves anymore. One united europe was Churchills idea. But did he idealise what it has turned out to be? I'm not so sure.


Churchill still believed in Empire it was the people that rejected him and his ideas after the war.

to quote from one of his speeches in 1946

http://www.liv-coll.ac.uk/pa09/europetr ... rchill.htm

'I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause'.

The speech concluded with a practical suggestion: 'The first step is to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the states of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.'

The impact of this speech was enormous. The fact that a statesman of Churchill's standing had taken up the European cause gave it fresh impetus, and made Churchill the obvious choice as the man to preside over the Congress of Europe held at The Hague two years later. Although the Congress disappointed many because it did not agree to a federal European organisation, it did lead to the establishment of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

At the same time, the speech gave a misleading impression of the extent to which the United Kingdom or, more especially, the Conservative Party (of which Churchill, though no longer Prime Minister, was then still leader) was prepared to come involved in European integration. Churchill did not see the United Kingdom as part of the United States of Europe but as its 'friend and sponsor': the primary British obligation was to another 'natural grouping', the Commonwealth.




One of the reasons we didn't join in with the early days of the EEC was the notion we still had an empire and didn't need to bother. The price we paid for that was in the 1970's after years of being blocked was negotiating from a supplicant position.

As to the big companies, bear in mind the trade barriers that were in place, by opening factories in Britain they were within the EEC boundaries and over the wall so to speak. If we hadn't been members by then, do the arithmetic, europe is a bigger market than Britain they would have placed the factories on the contiment. The possibility of Nissan and Toyota stopping investment in the UK was very real at the end of the day which market is most valuable? As to whether we don't believe in ourselves any more I would refer you to what I said earlier

If you really think the British will lose their identity you are clearly not British. If you have to worry about losing your identity you don't have much in the first place.


There are very real concerns but this is not the UK against Europe there are now many nations that are not going to sit back and just agree to everything the arguements are going to run on and on. We will not find ourselves in a situation where we cannot control our own government or the EEC there are far too many disparate nations with their own sense of national identity and sovereignty to let that happen. The point about the EU constitution is to take the steps to control a monolith. A written constitution is an unfamiliar concept and there are obvious problems when the letter of the law is more important than the spirit but the simple fact is we can't afford to sit back and not take part or then we really will have no say on what happens.

Try that line you don't believe in yourselves any more the next time you go down the pub, should be an interesting debate. European nationalism is very different from the american version but none the less very real. If you really think we will become an amorphous blob and give up our national differences you are very much mistaken.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

EEU constitution

Post by capt_buzzard »

Spain became the first country to endorse the EU constitution in a national referendom yesterday.

Spain's reputation as the most enthusiastically pro European nation seemed to make it the logical choice to go first. The constitution is expected to face much stiffer oppostition in Britain, Denmark, Poland and even France where scepticism is growing.

The Catholic Church asked their flock to vote No, or abstain.
User avatar
Raven
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:21 am

EEU constitution

Post by Raven »

And how will all this affect the commonwealth? There are numerous countries in the commonwealth, including most of Africa, Canada and New Zealand and Australia. How does all this affect them? It's very confusing.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

EEU constitution

Post by capt_buzzard »

Raven wrote: And how will all this affect the commonwealth? There are numerous countries in the commonwealth, including most of Africa, Canada and New Zealand and Australia. How does all this affect them? It's very confusing.That's the Big question
Post Reply

Return to “England”