Fellow Europeans, we have a problem

Now some think that terrorism is a global threat and it is but against terrorism we fight but here we are bring silently conquered step by step.

Have you read this, this which willl change our continent for ever >> http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00850.en03.pdf

What do you think of this whole EU constitution, the voting rights, where the power base is being established , who does ti help and who does it hurt.

Should we fight it or let it go through?

I am all for closer ties but not like this, e are running before we hvae even stood up, we aren not starting at the beginning of the book, we are turning to the end.

How can we form a union with such disagreement and inequality which this EU constitution will not bring.

Opinions?? We can't just stand still and let it happen can we?

If you are British, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Irish etc. How do you feel, the destiny of your nation is being decided by corrupt leaders and not yourselves.

This is empire in a new form is it not, this is not Rome where we were improved, we are all being brought down to one level of thought and freedom.

Originally posted by Critic

What do you think of this whole EU constitution, the voting rights, where the power base is being established , who does ti help and who does it hurt.

idea good if it were based on equality, good way to get rid of "nationalism" .
It's ofcourse worked out completely wrong but that's quite obvious since it's an institue of power and the current powerhouses want to keep that power.

They're citing the following:

"Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."

Thucydides II, 37

Eric Cartman, what is wrong with nationalism, actually berore i argue the point on that, what part of nationalism do you think needs to be got rid of?

You say that it is a good idea, maybe but it is decades too soon, no Briton i know is for it.

Latest polls suggest at least an 80% - 20% against the whole idea, it is not seen as a tidying up process as they call it but more the beginnings of a super state, to get to the point we don't trust people in Brussels to make decisions for us.

How do you think the EU CON would guide the EU to react if the EU foreign policy was anti Iraq involvvment but the UK went in anyway.

I think this could make things get really messy within the EU.

Another thing, there is a growing proportion of the population that would like us to withdraw from areas of the European convention on human rights.

Tony Blair and our reps have failed us in the negotiation process, we were failed utterly and thank god for the Polish and the Spanish is all i can say.

timechange.com

I'll give you an example of what this constitution stands for, a group of brits were deported from Brussels back to the UK for handing out leaflets against it, they were told that they needed a licence. Not good

I'm not familiar with the current situation in Ye Olde Continent. Having lived continuously in the New World for the past 6 years, I have missed quite a few events: the unification of currency, the great soccer battles of the late past century and pretty soon, the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.

Seeing from the inside the pitfalls of a bi-partisan system (US) I should add that the fair Europa should consider themselves lucky, albeit in a "liberal" state of mind.

I feel that the uk would be at a disadvantage by joining the eu, i would like to see a trade block only with no political consolidation at all.
The reason why i think that we would be at a disadvantage is that we imo are by far are the most powerful EU state and our power would seriously be diminished.
The constitution is now dead, it cannot be passed in its present form, if it was not voting rights it would have been something else, the document is seriously flawed and i believe that most believe that now. The only 2 reasons that Germany and France in particular want a federal eu is that a united eu would become as powerful as the usa and the worlds second superpower and for the security that individually they cannot gaurantee, if they wanted a united eu for sound reasons i could understand but they dont, there desire to equalise usa is obsessive, especially to the french and german insecurities should never be eased, there manic belief in a united eu army is mind boggling, i am very secure with nato not in an eu army with a fairly powerful germany having an influence.

The Uk has no reason to even be part of the EU, a trade block would surfise.

timechange, things aren't as good as they sound but yes there are more parties involved with the political process over here which is a better thing i admit but these are some recent events >>

As of last week, the French are planning to ban muslim head scarfs [i can't remember the actual name] from all state schools.

The Germans have no race relation equality laws, Turks are openly discrimianted against.

They are in economic difficulty and choose to invoke the working time directive and try to force it on us[UK]. That means you can only work 48 hours a week, sounds good on the surface but what about overtime and extra projects, that kind of thing should be optional and not enforced. How will your economy with a rule like that.

These nations dominate the upper echelons of EU institutions and are now railroading their idea of a future Europe with this constitution.

On great football batttles, the Champions League has improved a lot over the past few years, especially from a United point of view but anyway.

Jablunka

You are right about the plans that the French and the Germans have lined up. The thing that is really ironic for me is how Blair said we had these red lines on issues and he has capitulated utterly, then you look at the Germans on voting rights and they stand fast. I thought that it was funny that France and Germany wanted this new voting setup when everyone know they have the two largest populations, well as far as i know.

Apparantly in the european parliament the MEP's will have about 1-2 minutes to decide on a decision that will impact millions.

Didyou know that if the EU CON is signed by the UK that our North Sea raw material assets would come under the authority of the EU parliament. That is shocking and to add to that parts of Britain have a dependency on French power. Now i am all for free trade and such but we shouldn't be dependent upon a nation we are at odds with.

This is my worse case scenario for a hundred years time, there is a Franco German EU gov't, as Britain is the windyist nation in Europe everyone is moved off of our great island and it is filled with wind turbines to power the continent and a bit more. Extreme i know but with the current politically ignorant or disillusioned generations would they see it coming and or oppose it. Many i meet of my age wouldn't even die for the nation, they say it wouldn't be worth it, that makes me :angry:

You know i like Spain and Italy and other areas of Europe, why are we the silent majority. If the people of Europe new what the constitution meant i doubt that they would agree to it but it is 225 pages long, they won't take the time to read it, i haven;'t even gotten round to it yet, well not in full.

If you feel that the constitution is dead, it is for now but i can't see them giving up on it.

All this aside, i will be proud when Beagle 2 lands on Mars on Christmas Day in the name of Europe but even ESA is dominated by the French.

i dunno, the future isn't Orange i can tell you that :d some of you might not get that, it is a mobile advert but the premise works.

I'll say now that I am not at all knowlegeable on this subject, but from what I have read in the papers here in the Uk, I for one am against this EU idea. I personally don't like the idea of having a single organisation dictate the laws for all these countries.

You can't set laws or judgement unless you actualy know that country and what it's citizens will stand for.

just my 2c tho!

Critic the constitution is dead in its present format, however the principle will remain and will be brought back to the table, deals will be done we all know that.
That said they have until 2009 before the Nice voting agreement runs its course ,and we should have 2 general elections at least until then and considering that over 50% of mps are anti european i just cannot see us as a nation being able to implement any contitution in 2009.

I am absolutely anti-federalist and, i cannot support eu as things stand though i have to clarify some points you made:D

As of last week, the French are planning to ban muslim head scarfs [i can't remember the actual name] from all state schools.

The french have decided to eliminate religeon from school, they believe in seperation of state and church and that is what is driving this, i tend to agree with them, their is no place in school for religeous garments.

The Germans have no race relation equality laws, Turks are openly discrimianted against.

2 things to consider, firstly they are covered by the human rights act and so a race relation law is not really required in addition there are fewer elected extreme right wing politicians in Germany than England, i believe we now have 13 elected BNP.

Everything else i absolutely agree with, yes there economies are in serious trouble, dare i say that they actually broke the law, with there last budgets both of them (french and germans)

France and germany have tried to dominate the eu and in the past they have only had to deal with a stubborn uk but now both italians and the spanish have found their voices and want respect and recognition and the 2 big powers absolutely hate it.

with regards to being reliant on the french etc i think you will find that we virtually bankroll spain and greece through tourism and expats, did you know that 17% of spainish tax is paid by expats. jeez that is huge, and we outstrip both the germans and french in cross border trade especially via the city and our financial institutions, they actually rely on us more than we do them.

What will seal the eu will be an eu army, after that there is no turning back, though could you ever imagine any prime minister that would give control over polaris away, i doubt it, but that would be the final nail in the coffin and would follow an eu army, once the eu realises its true wealth and power we may have another meglomaniac on our hands.

That said they have until 2009 before the Nice voting agreement runs its course ,and we should have 2 general elections at least until then and considering that over 50% of mps are anti european i just cannot see us as a nation being able to implement any contitution in 2009.

That is why we can't let the Conservatives wither away without some kind of replacement centre right party or the right will be eft with the BNP and maybe the UKIP, the latter do have some MEP's at the mibute. Ther Grmans and the French will wait if necessary, there will beanother EU conference in 09 but it will take years to get anyone to sign it. The EU needs reform in my view, a new purpose; it should be a club where on certain issues like Kyoto maybe European nations can unite for a common goal that will further all nations and not a few but not an autocratic govrnment. ESA isn't a bad idea as UK participation in NASA might be difficult but as said this groups is not representative of all of our countries. The headquaters is in Paris, its Director General is French, Mission Control is in Germany, they countdown in French for the launches, other than Beagle 2 the UK is a bit hard to find.

The french have decided to eliminate religeon from school, they believe in seperation of state and church and that is what is driving this, i tend to agree with them, their is no place in school for religeous garments.

Good point, i was a bit too vague and one sided with my initial comment. Yes it is for all religions which i should have been more clear about, it was the recommendation of a public enquiy i believe. You maybe right that religion needs to be defined and seperate from schooling but i wouldn't go as far as the French by any means, even if i was i think this is terrible timing to come out with something like this. The latest EU research which they weren't too happy about and tried to push under the carpet showed rising anti semitism across Europe and France was a hot spot for many different reasons including poverty, palestine sentiment, the far right, larger Muslim population etc

2 things to consider, firstly they are covered by the human rights act and so a race relation law is not really required in addition there are fewer elected extreme right wing politicians in Germany than England, i believe we now have 13 elected BNP.



There is the human rights act and related to that Germany has failed to implement an EU directive about race relations out of fear of German jobs going to Turkish passort holders, well that is what i heard. On Euro News on BBC Fivelive radio last week, they ran a piece on it; it was concerning Turkish people being turned away from jobs and nightclubs specifically because they were Turkish or held dual passports with one being Turkish.

One thing that the European Convention on Human Rights is good for i suppose.

France and germany have tried to dominate the eu and in the past they have only had to deal with a stubborn uk but now both italians and the spanish have found their voices and want respect and recognition and the 2 big powers absolutely hate it.

Yeah, they have been becoming more vocal recently and they'll hate the Spanish even more after this last voting thing :D The Spanish, Italian and British axis in Europe was given a name a few years ago but i can't remember it.

with regards to being reliant on the french etc i think you will find that we virtually bankroll spain and greece through tourism and expats, did you know that 17% of spainish tax is paid by expats. jeez that is huge, and we outstrip both the germans and french in cross border trade especially via the city and our financial institutions, they actually rely on us more than we do them.


True i just don't like the idea of France having part of the south coast plugged into their power stations and their finger on the button when things get heated.I knew we had a large expat community in Spain, i've been there about 8-10 times ut i didn't know that expats contributed that much tax. If they want more money, they should put a tax on sunbeds, ha, damned Germans getting there first in the morning :d

Never been to Greece but i have wanted to for many years, specifically a town called Sparta but anyway.

What will seal the eu will be an eu army, after that there is no turning back, though could you ever imagine any prime minister that would give control over polaris away, i doubt it, but that would be the final nail in the coffin and would follow an eu army, once the eu realises its true wealth and power we may have another meglomaniac on our hands.

You got that right, wasn't the EU Army supposed to be one of good old Tony's red lines but he got persuaded into it, maybe they said he could be the first President of Europe. The idea of handing control over does sound remote but politicians can be very fickle s you know. I have always wondered what the British armed forces think of all of this, they would be hugely affected being not only the best but most active and largest in Europe, we're building those two new super aircraft carriers like the American ones, i'm sure the EU would like a piece of them; there is also the Queen, if i was her i would be a bit peeved with Tony.

At this rate we might need to use the two new carriers to protect ourselves from the EU, maybe e should name them the HMS CHURCHILL and HMS ROOSEVELT, i'm sure they'd love it :D

It's never going to work.
Here in the EU we can hardly agree on eachothers deficeits.
However, I wouldn't mind seeing the EU become a bigger player in the world.

Originally posted by Critic
Eric Cartman, what is wrong with nationalism, actually berore i argue the point on that, what part of nationalism do you think needs to be got rid of?

not having the same standards when it comes to "foreigners/foreign governments" and your own people/government

my country no mather what it does, i have to keep supporting it, flag waving idiots that sorta stuff

and ofcourse being proud of something you didn't achieve , but your country achieved

Originally posted by Critic

You say that it is a good idea, maybe but it is decades too soon, no Briton i know is for it.

i didn't say it was a good idea, i said it would be a good idea if it were based on equality, which it isn't.


Originally posted by Critic

Latest polls suggest at least an 80% - 20% against the whole idea, it is not seen as a tidying up process as they call it but more the beginnings of a super state, to get to the point we don't trust people in Brussels to make decisions for us.


ofcourse you shouldn't trust 'm, never trust power, that's quite obvious. You shouldn't trust the people in london either. The difference is that you have a right to vote them out ofcourse (with london). So with growing EU power the european population should also have a vote in that. That's obvious, which isn't quite the case right now.

not having the same standards when it comes to "foreigners/foreign governments" and your own people/government

my country no mather what it does, i have to keep supporting it, flag waving idiots that sorta stuff

and ofcourse being proud of something you didn't achieve , but your country achieved

So that is what you don't like, ahh

I can see where you are coming from with an individuals views on foreigners but to me that isn't nationalism as such, it is more racism if in an extreme. However if someone just doesn't like a certain nationality for some reason that is just their personal opinion.

You don't have to keep supporting your nation because of the type of society you and i live in but those who do are not flag waving idiots, they are entitled to their stance as much s you.

By the looks of it you don't like national loyalty or someone showing an aliegence which i will do more often than not so i have to disagree with you on what you see wrong there.

I don't have a flag in my window at the minute but i am proud of my heritage and what came before for thousands of years and i can't see what is wrong with that and i would die for it if necessary and the cause true and just.

On the bit where i mis-quoted you, i stand corrected, that said if it was equal or not, i still don't think Europe is ready by quite a way.

You are right that national governments hae accountability and the EU really doesn't, well not in the same way. You are right to be sceptical of those in power but i wouldn't share your apparent utter dislike of power but i can respect it. Someone needs to lead the way and guide the nation or we'd be stuck bickering for an eternity; yes as i have already said there needs to be a more equal representation.

Originally posted by Critic
So that is what you don't like, ahh

I can see where you are coming from with an individuals views on foreigners but to me that isn't nationalism as such, it is more racism if in an extreme. However if someone just doesn't like a certain nationality for some reason that is just their personal opinion.


well i'm not that much talking about racism, but like for instance before the iraq war (yeah i know ;) ) with the veto thing. The US has vetoed many times (it's basically comical), usually with Israel. When another country does it , it's bla bla bla, but when they do it it's okay. So then one doesn't apply the same standard towards others.
Same thing basically with ally countries, you basically ignore the flaws of them while the same flaws with "enemy" countries become really big issues. The ignoring usually follows that your "own country" acts out of good, so the allies must be good too.

what you are saying is correct too, that's more racism than nationalism, although racism usually goes togheter with nationalism (otherwise it wouldn't make much sense anyway)

Originally posted by Critic

You don't have to keep supporting your nation because of the type of society you and i live in but those who do are not flag waving idiots, they are entitled to their stance as much s you.


ofcourse they are, holocaus deniers , racists etc are also allowed to have their stance, but that doesn't mean i will agree with them or think they are kuku ;)

Originally posted by Critic


By the looks of it you don't like national loyalty or someone showing an aliegence which i will do more often than not so i have to disagree with you on what you see wrong there.


i don't like it, cause for instance one could be born in ethiopia too, it's just pure luck were you are born

Originally posted by Critic


I don't have a flag in my window at the minute but i am proud of my heritage and what came before for thousands of years and i can't see what is wrong with that and i would die for it if necessary and the cause true and just.


well you could have been born in pakistan or india and then it would make that much sense anymore

Originally posted by Critic


You are right that national governments hae accountability and the EU really doesn't, well not in the same way. You are right to be sceptical of those in power but i wouldn't share your apparent utter dislike of power but i can respect it. Someone needs to lead the way and guide the nation or we'd be stuck bickering for an eternity; yes as i have already said there needs to be a more equal representation.

indeed more equal representation and less national intrest, you basically can compare it with a country.
Like if a guy from london becomes a PM or something he's not going to do everything for london and destroy manchester for instance.
Which is the opposite of the feeling you get with the eu sometimes, like a guy from italy is going to do the best he can for his country and he doesn't really care what happens with spain... (also because the spanish people can't vote for him ofcourse)

Originally posted by jablunka
The reason why i think that we would be at a disadvantage is that we imo are by far are the most powerful EU state and our power would seriously be diminished.


In economic power we are joint second with France, Germany is the largest economic power.

Originally posted by jablunka

The Uk has no reason to even be part of the EU, a trade block would surfise.

Except of course in the long term as the rest of europe became more tightly intergrated we would trade on weaker and weaker terms, due to being in an ever inceasingly weak position, it would also hinder us being out of europe in regard to trading with the rest of the world.

Originally posted by critic
How can we form a union with such disagreement and inequality which this EU constitution will not bring.
[/B]

The same way the US has a union with plenty of inequality and diagreement or that the UK runs with plenty of inequality an disagreement.

Originally posted by critic
They are in economic difficulty
[/B]

Yes Germany is going through a bad time at the moment, yet they have a far stronger and structually sound economy than ours and in the long run will leave us behind unless we change things.

As for nationalism, it is just another illogical prejudice one step up from racism, because of nationalism some of the most attrocious events in history have been allowed to happen by people who patriotically believe their lives are worth more than anyone elses.

Bagpuss, i wouldn't expect anything else from you, from our previous discussions this is what i would expect anyway.

If i can respond to your statement concerning economic power, you might be right but that is not the only criteria, there is military power, political power and diplomatic power. You could probably replace power with infuence or they would go in tandem; here Germany and France have nothing on the United Kingdom.

Except of course in the long term as the rest of europe became more tightly intergrated we would trade on weaker and weaker terms, due to being in an ever inceasingly weak position, it would also hinder us being out of europe in regard to trading with the rest of the world.

That future for Europe is not set in stone, yes the Euro will have an impact but here when we refer to the EU primarily we are talking about this twoddle called a constitution. So are you trying to tell me that the UK won't be weaker if we are ruled from Brussels by a Franco German top heavy organisation that doesn't have our best interests or Europes to heart?? COME ON

The same way the US has a union with plenty of inequality and diagreement or that the UK runs with plenty of inequality an disagreement.

You should be well aware that i am talking about the new intended voting system and the different ways that the populations in different nations perceive an event. Do you think that the French and the Germans would let us go against their wishes if another Iraq situation was to arise, that is what this whole common EU foreign policy is about.


Your lst two paragraphs set the scene for me, Germany might and i stress might be better off in the long term but mainly because they along with France breach countless EU directives which everyone else must follow; they are now even considering of dropping that load of rubbish called the working time directive, that doesn't promote growth i can tell you.

Your comment on nationalism i just can't agree with but yet again it does depend on what you think it is; regardless you don't look like you have a shred on natinal pride/loyalty in you as a person from my experience in discussions as if you did you would not support the EU constitution in its current form.

There is nothing wrong with being PRO English or British, if you choose to confuse that with racism then it is your own fault. It is people who cared deeply for this nation who have saved it and died in its name in the past for me and you and we should ALL try to meet the same standards that they set.

Originally posted by Critic

If i can respond to your statement concerning economic power, you might be right but that is not the only criteria, there is military power, political power and diplomatic power. You could probably replace power with infuence or they would go in tandem; here Germany and France have nothing on the United Kingdom.


I belive the French spend approximately the same on their military as us, as for political power or influence I see very little difference between the three countries.

Originally posted by Critic

That future for Europe is not set in stone, yes the Euro will have an impact but here when we refer to the EU primarily we are talking about this twoddle called a constitution. So are you trying to tell me that the UK won't be weaker if we are ruled from Brussels by a Franco German top heavy organisation that doesn't have our best interests or Europes to heart?? COME ON


I wasn't specifically thinking of the Euro, more that Germany, France, Belgium etc seem to want tighter intergration, currently as suggested we could pull out and just have trade agreements, but overtime they would become more tightly intergrated and as their intergration increased our bargaining position would become weaker and weaker and the terms of the trade deal would become less and less favourable to us, we would also be in a far weaker position in regard to trade and every other type of negotiation with the US, China, Japan and so on.

As for being ruled by France and Germany, I think you will find that if Britain actually fully commited itself to the EU for once then Britain would lead Europe with France and Germany.

And whitehall isn't top heavy?

Originally posted by Critic

You should be well aware that i am talking about the new intended voting system and the different ways that the populations in different nations perceive an event. Do you think that the French and the Germans would let us go against their wishes if another Iraq situation was to arise, that is what this whole common EU foreign policy is about.


Given that both before and after the war every bit of research found that the majority of people in this country were against it, it seems rather strange that you make accusations against Germany and France where the leaders actually took notice of their citizens opinions as opposed to Mr Blair who had decided to ignore the view of the majority of the public.

Originally posted by Critic

Your lst two paragraphs set the scene for me, Germany might and i stress might be better off in the long term but mainly because they along with France breach countless EU directives which everyone else must follow; they are now even considering of dropping that load of rubbish called the working time directive, that doesn't promote growth i can tell you.


I hope you are joking, because if not that is just sad, Germany has had the largest and best performing economy in Europe for most of this century, it has nothing to do with being in breach of EU directives, it is too do with training, education, attitude and that Germany is run for the benefit of all sectors, not just finance and insurance like ours. If you want to see why Germany has an underlying strong economy just compare the pathetic state of our car industry to theirs or take a look at how SAP is larger than all our software companies put together or maybe why our new trains are being built in Germany because our entire manufacturing sector has been left to die, for the benefit of two square miles in the centre of London.

Originally posted by Critic

Your comment on nationalism i just can't agree with but yet again it does depend on what you think it is; regardless you don't look like you have a shred on natinal pride/loyalty in you as a person from my experience in discussions as if you did you would not support the EU constitution in its current form.

There is nothing wrong with being PRO English or British, if you choose to confuse that with racism then it is your own fault. It is people who cared deeply for this nation who have saved it and died in its name in the past for me and you and we should ALL try to meet the same standards that they set.

Firstly I didn't confuse nationalism with racism I just said it was one step up from it.

Of course I have some national pride, but there is a very big diffrence between me wanting the rugby team to win and someone believing English lives are worth more then anyone elses.

In regard to Europe I would say it's you who is showing a lack of nationalism, you seem to want us out of the EU, yet in the long run that will kill our economy, when it comes to Global economics bigger is better and we will suffer for the lack of influence that we will have in the world out of Europe as a nation of 60 million as opposed to being part of the EU's hundreds of millions.

Critic is absolutely correct, power=influence, in actual fact the french spent $16 billion more then the uk last year on the military and the germans are by far the richest european country, however when you take the complete package, Britain is he most powerful by far, the germans miitary are non existent, there spending may be on par now with the uk but for 40 years they had no military to speak of and thus will take a generation to catch up, the french economically are losing ground left right and centre, they are strangled by the unions and have lost 33%, yes 33% of their gdp in the last 30 years and for the first time in a generation Britain will go over them this year and continue to do so.
The french are not even members of nato full council, they contribute no military at all just consultation and have no vote.
Britains standing within nato and the commenwealth as well as the eu and g7 as well as permanent member of the security council just cannot be matched at all by the french or germans.
The german economic base is shrinking year in year out, the reconstruction of the east will continue for decades to come.

Bagpuss you said

I hope you are joking, because if not that is just sad, Germany has had the largest and best performing economy in Europe for most of this century, it has nothing to do with being in breach of EU directives, it is too do with training, education, attitude and that Germany is run for the benefit of all sectors, not just finance and insurance like ours.

In actual fact you are wrong, prior to 1910 Britain was the richest economy in the world, between 1910 and 1920 was the war years and no ones economy was in any good condition, between 1920 and 1936 Germany hit derpression, not recession but depression, between 1937 and 1945 Germany stole what it wanted and between 1945 and 1960 German was bankrupt and then subsidised by the allies.
The German economic miracle really kicked in between 1961 and 1990 and it grew hugely, why? because they had no east germany and no military to pay for because they were not allowed one, they save trillions and that is why germany did so great economically, now that they have to pay they cannot even hit their own budgets.


Also you said the following
If you want to see why Germany has an underlying strong economy just compare the pathetic state of our car industry to theirs or take a look at how SAP is larger than all our software companies put together or maybe why our new trains are being built in Germany because our entire manufacturing sector has been left to die, for the benefit of two square miles in the centre of London.

Or we could compare the agriculture sector where where the uk are kings, or the service sector, or the financial sector, or medical research and so on, there are 100s and i mean 100s of areas in which the uk far outstrips the french and germans, dont be so selective.

Finally bagpuss

In regard to Europe I would say it's you who is showing a lack of nationalism, you seem to want us out of the EU, yet in the long run that will kill our economy, when it comes to Global economics bigger is better and we will suffer for the lack of influence that we will have in the world out of Europe as a nation of 60 million as opposed to being part of the EU's hundreds of millions.

What basis do you have for saying it will ruin our economy, will japan (which is still the 2nd richest nation) wither and die because it is not a member of the eu or a member of nafta, of course not, being small and not a member of a continental group has not done japan or come to that hong kong any harm 2 very rich places, and influence within the eu is grossly over rated, i prefer influence via the g8 and un as well as the relationship with both the commenwealth and the usa, our security is gauranteed via nato and our own nuclear weapons.

We dont need the eu they need us and to this point all i have seen in the eu is split after split, they couldnt agree on bosnia, iraq, beef, budgets,voting rights, constitution, mad cow desease, foot and mouth, eu army, erm, as well as being corrupt and on a massive scale.

All we need is an economic block and even on that they need us, we are are growing much faster than the other 2 and in time italy poland and spain will have economies that will be comparable to all of us and that just leads me to see dilution.

Already we pay far too much in aid to the eu and receive a pittance back, it costs us money every week in our wage packets and the sooner we al realise that the better.

Like what we really want/say makes any difference, who ever is in power @ 10 Downing Street will do as they wish even if its not what the majority of the public wants. Blair has already shown us ...

I belive the French spend approximately the same on their military as us, as for political power or influence I see very little difference between the three countries.

They might spend as much but you can't possibly be trying to compare the armed forces of France and Germany with our own can you?

Which nation hs more combat experience >> Britain
Who leads the overall numbers race >> Britain last time i checked
Who will stetch further ahead in Europe when it comes to the best equipped long range military assets [Outside the US and Japan] within the decade >> Britain, 2 new US style aircraft carriers to be built not much smaller than the Americn types, new Astute class Submarine Fleet etc
Who is advancing at somehwere close to the Americans >> Britain, we are both building the JSF to replace the Harrier, only us and Israel have the Apache, more advanced missile tech.

You do really have to be joking right? They don't come close.
Political Power and Influence huh? Well let's see, if the Germans or the French got caught in a tight spot, who can they call on for help? Not many big players where as we have the Americans which also goes back to the military thing; did you know they offered us one of their Aircraft Carriers for use in the Falklands War. Germany doesn't even have a permenant seat on the UN security council. Political and diplomatic influence, well i'd say that Blair for all his faults hass more sway in world events than Jaques Cherac and Shroder. I will concede that it is open to interpretation but one thingis for sure, Germany's influence ends outside the EU, that is not the same for the UK or the French.

I wasn't specifically thinking of the Euro, more that Germany, France, Belgium etc seem to want tighter intergration, currently as suggested we could pull out and just have trade agreements, but overtime they would become more tightly intergrated and as their intergration increased our bargaining position would become weaker and weaker and the terms of the trade deal would become less and less favourable to us, we would also be in a far weaker position in regard to trade and every other type of negotiation with the US, China, Japan and so on.

As for being ruled by France and Germany, I think you will find that if Britain actually fully commited itself to the EU for once then Britain would lead Europe with France and Germany.

And whitehall isn't top heavy?

I didn't think you were the greedy type Bagpuss, you would sacrafice your sovereignty and freedom and political well being for a quick buck and to be in on the action instead of it being the right thing to do.

So do tell me how with the voting system that the Germans and for some reason Blair is pushing will let us control our destiny from these shores? It will be governed by population numbers which we lsoe out on, we are as crammed on the British Isles as it is, we can't keep increasing in size. Maybe ruled was the wrong term but the evidence is clear, did you know that the meetings at the EC are all conducted in French, most of the EU institutions are in France and Germany, esa, eurostat, european court etc

Let me put it another way, we didn't agree with the French and the Germans over Iraq but our foreign policy will be decided for us by others, those two nations with the most votes under the newly proposed plan could determine our political stance for the world.

Whithall is not top heavy with those not accountable to US the british people.

Have you actually read the EU CONSTITUTION, do you know what it says, do you know the powers it gives the masters of it?

Or have you come in here blind, does not the corruption within the EC worry you or the fact that they spend about 60 seconds to decide on their vote in the European Parliament that will affect you?

Given that both before and after the war every bit of research found that the majority of people in this country were against it, it seems rather strange that you make accusations against Germany and France where the leaders actually took notice of their citizens opinions as opposed to Mr Blair who had decided to ignore the view of the majority of the public.

So you take from one event where some of the population as no poll can tell the story of a whole nation that al of a sudden Britain, Germany and France agree on the majority of things?

What about agricultural subsidies? Foreign Policy? Fishing Quotas? Religious Freedoms? Racial Equality? Taxation? << There is no way that the British population would accept continental taxes like VAT.

France opposed the US for a few reasons and they weren't the people; firstly they were in debt in a big way to Iraq and 2nd they thought it would be a good time to throw their weight wround the global political arena. I've debated the Iraq conflict with you a few months back or a bit less so i don't want to bring that up again.

I hope you are joking, because if not that is just sad, Germany has had the largest and best performing economy in Europe for most of this century, it has nothing to do with being in breach of EU directives, it is too do with training, education, attitude and that Germany is run for the benefit of all sectors, not just finance and insurance like ours. If you want to see why Germany has an underlying strong economy just compare the pathetic state of our car industry to theirs or take a look at how SAP is larger than all our software companies put together or maybe why our new trains are being built in Germany because our entire manufacturing sector has been left to die, for the benefit of two square miles in the centre of London.

It might have had a larger economy before but remember they are larger in size which does tend to make a big impact. But in tems of the percentages we are growing at a faster rate than both France and Germany.

Here is an extract from the BBC website dated November this year>>

Under the rules of the EU's Stability Pact, eurozone countries are not supposed to run budget deficits above 3% of GDP (gross domestic product).

The EC wants Germany to cut its deficit by 0.8% next year and bring it down to 3% by 2005, after 4 years in violation.

Would you not only consider that an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the continent but also a blatent breach for 4 years where they have considered themselves above the law. If they had adhered to EU directives they would not be where they are now, they would be much sorse off which is where they should be. Then they and France were in Breach on interest rates, the list is endless; YOU must be joking if can't see how that illegal behaviour hs got them where they are now and they are still worse off.

British manufacturing needed reform, if we hadn't become a more service based economy we would be worse off now. The employment market required restructuring. The nation has done pretty well out of the city of London so i can't see that as a bad move. The British car industry couldn't compete after the Japanese firms arrived, the othrs were bought out. From where i'm sitting i don't see how companies like Astro Zenica, Glaxo-Smithkline and Vodafone have been bad for the UK economy.

I'd love to go and buy a car from a large British firm [you can still do that with some companies] but if a more tertiary economy ws the right way to go things don't look too shabby right now. I'm more worried about the housing mraket when it bursts, actually i'm not too worried personally as i want to get a house in a few years but it would be bad news for the economy but i digress.

Of course I have some national pride, but there is a very big diffrence between me wanting the rugby team to win and someone believing English lives are worth more then anyone elses

National pride is not merely sports, it should b3 something you carry with you at all times. It's not about English lives being more important than others, it is about what is in the best interests of you, your nation, its past, its present and its future. You just appear to have a funny or certainly different way of showing it and perceiving what is best but that is up to you of course but my agreement is something else :)

In regard to Europe I would say it's you who is showing a lack of nationalism, you seem to want us out of the EU, yet in the long run that will kill our economy, when it comes to Global economics bigger is better and we will suffer for the lack of influence that we will have in the world out of Europe as a nation of 60 million as opposed to being part of the EU's hundreds of millions.

Where at any point in this thread have i said that we should leave the EU, i'm sure that i've said the oppisite, hmm :angry:

Lack of nationalism, HA, it is how i see our long term intersts and how they should be served; i am all for Europe uniting on issues and projects which i have stated in this thread, i am not in support for EU government which would put us at a disadvantage in may ways, i cannot support the EU CON in its current form, it is not representative and the continent is not ready. Take another look in 40-80 years. I cannot support the future of my country being governed through a constitution that has bias, is open to interpretation which is worse, binds us into it and reads like Distane thought it up whilst on a bender in Pais.

If you've read it, then i just can't see how you can say what yo do, if you haven't, you should, the official link is at the top of the page.

I wonder what it will take for you and me to agree on a topic tht you choose to debate with me ;) ha

whoa, whilst i was typing that up there have been two replies, better be quicker next time. s.g.a.zz.y, you are right to a point, if he wants us in and he doesn't want to offer us a referendum which is an absolute joke by the way; other countries are getting one, then the only other options open to us are tioting like with poll tax, direct action, vote him out, revolution maybe, that might be fun but it looks bleak at the minute.

Imagine the look on Blairs face if millions of people revolted and set up camp outside 10 Downing Street, i think he might listen then, you could take provisions, it could be like a street party atmosphere, that might change things or influence him.

It would make Georgia look like a couple of people on anight out, there wouldn't be a need for violence, instead of going home on the tube, Londoners could all get off at Westminster and pop round Tony's for a few days.

:D

They might spend as much but you can't possibly be trying to compare the armed forces of France and Germany with our own can you?
Who leads the overall numbers race >> Britain last time i checked


In 1999 the numbers in the respective militaries were approximately -

France - 554,000
Germany - 503,000
Britain - 301,000

Your nationalism seems to be blinding you to the facts. ;)


You do really have to be joking right? They don't come close.
Political Power and Influence huh? Well let's see, if the Germans or the French got caught in a tight spot, who can they call on for help?

I don't know how old you are Critic and I am not having a go about your age, but you don't seem to be old enough to of been witness to the fact that over the last 30 years Germany has had more influence in the US, Japan, WTO etc than either France or Britain for a very simple reason economics.


sacrafice your sovereignty and freedom and political well being for a quick buck and to be in on the action instead of it being the right thing to do.


I fail to see how my freedom or political well being would be affected by the EU constitution, maybe you could explain it to me?

As for sovereignty if you join a club you have to abide by the rules or it becomes useless like the UN, this means giving up a small amount of sovereignty, the benefits outweigh the loss of sovereignty.

The right thing to do is to be a full part of the EU and have influence on it, rather then sit at the sidelines and then eventually join in under worse terms like we have repeatedly done for the last 30 years.


So do tell me how with the voting system that the Germans and for some reason Blair is pushing will let us control our destiny from these shores? It will be governed by population numbers which we lsoe out on, we are as crammed on the British Isles as it is, we can't keep increasing in size. did you know that the meetings at the EC are all conducted in French, most of the EU institutions are in France and Germany, esa, eurostat, european court etc


I agree we are crammed to a certain to degree, but that is mainly down to the ridiculous distribution of wealth in this country, the governments obsession with London and idiotic planning policies which means vast numbers want to move to the south east, if we were better distributed it wouldn't be a problem.

Despite being crammed out population is predicted to carry on rising, which is the oppisite of most European countries. I think basing the voting on population is fine, we would have the second the largest vote along with France, do you think it's right that the UK, France and Germany currently have a voting weight of 29 whilst Spain and Poland have one of 27?

Many meetings are conducted in English, along with the largest amount of documentation being written in English. Most of the institutions are in France, Germany, Belgium etc, because they were the original members.


we didn't agree with the French and the Germans over Iraq but our foreign policy will be decided for us by others

Whithall is not top heavy with those not accountable to US


You keep using the rather bad example of Iraq, where our prime minister actually went agianst the wishes of the country. Anyway the EU will not determine our foriegn policy under the constitution, voyes on that have to be unanimous.

Whitehall is packed full of people not accountable to the public, along with the civil servants, there are Mr Blairs and Mr Browns "advisors" who seem to have far more effect on policy than most MPS, along with our ridiculous second chamber where we are replacing on lot of unelected, unaccountable peers with another lot of unelected, unaccountable appointed representitives.

Have you actually read the EU CONSTITUTION, do you know what it says, do you know the powers it gives the masters of it?

Or have you come in here blind, does not the corruption within the EC worry you

No I haven't read the entire the constituion have you? That's what programs like newsnight, question time and newspapers are for, so people both for and against it who have read it can point out the more contentious parts of it to the rest of us.

I think the EC / EU needs reforms, but then I also think our own system needs reform aswell.


Britain, Germany and France agree on the majority of things?


No I didn't say we agree on everything, I was just replying to your example.


What about ... Taxation? There is no way that the British population would accept continental taxes like VAT.


If you had read the constituion (or watched newsnight) you would know that we would keep our veto on things like foriegn policy and taxation, incidently we do pay VAT in Britain.



but remember they are larger in size which does tend to make a big impact. But in tems of the percentages we are growing at a faster rate than both France and Germany.


Yes size does make a difference, in fact it is the single biggest difference and why the size of the worlds largest economies almost exactly follows the size of the individuals economies population.

You seem to be missing the point with German economy, it's underlying strength is much stronger than that of the UK's, because it is far more diverse just like Japan and the US, the fact Germany is having a problem at the moment and we are doing relatively better does not detract from the fact they have the stronger economy by some way whilst ours has underlying weaknesses such as :

- a lack of diversity
- overrelience on consumer spending
- a terrible balance of trade deficit
- low productivity compared to US, Japan, France and Germany
- poor transport system
- slow planning process
- second rate vocational training

For most of the last forty years the German economy has been the engine of europe (often around the size of the french and UK economy put together) so please don't try and pass our current temporary situation off has meaning our economy is the best in europe.

Mr Blair would swap economies with Germany in an instant if he could, their problems are temporary and relatively easy to fix ours are deep and require massive restructuring.


Would you not only consider that an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the continent but also a blatent breach for 4 years

So Germany has been the powerhouse of europe for decades and we have no manufacturing industry, because they broke an EU directive, that must mean the US economic success is down to breaking a WTO directive on steel tariffs. :rolleyes:


if we hadn't become a more service based economy we would be worse off now. ... The nation has done pretty well out of the city of London so i can't see that as a bad move. The British car industry couldn't compete after the Japanese firms arrived, the othrs were bought out. From where i'm sitting i don't see how companies like Astro Zenica, Glaxo-Smithkline and Vodafone have been bad for the UK economy.


There is nothing wrong with becoming a more service based economy, what is wrong is setting fiscal and monetary policy entirely for the service industry particularly for the city of London, something which has virtually killed off our manufacturing industry, which as mentioned before has left as with a weak underlying economy and a huge trade deficit.

Yes we have some big companies, but pharmacueticals and telecommunications service companies are not affected by succesive governments disregard for manufacturing in the same way engineering, electricals are. Despite competition from asia I can still name plenty of large manufacturing companies from other european countries and north America that make cars, mobile phones, aircraft, trains, televisions, stereos, watches, microwaves, computers, etc ... the only big British company I can think of that actually engineers something and exports it is British Aerospace, maybe you can name others?


National pride is not merely sports, it should b3 something you carry with you at all times. It's not about English lives being more important than others, it is about what is in the best interests of you, your nation

You seem to have a very naive view of nationlism, nationlism is exactly about placing more value on the lives of a particularly group of people then anyone else for no logical reason. You talk about best interests, by putting the best interests of your nation above everythiong else you are placing more value on the peoples lives and way of life of your nation than anyone elses.


Lack of nationalism, HA, it is how i see our long term intersts


I think this is where the problem lies, you appear to believe that we can stay in the EU, but not at the centre of it and we that we can happily trot along for the next forty years, becuase we are part of the the EU trade agreements, so there isn't really a need for further intergration.

On the other hand I believe that over the next forty years the EU will become more and more intergrated, maybe even a superstate as such and at some point we will have to make our minds up wether we are in or out. If it is without us then eventually we can say goodbye to trading on equal terms, something which will kill our economy.

You also seem to be happy (or at least more happy than me) with the way our country is managed, I am not, look at our railways, health serivce, transport infrastructure, education, training, cost of living, planning laws, ridiculous political system then look at France or Germany and you will see that their equivilents are more effiecent, effective and modern in every way.

I do have to say that some of your selective quoting or misreading really does let you down bagpuss as i have to ask questions again.

In 1999 the numbers in the respective militaries were approximately -

France - 554,000
Germany - 503,000
Britain - 301,000

Well i stand corrected then, must have been misinformed on the numbers then.

That said, what is the point in having thousands more personnel/military pences when you have the distribution capacity that those two do.With the two new CV's [Carriers] we won't be matched in Europe, the French carrier fleet is at the same state as our own when it comes to tech and size, not brilliant but that will set us apart. We will also possess the most advanced submarines of any European nation with the Astute class.

On top of this we have the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] project with the Americans. This will boost the RAF by some way, then we have the Apache squdrons and the only other nation in the world to my knowledge to possess Cruise Missiles, the same versions as the US.

EU Defence would be a poor joke without our participation, France and Germany cannot match that advancement in technology and even you should accept this combat experience with the majority of your armed forces.

I don't know how old you are Critic and I am not having a go about your age, but you don't seem to be old enough to of been witness to the fact that over the last 30 years Germany has had more influence in the US, Japan, WTO etc than either France or Britain for a very simple reason economics.

Ok, wll no i can't claim that i was witness to history from the last years but i believe that we are discussing the here and now and not the past.

Do you think that Shroder or Cherac have anywhere near the influence of Blair with the US administration. Tony Blair for all his faults could run for President and nearly or actually win if the laws permitted it. Do you think that the French and the Germans would be offered an Aiircraft Carrier for an overseas operation with all the influence that you claim existed in the past.

They might have influence but i dount very much that as a nation they woule be considered a friend of America, when you are up against it you want friends, allies and not influence through economics.

I fail to see how my freedom or political well being would be affected by the EU constitution, maybe you could explain it to me?

As for sovereignty if you join a club you have to abide by the rules or it becomes useless like the UN, this means giving up a small amount of sovereignty, the benefits outweigh the loss of sovereignty.

The right thing to do is to be a full part of the EU and have influence on it, rather then sit at the sidelines and then eventually join in under worse terms like we have repeatedly done for the last 30 years

Political well being huh..well

All EU member states with a seat on the security council would be absorbed under one which would be the EU seat.

Less time will go into decision making and more EU laws would have primacy over our own.

Here is a big one, now i'l have to find the rticle and paragraph from my file but we can't just leaave, if and when we decided to do so our departure is negotiated and decided upon by the rest of the EC and how many european ties we should lose.

I don't doubt that for some situations it might be beneficial but can you tell me that you believe the same things and have the same ideals as the maority of Europe, i can with some but not all; it isn't intended to be a club it is trying to be its own country.

As i have said the right thing to do is to fight for mass reform within the EU, its purpose needs definition, it the French and the Germans can team up on an issue then so can we which we don't.

If we ant to influence Europe then we should but not as part of the destiny set out by Distane. It is the only plan on the table at the minute so the whole continent sees it as the only option instead of creating others. The human race has wanted to fly for hundreds of years but we didn't stop looking for ways to do it once the hot air balloon was created, we looked for more and now we can fly from London to Sydney wihtout stopping at hundreds of miles per hour or to New York in a few hours faster than sound.

What i am saying is that Europe is not ready, we haven't looked at all the options, we are rushing into it and there is a better way; find me a laywer and i'll create a better constitution than that.

It is not the only or right way for Britain to go.

I agree we are crammed to a certain to degree, but that is mainly down to the ridiculous distribution of wealth in this country, the governments obsession with London and idiotic planning policies which means vast numbers want to move to the south east, if we were better distributed it wouldn't be a problem.

Despite being crammed out population is predicted to carry on rising, which is the oppisite of most European countries. I think basing the voting on population is fine, we would have the second the largest vote along with France, do you think it's right that the UK, France and Germany currently have a voting weight of 29 whilst Spain and Poland have one of 27?

Many meetings are conducted in English, along with the largest amount of documentation being written in English. Most of the institutions are in France, Germany, Belgium etc, because they were the original members.

I can't believe you think that redistribution will solve our density problems and that then it is ok for our population to increase at an unacceptable rate. Do you want the whole nation to be urban centres and bildings i certainly don't.

Well i ws told my an employee at the EC that meetings between EU commisioners are in French and most other higher level meetings, guess he was lying then.

On the voting system right now, i think that the whole setup is a shambles, it would probably create more representation if there was 1 vote each and a quota of vetos per year or something. Then you need somewhere near unanimity on decisions if it is going to be a super state which i would be against.



This is beside the point as what i was getting at was if nations promote population increase they will have more votes than we could compete with.

You keep using the rather bad example of Iraq, where our prime minister actually went agianst the wishes of the country. Anyway the EU will not determine our foriegn policy under the constitution, voyes on that have to be unanimous.

Whitehall is packed full of people not accountable to the public, along with the civil servants, there are Mr Blairs and Mr Browns "advisors" who seem to have far more effect on policy than most MPS, along with our ridiculous second chamber where we are replacing on lot of unelected, unaccountable peers with another lot of unelected, unaccountable appointed representitives.

How is it a bad example, along with the others you chose to ignore for some reason it shows blatent disagreement, if we can't agree on an issue like that how will we agree on the simple things. What you have to remember is that your government represents you, not a poll in The Guardian.

On common foreign and security policy, yes you are right some decisions will requite a unanimus vote but decisions can be pushed through and decided upon through a majority vote when using Part III of the constitution.

Whitehallis full of civil servants but it is responsible to commities of MP's we elect, it is heded by a Minister who is put into office by us who we cn lobby, we do not possess this power in the european parliament.

You still haven't said what you think of decisions beign decided upon that affect you where the thought process is oly 65 seconds long on average?

If you had read the constituion (or watched newsnight) you would know that we would keep our veto on things like foriegn policy and taxation, incidently we do pay VAT in Britain.

For now, as Blair has shown, he has NO red lines, as soon as Shroder and Cherac walk into the room, they possess the tipix and that's another one gone.

I am going to answer the whole German economy section below as what i have to say covers your entire response >>>

Why do you keep looking back when we shoul be looingat what is happening nowand what is to come.

What is happening now and that is what we are talking about is that Germany's current economic well being is as a direct result of breaching multiple EU directives.

They SHOULD have higher unemployment.
They SHOULD NOT have the budget deficiit that they do as it is illegal under eurozone rules.
They BREACH EU employment and race relation laws.

Now if we look at TODAY and not the past are you still going to tell me that there economy would be where it is now if they werefollowing the rules that they just love to dictate or lay down to other nation states???

I cannot disagree that our manufacturing industry is small but our R&D setup is at the forefront and our service based companies set the standard globally with the US and Japan.

Manufacturing companies, large ones?

Bae as you mentioned.
ICM is on an upward trend
BP Amoco
Spectrum are in a good position for the futurebut not big yet.
Corus

Yes i admit it is small but you don't get to be a top 5 economic nation if your economy isn't wroth a damn.

I think that even you would agree that as much as Germany has Mercedes and Lexus and France Renault the real manufacturing centre on this planet is the Far East and China probably in the best position.

I've had to post twice, see below >>

You seem to have a very naive view of nationlism, nationlism is exactly about placing more value on the lives of a particularly group of people then anyone else for no logical reason. You talk about best interests, by putting the best interests of your nation above everythiong else you are placing more value on the peoples lives and way of life of your nation than anyone elses.

On this issue, what i believe, waiting and choosing correctly is the best decision for ecery nation in Europe. So by your logic Tony Blair as PM should look at the citizens of Germany of France when deciding on something that concerns us?

I think this is where the problem lies, you appear to believe that we can stay in the EU, but not at the centre of it and we that we can happily trot along for the next forty years, becuase we are part of the the EU trade agreements, so there isn't really a need for further intergration.

On the other hand I believe that over the next forty years the EU will become more and more intergrated, maybe even a superstate as such and at some point we will have to make our minds up wether we are in or out. If it is without us then eventually we can say goodbye to trading on equal terms, something which will kill our economy.

You also seem to be happy (or at least more happy than me) with the way our country is managed, I am not, look at our railways, health serivce, transport infrastructure, education, training, cost of living, planning laws, ridiculous political system then look at France or Germany and you will see that their equivilents are more effiecent, effective and modern in every way.

What i believe is that we are rushinginto this not looking at all the options and it is too soon for Europe to govern as a federal state, that's not what we signed up for as they say. Whichever way we go it will be a brave man/woman that makes the decision and if they choose wrong it could doom our nation into domestic terrorism, seperatist groups across Europe and well it could be messy and the whole EU idea could end in bloodshed before the century is up and Europe fragmented more than ever because we rushed into it.

On the Uk, i think things could be a lot worse, i've used the NHS and it wsn't a bad experience and it has its problems i admit; i use the tube quite often and i get by, a bit of modernising is needed there on the trains but i've used the Paris networdk subway and it was the worst commuting experience i've ever had, it seemed like it ws from the stone age; political system can be annoying when MP's don't answer a damn thing but then again it serves us well enough and Germany doesn't look to good compared to us, some of Frances laws are shocking so i'm happy i'm here and cost of living, well i live in London, the greatest city on the planet well i like it a lot and you have to expect those kind of prices, hell Paris isn't cheap you know and some things are worse.

That is my response :)

Oh one final thing, where did i say that i wanted us out of the EU, i don't remember you answering me on that?

thanks

Originally posted by Critic
I do have to say that some of your selective quoting or misreading really does let you down bagpuss as i have to ask questions again.


Sorry I wasn't meaning to be selective on the quoting, just my post went few hundred over the 10,000 character limit, so I hacked most of the overrun away from your quotes.

Originally posted by Critic

That said, what is the point in having thousands more personnel/military pences when you have the distribution capacity that those two do.With the two new CV's [Carriers] we won't be matched in Europe, the French carrier fleet is at the same state as our own when it comes to tech and size, not brilliant but that will set us apart. We will also possess the most advanced submarines of any European nation with the Astute class.

On top of this we have the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] project with the Americans. This will boost the RAF by some way, then we have the Apache squdrons and the only other nation in the world to my knowledge to possess Cruise Missiles, the same versions as the US.

EU Defence would be a poor joke without our participation, France and Germany cannot match that advancement in technology and even you should accept this combat experience with the majority of your armed forces.


Yes we are making some improvements and no doubt given the French spend about the same us on defence they are also making them, either way there is very little difference between the two armed forces, you would have made a better point about the military if you could remove your tunnel vision from the only other two countries in Europe who do spend a reasonable amount on the military and focused on the rest of Europe who spend a pitiful amount.

EU defence would be a joke without the UK and I have never said anything different, just as it would be a joke without the French. I never said our military wasn't up to that of the French and Germans, just that in reality there is no substantial difference between the three, something you don't seem to want to accept.

Originally posted by Critic

Ok, wll no i can't claim that i was witness to history from the last years but i believe that we are discussing the here and now and not the past.


As well as the here and now we are also discussing the future and unless you believe the German economy is never going to recover, then they will retain the position they have for the last 30 years due to the power of their economy.

Originally posted by Critic

Do you think that Shroder or Cherac have anywhere near the influence of Blair with the US administration. Tony Blair for all his faults could run for President and nearly or actually win if the laws permitted it. Do you think that the French and the Germans would be offered an Aiircraft Carrier for an overseas operation with all the influence that you claim existed in the past.

They might have influence but i dount very much that as a nation they woule be considered a friend of America, when you are up against it you want friends, allies and not influence through economics.


Obviously Shroder and particularly Chirac are not very popular with Bush at the moment, but again that is temporary something you can't seem to grasp. Furthermore what about influence with China, Japan, the WTO etc all of which Germany even in it's current state has more influence over than the UK.

You mention this aircraft carrier that the US were willing to lend us during the Falklands, to me that really shows the lack of influence the UK has in the Whitehouse. For a dubious war in Iraq we send 45,000 troops and spend billions as an ally to the US, when Argentina invaded our land the most the US could be bothered to do was supply us with some equipment, where were the US troops?

I don't doubt that when it comes to military actions the UK has more influence (albeit a insignificant amount) in the US than Germany or France, but when it comes to economics the US and everyone else looks to Germany first not the UK and in the overwhelming majority of cases when influence matters it is economic influence that matters, not anything else.

Originally posted by Critic

All EU member states with a seat on the security council would be absorbed under one which would be the EU seat.


Given that I think the UN at least in regard to security is a total waste of time that really is not a concern.

Originally posted by Critic

Less time will go into decision making and more EU laws would have primacy over our own.


Given that currently even when the general consensus of the country and most MPS is against something like foundation hospitals Blair and his whips still force it through I think anything will be an improvement over our system.

Originally posted by Critic

we can't just leaave, if and when we decided to do so our departure is negotiated and decided upon by the rest of the EC and how many european ties we should lose.


Sorry not sure what you mean by how many European ties we should lose.

Originally posted by Critic

I don't doubt that for some situations it might be beneficial but can you tell me that you believe the same things and have the same ideals as the maority of Europe, i can with some but not all; it isn't intended to be a club it is trying to be its own country.


I agree I don't share every ideal of Europe, but then neither do the Germans or the French, or in fact you and I, so I don't really see much of a diffrence between me having a difference of an opinion with you as opposed to me having a difference of opinion with a Swede.

Originally posted by Critic

What i am saying is that Europe is not ready, we haven't looked at all the options, we are rushing into it and there is a better way; find me a laywer and i'll create a better constitution than that.

It is not the only or right way for Britain to go.


You say there is another way, as I am still slightly unclear on your position on the EU, I’ll ask do you think the EU should become more closely integrated or not?

Originally posted by Critic

I can't believe you think that redistribution will solve our density problems and that then it is ok for our population to increase at an unacceptable rate. Do you want the whole nation to be urban centres and bildings i certainly don't.


No I don't want everywhere to urban, in fact quite the opposite, here in the south they are trying to cram houses and offices into every corner destroying green belts, whilst in the north there are many areas with rows of empty houses / factories which could all be built on, that is why I think poor distribution is a major problem.

Originally posted by Critic

On the voting system right now, i think that the whole setup is a shambles, it would probably create more representation if there was 1 vote each and a quota of vetos per year or something. Then you need somewhere near unanimity on decisions if it is going to be a super state which i would be against.

This is beside the point as what i was getting at was if nations promote population increase they will have more votes than we could compete with.


But whole point of the new system is trying to remove vetoes for most votes, because even if you limit the number of vetoes with 25 countries it will be hopeless.

So if you think population is no good as a bases what would you for example base the quota of vetoes on in your idea of a voting system?

Originally posted by Critic

How is it a bad example, along with the others you chose to ignore for some reason it shows blatent disagreement, if we can't agree on an issue like that how will we agree on the simple things. What you have to remember is that your government represents you, not a poll in The Guardian.


It is a bad example, because you are upholding how great it is that we choose our own foreign policy with a case where our leader went against the wishes of the majority of citizens in this country, that is nothing to brag about. Please give it up with the Guardian poll rubbish, with the exception of when the war had actually started when there was a small majority of people in favour of it, both before and after the majority of this country was against it, which was shown by every mori / gallup poll not just the Guardians, even Blair admitted it yet gave us the rubbish about he knew things the public didn't, that he knew he was right and the public would change their mind when all was revealed.

Originally posted by Critic

Whitehallis full of civil servants but it is responsible to commities of MP's we elect, it is heded by a Minister who is put into office by us who we cn lobby, we do not possess this power in the european parliament.


And who are Blairs and browns advisors accountable to or the house of lords? We can lobby our MEP's and every important decision in the EU, in the end is presented to the EC ministers where we have Mr Blair as our representative.

Originally posted by Critic

You still haven't said what you think of decisions beign decided upon that affect you where the thought process is oly 65 seconds long on average?


That’s because you haven't given a link or an explanation putting the claim into context.

Originally posted by Critic
Now if we look at TODAY and not the past are you still going to tell me that there economy would be where it is now if they werefollowing the rules that they just love to dictate or lay down to other nation states???
[/b]

No I am not going to tell you Germany's current economic situation is unaffected by them "breaking the rules", I am going to tell you that all it has done is brought their economy closer to recover quicker than if they had not broken the rules. It has had no bearing on the fact that Germanys economy is the strongest in Europe. You seem very concerned about the current and rather trivial effect over the long term of Germany's and France's overspending, so perhaps you would like to address the rather more serious problems that are hampering our economy in comparison to Germanys at present -

- a lack of diversity
- overrelience on consumer spending
- a terrible balance of trade deficit
- low productivity compared to US, Japan, France and Germany
- poor transport system
- slow planning process
- second rate vocational training

and why every economist in Britain would gladly swap the two if they could.

Originally posted by Critic
Manufacturing companies, large ones?

Bae as you mentioned.
ICM is on an upward trend
BP Amoco
Spectrum are in a good position for the futurebut not big yet.
Corus

Yes i admit it is small but you don't get to be a top 5 economic nation if your economy isn't wroth a damn.

I think that even you would agree that as much as Germany has Mercedes and Lexus and France Renault the real manufacturing centre on this planet is the Far East and China probably in the best position.
[/B]

I have no idea which ICM or spectrum you are referring to as there seem to be several companies of those names / initials,
either way the list is hardly spectacular. I would agree that the most important country in terms of production is becoming China, but many of the companies that have production their are Japanese, American, German, etc... You have undersold German manufacturing a bit, you missed out BMW, Porsche, Audi and Volkswagen (although I am not sure if vw are still German), not to mention Siemens, SAP, K&G and so on...

Yes our economy is pretty good, but it has serious underlying weaknesses that the US, Japan and Germany and to a lesser extent France don't have.

Originally posted by Critic
On this issue, what i believe, waiting and choosing correctly is the best decision for ecery nation in Europe. So by your logic Tony Blair as PM should look at the citizens of Germany of France when deciding on something that concerns us?
[/B]

No I said nationalism was "putting the best interests of your nation above everything else, there is a big difference between that and just looking out for your interests.

Originally posted by Critic
What i believe is that we are rushinginto this not looking at all the options and it is too soon for Europe to govern as a federal state, that's not what we signed up for as they say. Whichever way we go it will be a brave man/woman that makes the decision and if they choose wrong it could doom our nation into domestic terrorism, seperatist groups across Europe and well it could be messy and the whole EU idea could end in bloodshed before the century is up and Europe fragmented more than ever because we rushed into it.

On the Uk, i think things could be a lot worse, I’ve used the NHS and it wasn’t a bad experience and it has its problems i admit; i use the tube quite often and i get by, a bit of modernising is needed there on the trains but i've used the Paris networdk subway and it was the worst commuting experience i've ever had, it seemed like it ws from the stone age; political system can be annoying when MP's don't answer a damn thing but then again it serves us well enough and Germany doesn't look to good compared to us, some of Frances laws are shocking so i'm happy i'm here and cost of living, well i live in London, the greatest city on the planet well i like it a lot and you have to expect those kind of prices, hell Paris isn't cheap you know and some things are worse.
[/B]

Well the EU / EC has been around a good few decades now so I am not sure about rushing into it, I am not sure how signing up would mean domestic terrorism, although I accept that’s not what we signed up for, but in the long run the choice will eventually be in or out and we will be weaker out.

What laws in France are shocking?

Originally posted by Critic
Oh one final thing, where did i say that i wanted us out of the EU, i don't remember you answering me on that?
[/B]

You are quite right you didn't, I apologise, I can't imagine where I got the impression that you disliked the EU. :)

Obviously Shroder and particularly Chirac are not very popular with Bush at the moment, but again that is temporary something you can't seem to grasp. Furthermore what about influence with China, Japan, the WTO etc all of which Germany even in it's current state has more influence over than the UK.

You mention this aircraft carrier that the US were willing to lend us during the Falklands, to me that really shows the lack of influence the UK has in the Whitehouse. For a dubious war in Iraq we send 45,000 troops and spend billions as an ally to the US, when Argentina invaded our land the most the US could be bothered to do was supply us with some equipment, where were the US troops?

I don't doubt that when it comes to military actions the UK has more influence (albeit a insignificant amount) in the US than Germany or France, but when it comes to economics the US and everyone else looks to Germany first not the UK and in the overwhelming majority of cases when influence matters it is economic influence that matters, not anything else.

Oh i don't doubt that the relations of France and Germany will improve with America but it would probably take something on the scale of a declaration of War for our position to fall below the French and Germans if the 20th and 21st century evidence is anything to go by.

On the aircraft carrier and the Falklands the answer is quite simple, they were rejected by the British Government as well as any actual military support, it ws to be a British operation, however we did welcome the diplomatic pressure that they put on the regime in Argentina at the time and other S American nations.

On the economics and influence/military we will have to agree to disagree as to the differences and magnitude but i do have something to add on Germany a bit later.

Given that I think the UN at least in regard to security is a total waste of time that really is not a concern.

Well as long as the UN has a big say in International laws, resolutions that affect us or other things that would in turn affect us i would call it a big loss of independent thought and say on the International stage.

Sorry not sure what you mean by how many European ties we should lose.

ah, things like autonomy, if we wanted to scrap the euro or certain directives and the length of time we would take to phase out of it.

I agree I don't share every ideal of Europe, but then neither do the Germans or the French, or in fact you and I, so I don't really see much of a diffrence between me having a difference of an opinion with you as opposed to me having a difference of opinion with a Swede.

Where it matters is that the Swede or any other nationalities representative will vote on issues that will impact us with influence that doesn't currently exist. An example would be that the UK is more willing to use its military in operations around the world than other nations within the EU, this might stop what is right and we would have to act independently in breach of the rules if the cause was important enough. Another example would be sanctions on Zimbabwe, we wanted them to continue but the French and others did not which could stop that from going through.

But whole point of the new system is trying to remove vetoes for most votes, because even if you limit the number of vetoes with 25 countries it will be hopeless.

So if you think population is no good as a bases what would you for example base the quota of vetoes on in your idea of a voting system?

It might be but i dont' like population based voting, i'd rather have a single vote each, on the quotas that was just an option and by which i meant that a nation, possibly any nation would all get say 25 vetos that the nation could use per year on major decisions or some other system but it is the 20 votes for one country and 32 for another that i don't think it is right.

And who are Blairs and browns advisors accountable to or the house of lords? We can lobby our MEP's and every important decision in the EU, in the end is presented to the EC ministers where we have Mr Blair as our representative.


By Blair and Browns advisors i take it you mean those like ws her name Joan Ryan who got the transport secretary out of a job. Well they are hired help and their job is to advise, bar that they implement the policys of the Mp's of the Parties we put into power. The House of Lords, well they are like the second opinion group and sometimes they have saved us from horrible political decisions by obstructing parliament, after that there is the Parliament Act which can be envoked to force a law through. In simplistic terms they report to the house of commons. MEP's yes you can lobby them but not those they elect in turn and i thought that our permenant representative on the EC was Neil Kinnock and he isn't easy to get sense out of.

That’s because you haven't given a link or an explanation putting the claim into context.

Well i am going on orimary sources such as former MEP's of multople British parties; the context is the european parliament and decision making within it at a main session. Are you happy with that kind of effort and time going into your future. However i will try to find some secondary sources for this thread later.

No I am not going to tell you Germany's current economic situation is unaffected by them "breaking the rules", I am going to tell you that all it has done is brought their economy closer to recover quicker than if they had not broken the rules. It has had no bearing on the fact that Germanys economy is the strongest in Europe.

Yes theywill recover but the level as to which they end up could be and would be impacted by their adherence to the rules.

Do you not think this and other evidence of breaches of directives bodes badly for the EU as a nation if one of its principal nations cannot tow the line?

You might call the adherence to these rules trivial but if at the end of it Germany has turned into a Brazil then it would not be trivial.

When i look at your list of problems with the UK economy some i do agree with but others i do not. I would ask you if you have participated in vocational training/education as my experience would not suggest that it is second rate, in other areas we perform to our strenths; finally on the transport network i always think that sometimes people are moaning and going OTT which brits are born with in 1st class honours but regardless we spend what we can an i doubt that a British population would ever pay the taxes that the Germans do.

I would add that i feel that our employment market and its rules are far better than anything in France and Germany. Also we work harder which is a boost for the economy.

Have you ever used the Paris subway system or version of the tube, now that is something that needs urgent investment, ha?

I have no idea which ICM or spectrum you are referring to as there seem to be several companies of those names / initials,
either way the list is hardly spectacular. I would agree that the most important country in terms of production is becoming China, but many of the companies that have production their are Japanese, American, German, etc... You have undersold German manufacturing a bit, you missed out BMW, Porsche, Audi and Volkswagen (although I am not sure if vw are still German), not to mention Siemens, SAP, K&G and so on...

Yes our economy is pretty good, but it has serious underlying weaknesses that the US, Japan and Germany and to a lesser extent France don't have.

Well i wsn't aware of multiple companies with those names, especially not ones like the former that are on the stock market.

The ICM that i am talking about are in paints and Spectrum manufacture and sell solar panels which is a huge growth area and especially in Europe with our pending Kyoto agreements.

I've been doing some research and as far as i can tell Britain is the largest investor in China out of all EU countries and the 8th largest in the world. I was wondering if you could show me some evidence or tell me how you know that Germany invests more in China as this would have a GREAT impact upon the influence debate ?

Well the EU / EC has been around a good few decades now so I am not sure about rushing into it, I am not sure how signing up would mean domestic terrorism, although I accept that’s not what we signed up for, but in the long run the choice will eventually be in or out and we will be weaker out.

What laws in France are shocking?

i'll answer your latter question now as i plan to cover my opinions on the EU/EC and entry nearer the end.

What is shocking at the minute, well something that is happening right now at such a sensitive time which makes it sound worse is as follows:
They plan to ban the wearing of religious clothing and obvious symbols or objects from all state schools. One reason that they are using in their defenc is to do with Islamic fundamentalism and toerance. That i think is shocking and if they tried to put that through here it would be very very difficult. They are concentrating on the Islamic head scarf, it begins wwith H i think.

That is shocking in my opinion, not only the decision but the timing.

In the first of these two posts you were talking about the Guardian and the Iraq war, well i think i managed to make the same point elsewhere without mentioning Iraq. i wouldn't want you to think that i ws ignoring the point but i've done the Iraq thing with you ove a fair few pages quite recently and i didn't want to dig it up out of its temporary grave a month or two back again.

Now what do i think of the EU, the EC, about the EU CON, why is it too soon etc, well i will try to make it short and to the point below >>

I like our current position at the minute as a member of an economic trading blcok. I like our position within ESA [euro space agency] as it lets us enter the space industry even though it is top heavy.

Now the iffy bit.

Yes i do think that it is too soon, not only is Britain not redy for Europe governance but they are not ready for us with their etu and goals. Europe needs to show me that it can agree on the really big issues like foreign policy and i'm talking the governments and the left and the right when it comes to direction we are headed. Yes the EU has been around for a few decaes but Britain has been around for thousands of years and you can't begin to phase it out athrough an institution that hs exsted for a few decades. Also for the progression of Europe which is a huge idea we have the idea of one man, if you werer going to design a building that would change the face of London, you would have multiple ideas and choose the best one, not have the best one being the only one requested and that is it by default. I believe that all nations should submit a proposal and then we meld one out of it if one at all and that is not what has happend here o matter what Distane might claim. So for these reasons and others it is not in our intersts to enter this constitution at this time or in the near-medium term by the looks of it. For the resons i have listed also it really isn't the right thing to do for the other European nations.

We can unite for economic and environmental reasons, no problem, i'm fine with that but i refuse to sell the nation down the river to Brussels in its current form; they reform now and not after.

Right now they need us more than we need them by a long way in my view.

One final thing, do you think we should have a refarendum on the constitution?

And that's that, looks like i've gone over the page limit again, whoops, a bit of reading for you there i'm afraid. :D For some reason i feel like saying "God save the Queen". :agree:

In 1999 the numbers in the respective militaries were approximately France - 554,000
Germany - 503,000
Britain - 301,000

Your nationalism seems to be blinding you to the facts.-

Bagpuss, you are being too selective,

Firstly here are the figures for 2000/2001

France 294,000
Italy 251,000
germany 221,000
UK 212,000

These figures were taken from nationmaster.com

A little different to yours above, a hell of a drop nearly 300,000 for both france and germany, check nationmaster sources who are very reputable.

Italy has more manpower than the uk, that hardly supports your theory, Greece and Italy have more battlefield weapons than the uk, grabbing individual figures and saying these are the most powerful is not the most convincing arguement.

You have to take the entire picture and manpower is not really the most important issue within any military, technology and influence are,

For the basis of this thread we will take the germans and french and british and compare, and straight away germany is out, no nuclear weapons, that just leaves the uk and france and my previous post underlined why the uk in military terms are more powerful.

The British influence and allies far outsrip the french who cannot even rely on nato,and it is generally accepted that the french military would never be a match for the uk, also remember that the french actually had more manpower than the germans in ww2 did not do them much good.

Finally here is a correction to some figures i posted earlier, they were based on the cia world factbook of 2000 these are more up to date.

The top military spenders of 2002 were:

United States $343.2 billion
Russia** $65.0
China** $47.0
Japan $42.6
United Kingdom $38.4
France $29.5
Germany $24.9
Saudi Arabia $21.3
Italy $19.4
India $15.6
South Korea $14.1

SOURCE (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/eteconomicpers/global.html)

That alone should tell where the uk military is going in comparison to the french and germans and with the manpower narrowing i would suggest that the uk is far more powerful than any other eu state.

Its not nationalism its fact

Well as long as the UN has a big say in International laws, resolutions that affect us or other things that would in turn affect us i would call it a big loss of independent thought and say on the International stage.


I think the US has pretty well shown how unimportant the UN is.



Where it matters is that the Swede or any other nationalities representative will vote on issues that will impact us with influence that doesn't currently exist. An example would be that the UK is more willing to use its military in operations around the world than other nations within the EU, this might stop what is right and we would have to act independently in breach of the rules if the cause was important enough. Another example would be sanctions on Zimbabwe, we wanted them to continue but the French and others did not which could stop that from going through.


So going by that logic you must think we should pull out of the UN, WTO etc, because other countries vote on issues that impact us on exactly the two issues you mentioned.

Incidently do we actually have any sanctions against Zimbabwe, I remember when it came to the cricket world cup, several cricket board members pointing out the hypocriscy of certain government members who wanted the cricket team to boycott the Zimbabwe game despite there being no UK trade sanctions against Zimbabwe, because we have over 300 UK companies operating there.



By Blair and Browns advisors i take it you mean those like ws her name Joan Ryan who got the transport secretary out of a job. Well they are hired help and their job is to advise, bar that they implement the policys of the Mp's of the Parties we put into power.


If only that were the case, they don't only advise or implement, they formulate policy (along with Blair and Brown, our other MP's have very little say in policy making) just like Rumsfield, Cheney etc, except in the US they have checks and balances, where as with our outdated system we have none, we have an unelected, unaccountable second chamber who at best can hold up laws, but can't block them and a head of state that due to the fact she has got there by birth could never actually say no to a primeminister and so she is a total aste of space aswell.



The House of Lords, well they are like the second opinion group and sometimes they have saved us from horrible political decisions by obstructing parliament, after that there is the Parliament Act which can be envoked to force a law through. In simplistic terms they report to the house of commons. MEP's yes you can lobby them but not those they elect in turn and i thought that our permenant representative on the EC was Neil Kinnock and he isn't easy to get sense out of.


The house of lords report to no one, they are unelected, unaccountable and given the parliment act they are a waste of space and mooney, we have a primeminister who acts like a president, but without anyone who can check his decsions, our system is a disgrace.

When I said our EC representitive, I meant as in the council of ministers, because every important decision (and some not so important) has to eventually be signed off by each countries leader.



Do you not think this and other evidence of breaches of directives bodes badly for the EU as a nation if one of its principal nations cannot tow the line?


I obviously think it would be better if they didn't break the rules, but in this particular case I think the rule was a poor one, I don't think it bodes one way or the other for the EU becasue I can't think of an institution that hasn't broken it's on rules sometiome or another.



When i look at your list of problems with the UK economy some i do agree with but others i do not. I would ask you if you have participated in vocational training/education as my experience would not suggest that it is second rate, in other areas we perform to our strenths; finally on the transport network i always think that sometimes people are moaning and going OTT which brits are born with in 1st class honours but regardless we spend what we can an i doubt that a British population would ever pay the taxes that the Germans do.

I would add that i feel that our employment market and its rules are far better than anything in France and Germany. Also we work harder which is a boost for the economy.

Have you ever used the Paris subway system or version of the tube, now that is something that needs urgent investment, ha?


No I have not participated in vocational training, I studied economics at LSE which is precisely why I believe I am correct in my asessment that the UK economy, despite it's relative success has serious fundamental problems that Germany and even to some extent France does not have.

Luckily for me this weeeks copy of computing has an article on IT vocational training :


UK companies are shunning vocational routes into IT jobs because they are still seen as a last resort and educationally inferior to university degrees, new research has found.
Although a comparison with German companies found that their UK counterparts were unlikely to demand an IT degree for an IT job, few embrace vocational routes into technology-related roles.

And Modern Apprenticeships in the UK have failed to take off, mainly because they have been poorly publicised.

The study from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics (LSE) also found that an apprenticeship scheme for IT jobs in Germany has been warmly received by employers since its introduction in 1997.

To date more than 60,000 individuals have taken an IT apprenticeship compared with only 3,000 Modern Apprenticeships in Britain across all disciplines.

"In Germany there is a recognised, established route for IT apprenticeships, and it's a model that will serve German companies well in the future," said report author Dr Hilary Steedman from the LSE.


On transport, our problems don't specifically lie with how much we spend, but are to do with poor planning and a total lack of co-ordination. You mention the Paris underground, which I agree is not that impressive, but then you fail to mention the motorways which are not gridlocked like many of ours or that they have a superb rail network which just highlights how bad ours is, both of which give the french an economic edge over us.

I agree our employment regulations are better, they were vastly better, but the gap between us and the rest of europe in this area is closing.



Well i wsn't aware of multiple companies with those names, especially not ones like the former that are on the stock market.

The ICM that i am talking about are in paints and Spectrum manufacture and sell solar panels which is a huge growth area and especially in Europe with our pending Kyoto agreements.



I still have no idea who ICM are, do you mean ICI?



I've been doing some research and as far as i can tell Britain is the largest investor in China out of all EU countries and the 8th largest in the world. I was wondering if you could show me some evidence or tell me how you know that Germany invests more in China as this would have a GREAT impact upon the influence debate ?


No Britain invests more than any other EU country in China (the UK gov puts us has the sixth highest investor in the world), however it's not quite as simple as that, there is import and export between the countries to consider and the current state of the the EU / UK economies. Germany exports about 25% more than the uk to China which isn't massive, but importantly it imports about 5 times as much from China as the UK does, even in it's current weakened economic state, that combined with the fact the Chinese know the German economy will get back on it's feet increasing it's imports and investment in China is why Germany will have more influence.



They plan to ban the wearing of religious clothing and obvious symbols or objects from all state schools.


I agree to a certain extent, although I wouldn't class them as shocking certainly strange and ill thought out, no they wouldn't work here, but one of Britains best points is that it is probably the most liberal country in the world and those sort of laws would not go down well here. Saying that if you want a truly shocking set of laws, our anti-terrorism ones are a prime example, which have been critcised by a select commitee reviewing them are really shocking.



One final thing, do you think we should have a refarendum on the constitution?


Apart from this bit I'll reply to the rest of your post tommorow, unlike you I need my sleep. :o

No I don't think we should have a referendum, because I fundamentally disagree with them. I'll give you an example of why, take the Euro, now some people will vote against this after studying and carefully weighing up all the economic arguments, that is fine I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as they have considered the facts, however others will also vote no, but for very different reasons such as they "we don't want that funny money here, we want the pound with the queen on it" or any other baseless reason that The Sun plasters accross it's page for morons to repeat like some mantra.

Referendums simply enable people who completely unqualified to do so, make decisions that will have huge economic and political consequences for our country for years to come, better to go with the lesser of two evils and let the MPs decide, who at least will have studied and discussed all the facts and views before they com eto a decision.

I think the US has pretty well shown how unimportant the UN is.

The US has shown in recent months that the UN wasn't able to keep up with its timetable but all nations still see that the UN serves a purpose which doesn't always have to include security, do you not feel that our seat is necessary where we would need to lobby for other military action or to opose anothers, then there is international development, environment, Aids etc for which for last one America is miles and billions of dollars ahead of any EU nation.

In the past and please correect me if i am wrong, you have stated the UN as necessary and its resolutions mean somwthing, do you no longer feel that this is the case?

So going by that logic you must think we should pull out of the UN, WTO etc, because other countries vote on issues that impact us on exactly the two issues you mentioned.

Incidently do we actually have any sanctions against Zimbabwe, I remember when it came to the cricket world cup, several cricket board members pointing out the hypocriscy of certain government members who wanted the cricket team to boycott the Zimbabwe game despite there being no UK trade sanctions against Zimbabwe, because we have over 300 UK companies operating there.



Oh no i would not want us to withdraw from the UN or the WTO for one main reason for me, they don't and will not govern us in the way that a Federal Europe will. You see the UN and the WTO still hold the image and operations of a club where as i have previously stated and you have as well the EU is destined for a Super State, this is the defining factor for me.

On Zimbabwe, there was a travelling ban on all government members unless otherwise stated throughout the EU and America and a cap on certain financial assets in banks within the regions. I am certain on the travelling ban and fairly sure on the financial one. Even within the last 24 hours more draconian free press laws have been announced in Zimbabwe. Personally a British funded and or participated military operation with heavy African involvement needs to be put into action similar to Sierra Leone. That said if we can't get the Africans to aid us then the least we can do is to boost the resources of the MDC.

No I have not participated in vocational training, I studied economics at LSE which is precisely why I believe I am correct in my asessment that the UK economy, despite it's relative success has serious fundamental problems that Germany and even to some extent France does not have.

I don't disagree that there is snobbery in areas of UK business toward vocational training/education but what you have to remember is that vocational training is not all about IT, other fields such as Business, Management, Communication e.t.c. These are big areas too and considering i have experience in them i can tell you that i have impacted no such snobbery or poor quality and it has served me well and i have seen no such affect with others who have shared the same experience.

If only that were the case, they don't only advise or implement, they formulate policy (along with Blair and Brown, our other MP's have very little say in policy making) just like Rumsfield, Cheney etc, except in the US they have checks and balances, where as with our outdated system we have none, we have an unelected, unaccountable second chamber who at best can hold up laws, but can't block them and a head of state that due to the fact she has got there by birth could never actually say no to a primeminister and so she is a total aste of space aswell.

AND THIS ONE

The house of lords report to no one, they are unelected, unaccountable and given the parliment act they are a waste of space and mooney, we have a primeminister who acts like a president, but without anyone who can check his decsions, our system is a disgrace.

When I said our EC representitive, I meant as in the council of ministers, because every important decision (and some not so important) has to eventually be signed off by each countries leader.
[
Correct, the house of lords is not full of peers elected into office but there is a phasing out of hereditary peefs currently. I am quite happy with the system we have at the minute with Parliament being the centre of decision making and debate, the house of Lords is fine by me as a public sounding board/second opinion and i would disagree that the Parliament Act is a waste ofspace, how exactly? It does its job and if necessary can be used to push laws through as is anticipated with the hunting bill which i am not entirely happy with if it is the precursor to other such laws but i go a tad off topic.

You call the system outdated but i would say that we have tradition and history, I would say that our current parliamentary system is closer to the people [i can't help it if some of the individuals elected slightly ruin that line] than anything in the US as much as i like the US.

You are wrong about the Queen by the way she can actually decline to pass a law and not announce it in her speech as hers is the final signature, f course it might start a second civil war, oh if she did hat over the EU CON how great that would be.

You appear to m full of contradictions bagpuss, you seem not to like the idea that Blair acts like a President but then you seem to want an elected head of state true??

I can picture you now, politically speaking, you are a Republican voting Liberal Democrat, ;)

All I can say on the special advisors is that you give them too much credit, at the end of the day Blair is responsible to his party and select comities just as in the US, you might think that the special advisors run he country but I don’t.

Finally on the EC I now see who u said Blair but even I was not aware that Blair signed everything that came out of Brussels that impacted us, I’ll have to look into that.

I obviously think it would be better if they didn't break the rules, but in this particular case I think the rule was a poor one, I don't think it bodes one way or the other for the EU becasue I can't think of an institution that hasn't broken it's on rules sometiome or another.

Firstly I think you are letting your personal opinion cloud your judgement saying that it would be better is an understatement as it is surely more than that as there is no way we would have gotten away with it or attempted to, for me it bodes badly as it shows that they are willing to do it without a second thought again and again but would then lay down the law to others but want to start up some kind of super state or empire that is held up as the way.

On transport, our problems don't specifically lie with how much we spend, but are to do with poor planning and a total lack of co-ordination. You mention the Paris underground, which I agree is not that impressive, but then you fail to mention the motorways which are not gridlocked like many of ours or that they have a superb rail network which just highlights how bad ours is, both of which give the french an economic edge over us.

I agree our employment regulations are better, they were vastly better, but the gap between us and the rest of europe in this area is closing.

Considering I have no experience of French motorways for a few years I can’t really argue the point that they aren’t more free moving than our own but here are some reasons that I can offer that are native to us; we probably have more cars per person than France and on our island being a smaller in terms o area and going back to what we discussed previously, population density. Now the over ground rail network probably is what I’ve experienced of it a higher standard but that does have a lot to do with investment and it isn’t all planning and co-ordination. On which it might be the different characteristics of the two nations, in Britain/England a mans house is his Castle and all that and the NIMBY nature, I wouldn’t want railway or a motorway going though my back garden and you’d have to pay me a bit to move me along unless I could see the sense in it. On co-ordination as you know we have a privatised segmented over ground network and a lack f communication can be a side affect t but feel this will be changing soon If any gov wishes to stay in power. I would also quickly add that the roads in Paris are rubbish compared to London and the driving is muc worse.

On the employment and labour market in Europe, you claim that the gap is closing but I would hardly call the working time directive and some of the tax rates on the continent doing just that if not the opposite.

I still have no idea who ICM are, do you mean ICI?

ICM? What was I talking about, must be something in the water :angry: at self, yes I do mean ICI and I am well aware of their current “could do better” situation but that is what I came up with on short notice at the time. I would bring to your attention something which you probably already know the British manufacturing sector has been in a recession for some time now and that did limit what I could think of at the time but hat is no excuse I concede.

No Britain invests more than any other EU country in China (the UK gov puts us has the sixth highest investor in the world), however it's not quite as simple as that, there is import and export between the countries to consider and the current state of the the EU / UK economies. Germany exports about 25% more than the uk to China which isn't massive, but importantly it imports about 5 times as much from China as the UK does, even in it's current weakened economic state, that combined with the fact the Chinese know the German economy will get back on it's feet increasing it's imports and investment in China is why Germany will have more influence. [/QOTE]

Well you learn something new every day, I didn’t know some of that but I would still maintain hat currently they would rather Have our billions of foreign investment which is rising along with imports from what I’ve found than he imports/exports and it probably closes the gap enough in our favour but that last bit is speculation. Also Tony Blair visited the region not long ago, a few months maybe and I would say going back to the influence argument that with HK, the investment and the diplomacy we would have the influence and not Germany.

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

I agree to a certain extent, although I wouldn't class them as shocking certainly strange and ill thought out, no they wouldn't work here, but one of Britains best points is that it is probably the most liberal country in the world and those sort of laws would not go down well here. Saying that if you want a truly shocking set of laws, our anti-terrorism ones are a prime example, which have been critcised by a select commitee reviewing them are really shocking.

One of he reasons I brought it up was I could see that on the drawing board for us through time and it is relative as to how you judge it in severity but I think it is nigh on persecution at a early age. I would not consider our anti-terrorism laws shocking, it might not be how things were done pre 9/11 but since then and into the future we plan to stick our head above the parapet against those tat oppose us, I’ve heard that we’ve stopped multiple attacks trough this so if the SIS and MI5 and the anti terrorist branch feel it is justified then I have no problem with it, it isn’t camp Delta on the Isle of Wight, it is an unfortunate necessity if required.

[QUOTE] Apart from this bit I'll reply to the rest of your post tommorow, unlike you I need my sleep.

No I don't think we should have a referendum, because I fundamentally disagree with them. I'll give you an example of why, take the Euro, now some people will vote against this after studying and carefully weighing up all the economic arguments, that is fine I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as they have considered the facts, however others will also vote no, but for very different reasons such as they "we don't want that funny money here, we want the pound with the queen on it" or any other baseless reason that The Sun plasters accross it's page for morons to repeat like some mantra.

Referendums simply enable people who completely unqualified to do so, make decisions that will have huge economic and political consequences for our country for years to come, better to go with the lesser of two evils and let the MPs decide, who at least will have studied and discussed all the facts and views before they com eto a decision.

Firstly I need and like my sleep but sometimes I’ve got stuck in some weird time-zone, US Mountain Time I believe :)

So you are discriminating against those who don’t do as much research s yourself, do you feel that this should be the case in the General Election?

I won’t doubt that some go on gut instinct or what they think without doing as much research as others but they are entitled to do that and we don’t have a criteria as to you need to know a certain amount to vote.

So you need to be qualified to vote now? ah better go pass the test.

To me and tell me if this is just too simplistic, if it went to the nation to decide they would say [B]NO I large numbers and as you would say YES, it would not be in your interests to want a vote on a constitution would it?? Your side of the debate would lose.

I would point out that a recent poll asking many any thousands f people so not your average poll performed on behalf of the BBC and the Guardan found that most would not want to drop the pound and if they had to have another currency a clear majority of 65-70 percent would rather have the dollar and only a smll minority the euro. That s a month or two old I’d say.

Originally posted by Critic
The US has shown in recent months that the UN wasn't able to keep up with its timetable but all nations still see that the UN serves a purpose which doesn't always have to include security, do you not feel that our seat is necessary where we would need to lobby for other military action or to opose anothers, then there is international development, environment, Aids etc for which for last one America is miles and billions of dollars ahead of any EU nation.

In the past and please correect me if i am wrong, you have stated the UN as necessary and its resolutions mean somwthing, do you no longer feel that this is the case?


My comments on the UN were in response to your view that we would possibly have an EU veto (which we won't) as opposed to a UK one and the loss of influence that may create, given that the veto only applies to security I am only really refering to security issues when I say the UN is useless.

On the US and aids, yes Bush has finally done something decent and pledged far more than anyone else to aids, but you seem to be as usual picking up the one plus point and ignoring the many bad points :

- The US has consistantly been at or near the bottom of OECD countries in the amount of aid it gives, unlike many EU countries and Japan.

- The US (and EU) cause the loss of many times that aids money through the destructive efffects of their agricultural subsidies on the poorer areas of the world.

- When it came to allow the non-OECD countries to create cheap copies of drugs to deal with aids it was the US who put the blocks up and insisted on a whole bunch of restrictions, making the deal next to useless.

- There is some huge figure around $350 trillion of damages in various courts around the planet lodged against America by victims / countries of the slave trade, yet I don't see any of that being paid anytime soon.

I've always thought the UN was a waste of time, but when the US / UK justified there war with the breaking of resolutions, then surely that should apply to all countries consistantly and if they are using the UNs authority being broken as a reason, then they believe in the UNs authority and should of gone through the UN, but they didn't, because the UN means nothing to them.


I don't disagree that there is snobbery in areas of UK business toward vocational training/education but what you have to remember is that vocational training is not all about IT, other fields such as Business, Management, Communication e.t.c.

If you want to look at another area try construction, in Britain the term builder can mean anything from total cowboy who has had no training at all to someone well trained, skilled that will do an excellent job, in Germany to call yourself a builder you have to go through a 3 years of vocational training, which country has got it right?

I am not saying all vocational training is useless in Britain, but we have shortages of skilled people in many areas like construction, IT, engineering etc due to problems with our training / education.



Correct, the house of lords is not full of peers elected into office but there is a phasing out of hereditary peefs currently.


And what are they being replaced with, unelected, unaccountable appointed peers (chosen by the PM), which is even worse than the hereditery lot, at least it's down to chance as to what they believe, with Tony handpicking everyone we will just end up with a pro Blair second chamber.

Originally posted by Critic

I am quite happy with the system we have at the minute with Parliament being the centre of decision making and debate, the house of Lords is fine by me as a public sounding board/second opinion and i would disagree that the Parliament Act is a waste ofspace, how exactly?


I find it amazing that anyone could be happy with our current system, where MPs are either bullied by the whips or bribed by Bliair into voting / abstaining regardless off how they actually feel on issue.

Originally posted by Critic

i can't help it if some of the individuals elected slightly ruin that line


But that is the problem we have a total lack of balances and checks, which enables certain individuals to behave how they do, our system needs reform.

Originally posted by Critic

You are wrong about the Queen by the way she can actually decline to pass a law and not announce it in her speech as hers is the final signature, f course it might start a second civil war, oh if she did hat over the EU CON how great that would be.


I am aware that in theory the Queen could stop a law, but the point is in reality she can't, because the country wouldn't stand for it and she would be removed.

Originally posted by Critic

You appear to m full of contradictions bagpuss, you seem not to like the idea that Blair acts like a President but then you seem to want an elected head of state true??


I have no objections to the idea of a president in fact I would prefer that system, the reason I object to Blair acting like one is because our antiquated system provides no real balances and checks.

Originally posted by Critic

at the end of the day Blair is responsible to his party and select comities just as in the US, you might think that the special advisors run he country but I don’t.


No it's not just as in the US :

- in the US there is a clear seperation of powers, Bush cannot simply threaten / bribe every member of the republician party with demotion / promotion to get his own way, unlike here. Nor can he handpick members of the second chamber like Blair.

- Here due to the lack of seperation we have people who should be able to vote freely unable to, because they are ministers / members of the government and therefore have to vote the government line, in the US the members of the executive (Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) don't get a vote.

- In the US they have two chambers which can both not just debate their presidents decisions, but can actually stop them.


we probably have more cars per person than France and on our island being a smaller in terms o area and going back to what we discussed previously, population density. Now the over ground rail network probably is what I’ve experienced of it a higher standard but that does have a lot to do with investment and it isn’t all planning and co-ordination. On which it might be the different characteristics of the two nations, in Britain/England a mans house is his Castle and all that and the NIMBY nature, I wouldn’t want railway or a motorway going though my back garden and you’d have to pay me a bit to move me along unless I could see the sense in it. On co-ordination as you know we have a privatised segmented over ground network and a lack f communication can be a side affect t but feel this will be changing soon If any gov wishes to stay in power. I would also quickly add that the roads in Paris are rubbish compared to London and the driving is muc worse.


Yes France is larger and I don't expect our system to be as good due to that, however our system should at least be close, but it is a joke, anyway this is what the CBI makes of our transport "system" :


In an assessment of the 10-year transport plan, the CBI said it had failed "on delivery and as a solution to congestion".

"Congestion on key parts of the road network is worse than before the plan and performance on the railways has yet to return to the levels of the late 1990s," said CBI director general Digby Jones.

"As a result businesses lack the confidence they need to make investment decisions that are vital for future growth and the continued economic success of the UK."

On the employment and labour market in Europe, you claim that the gap is closing but I would hardly call the working time directive and some of the tax rates on the continent doing just that if not the opposite.


Erm... wrong, I'll direct you to the latest CBI report :


The CBI is speaking out over development of the UK labour market, saying competitor countries are threatening "to steal a jewel in the crown of the UK economy".

The move follows widespread concern about declining UK competitiveness, sparked by increases in regulation and taxation, plus slow progress on transport and basic skills.

The first report in the series compares Britain's labour market flexibility with the US, Germany, France, Spain and Holland. It sayscompetitor countries are closing the gap with the UK, which has the most flexible labour market in the EU and the lowest unemployment.

- a "relentless build up" of employment regulation is eroding strengths such as freedoms to change work patterns and workforce numbers;

- weaknesses - such as "appallingly low" levels of basic skills - are improving too slowly and may take decades to resolve;

- key competitors - like France and Germany - are removing layers of labour regulation while the UK has moved in the opposite direction;

Digby Jones, CBI Director-General, said:

"Labour market flexibility has been a jewel in the crown of the UK economy for 20 years, but other countries are threatening to steal that jewel.

"In areas where the UK is strong, we are moving in the wrong direction. In areas where the UK is weak, our improvement is only patchy. The price could be extremely high because our competitors are closing the gap."



So you are discriminating against those who don’t do as much research s yourself, do you feel that this should be the case in the General Election?

To me and tell me if this is just too simplistic, if it went to the nation to decide they would say NO I large numbers and as you would say YES, it would not be in your interests to want a vote on a constitution would it?? Your side of the debate would lose.


No I am not discriminationg against them, because I don't agree with referendums full stop so no one would vote in them including me.

No a general election is fine, in fact thats one reason referendums are pointless, we vote in people at the general election who can spend time studing all the facts to make the right decisions for us.

You seem to be missing the point slightly of my view of referendums, I don't agree with them full stop, regardless of the issue and wether the outcome would or wouldn't be one I liked. I am sure if they had a referendum on the war the outcome would of been favourable to my point of view, but I still wouldn't of wanted a referendum they are a very poor mechanism for making informed decisions.

My comments on the UN were in response to your view that we would possibly have an EU veto (which we won't) as opposed to a UK one and the loss of influence that may create, given that the veto only applies to security I am only really refering to security issues when I say the UN is useless.

On the US and aids, yes Bush has finally done something decent and pledged far more than anyone else to aids, but you seem to be as usual picking up the one plus point and ignoring the many bad points :

- The US has consistantly been at or near the bottom of OECD countries in the amount of aid it gives, unlike many EU countries and Japan.

- The US (and EU) cause the loss of many times that aids money through the destructive efffects of their agricultural subsidies on the poorer areas of the world.

- When it came to allow the non-OECD countries to create cheap copies of drugs to deal with aids it was the US who put the blocks up and insisted on a whole bunch of restrictions, making the deal next to useless.

- There is some huge figure around $350 trillion of damages in various courts around the planet lodged against America by victims / countries of the slave trade, yet I don't see any of that being paid anytime soon.

I've always thought the UN was a waste of time, but when the US / UK justified there war with the breaking of resolutions, then surely that should apply to all countries consistantly and if they are using the UNs authority being broken as a reason, then they believe in the UNs authority and should of gone through the UN, but they didn't, because the UN means nothing to them.

Well from what i've heard and found out the EU seat on the security council is a runner but lets look at it either way.

I'd like to defend the claim that i usualyy only put aside the plus points or that was my intention when referring to Aids, i was merely listing other areas where the UN is of use and where our position as an independent member on the permenant security council would help us [GB] when lobbying for issues; i only brought up the US to show an area where they are leading the way as YOU don't always see them in such a favourable light.

The US might not be pulling its weight when it comes to overseas aid and i'll have to take your word on that as i have yet fo find some figures to back that up but the UK is probably the leader in the EU whether through intent or finance; you will disagree with me but the French could as with the US/UK scrap the debt owed to them by Iraq, that doesn't look good, the UK has wiped the debt owed to it by the worlds 40 poorest nations and back to the US and the UK, if memory serves at the time of those terrible floods in Mozambique a couple of years back the UK was with South Africa leading the way with search and rescue and the US was on the scene quickly but i can't say the same for other nations. The US is far better than most other 1st world nations with immediate aid after an incident but can fall away in the long term i accept.

On agricultural subsidies which created some big problems at the last major meeting of the WTO in Mexico is a personal cause it appears for Blair and the UK concerning their aboloshment but yes the US and the French have held things up, this does have to be handled carefully however as just putting every nation on one level would create a whole new range of problems. The flood of GM crops in and out of Africa could be one of them as some EU nations and the whole EU currently won't buy them, then they're back at square one.

There might be trillions of claims over the slave trade but for any of them to succeed would be just ridiculous as that kind of action would cripple the developed world so its never gonna heppen; how far back would others take it, if they did it then the commonwealth nations and S American ones would be at it with France and Britain etc

The US and the UK did use the UN as far as it would take them and their cause, once they saw that the French would simply veto and they could carry the day they decided to go around the UN in a similar way to NATO and Kosovo.

Most times and this has been seen in the past that the UN has served and still does a purpose and can do in security issues, for example Liberia, DRC and East Timor which has really turned into a success. I'd point out that in that case the UK had large participation and where was Europe, lagging.

If you want to look at another area try construction, in Britain the term builder can mean anything from total cowboy who has had no training at all to someone well trained, skilled that will do an excellent job, in Germany to call yourself a builder you have to go through a 3 years of vocational training, which country has got it right?

I am not saying all vocational training is useless in Britain, but we have shortages of skilled people in many areas like construction, IT, engineering etc due to problems with our training / education.

The German system as you have described it will create a larger base of quality in that trade but there are groups which building firms and contractors can belong to which shows they meet necessary governemnt standards so if people choose to use cowboy firms then the fault does rest with them.;

You can bring up your reports from the CBI and how they view areas of the vocational sector in the UK but i've been there and seen it and i can tell you that in Business fields that that just doesn't aquare up qith what i've experienced.

There is a lack of certain skilled fields but if people don't want to work in that sector then it does make things difficult, the stigma of some skilled jobs isn't helping but they are reasonabl well paid and things are looking up, every plubing course in the UK is heavily over subscribed [as of a month ago] so we will atleast have a lot of plumbers charging time and a half for something you dohn't need :)

I am aware that in theory the Queen could stop a law, but the point is in reality she can't, because the country wouldn't stand for it and she would be removed.

Some of the country wouldn't stand for it and it would depend what it concerned, now i'm not suggesting that it was common place but if the issue was large enough and would impact the nation in scuh a way that a constitutional monarch felt that they had to act it might help balance things up. A decision once every few hundred years would do it like about now. The Queen would be out of a job if the EU CON was implemented in its current form so you couldn't blame her for doing it.

Just had to split a hair there, sorry.

Oh generally speaking about his thread, you seem to think that Blair is some kind of Dictator who bribes and forces his way through government, i think that is a bit OTT, on some issues recently Blair has needed the Conservatives to help him carry the day and there have been a lot of large rebellions recently. If the MP's can't hold their nerve then they are too weak.

I have no objections to the idea of a president in fact I would prefer that system, the reason I object to Blair acting like one is because our antiquated system provides no real balances and checks.

So you feel that the office of Prime Minister is antiquated? ah and the fact that you are a Republican or lean that way does not surprise me. How you view the system is up to you and i'm not going to change your mind on that, you obviously seem to think we need a lot of checks and balances, oh no MORE RED TAPE for the gov now.

You talk about seperation and how the US system is so superior but here are some examples that would suggest otherwise, reports suggested that Blunkett lead a rebellion within the cabinet over top-up fees and that kind of high profile stance cnould not happen in the states. Here is something more important for me, when was the last time you heard that a third of the republicans or democrats in Congress or the Senate rebelled on a major issue like can and has occurred over here; even with the whips and other pressures i'd suggest that it appears there is more opposition and freedom to so over here.

If one President own both houses via a majority then that system looks a bit shabby as well.

Yes France is larger and I don't expect our system to be as good due to that, however our system should at least be close, but it is a joke, anyway this is what the CBI makes of our transport "system" :

Looks like a classic CBI over reaction to me, they represent industries that are in recessionso things won't look good anyway.

I would conter that we are attempting to shift more freight back otno trains and the Canal/waterways network in the UK so attempts are being made to spread the load. There is a new wave of airport construction underway and they could reduce congestion if they rotated some of their working hours a tad, the CBI is awfully good at buck passing and there they are doing it.

I got from London to Manchester in a few hours the other day so the travelling of the nation oule be improved if some of those driving used a bit of foresight and checked regularly for jams and gridlock and go around it, the system is there to use and i've saved many many hours through it.

Now that it is balanced up i would agree with you to an extent that things could be better, heck i'd like some trains with a new different layout with more standing room and tannoys but that isn't gonna heppen in a hurry.

Posting twice again ;)

Erm... wrong, I'll direct you to the latest CBI report :

Oh i won't disagree that the taxes brought in and bureaucracy is a thorn in the side of British business.

However could you tell me how the Working Time Directive is aiding in closing the gap? And their [continental EU] rates of taxation?

No I am not discriminationg against them, because I don't agree with referendums full stop so no one would vote in them including me.

No a general election is fine, in fact thats one reason referendums are pointless, we vote in people at the general election who can spend time studing all the facts to make the right decisions for us.

You seem to be missing the point slightly of my view of referendums, I don't agree with them full stop, regardless of the issue and wether the outcome would or wouldn't be one I liked. I am sure if they had a referendum on the war the outcome would of been favourable to my point of view, but I still wouldn't of wanted a referendum they are a very poor mechanism for making informed decisions.

You might be against if full stop but one of the reasons that you gave for it in your previous post was becausse some people go on what you see as less than meaningful reasons or lack of research and you said nothing about other types of voters and if you don't mind me saying so it seems awfully convenient but that is just an assumption and from what you've said possibly ;) an inaccurate one.

Going back to what YOU have said, i though that those we elected didn't really run the country as special advisors played that part and Blair pushed eerything through with Bribes :D, just your words not mine, so you now put your faith in them as they have studied the situation yes?

If the war had gone to a referendum it would have been sold to the public in a differnent way to that of MP's so it would not have been such a certainty.

You say you would rule out a referendum on any subject as you are against them full stop, so you think it is ok for one man and his dream to decide on the destiny of a nation. This is bigger than the euro, you are going from an independent country to a region or a state. Surely a decision of that magnitude should be should be put ot the people, in my opinion anyway; i don't say have multiple referenda in a year as that would slow down governance but here i feel it should take place.

Originally posted by Critic

I'd like to defend the claim that i usualyy only put aside the plus points or that was my intention when referring to Aids, i was merely listing other areas where the UN is of use and where our position as an independent member on the permenant security council would help us [GB] when lobbying for issues; i only brought up the US to show an area where they are leading the way as YOU don't always see them in such a favourable light.


No I don't always see the US in a favourable light so my favourable view of their political system should be a pleasant change for you. ;)

Originally posted by Critic

The US might not be pulling its weight when it comes to overseas aid and i'll have to take your word on that as i have yet fo find some figures to back that up but the UK is probably the leader in the EU whether through intent or finance; you will disagree with me but the French could as with the US/UK scrap the debt owed to them by Iraq, that doesn't look good, the UK has wiped the debt owed to it by the worlds 40 poorest nations and back to the US and the UK, if memory serves at the time of those terrible floods in Mozambique a couple of years back the UK was with South Africa leading the way with search and rescue and the US was on the scene quickly but i can't say the same for other nations. The US is far better than most other 1st world nations with immediate aid after an incident but can fall away in the long term i accept.


Here are some aid figures for 2000 :

(in billions of dollars)

Japan - 13.5
US - 9.95
Germany - 5.03
UK - 4.5
France - 4.1

from - http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:9pybin_MQ_0J:www.devinit.org/ktrends.pdf+official+aid+oecd+germany+france+uk+us&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

That seems to be fairly typical over the last decade, with the UK and France swapping places occasionally, either way I think it highlights the point that the US don't pull their weight with aid, although Germany, France and the UK give the largest total mounts in europe none of them are the most generous, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Hollad and Luxemburg were the only 5 OECD countries to make the UN recommendation of 0.7% of GDP in aid for 2000. (and those countries generousity is not unique to 2000)

Originally posted by Critic

On agricultural subsidies which created some big problems at the last major meeting of the WTO in Mexico is a personal cause it appears for Blair and the UK concerning their aboloshment but yes the US and the French have held things up, this does have to be handled carefully however as just putting every nation on one level would create a whole new range of problems. The flood of GM crops in and out of Africa could be one of them as some EU nations and the whole EU currently won't buy them, then they're back at square one.


I don't see the problem, plenty of farmers in Africa want use GM crops for religous reasons, they would gropw non-gm which could be exported to Europe as for GM crops if the playing field was level they would be able to export to the US, Canada, etc.

Originally posted by Critic

There might be trillions of claims over the slave trade but for any of them to succeed would be just ridiculous as that kind of action would cripple the developed world so its never gonna heppen; how far back would others take it, if they did it then the commonwealth nations and S American ones would be at it with France and Britain etc


Yeah I know it's never going to happen, I just get a little tired of people (no I don't mean specifically you) going on about how much of our money we give to in aid to places like Africa, when countries like Britain, France and America screwed these countries over in a fashion Stalin and Hitler would of been proud of so they could become rich.

Originally posted by Critic

Most times and this has been seen in the past that the UN has served and still does a purpose and can do in security issues, for example Liberia, DRC and East Timor which has really turned into a success. I'd point out that in that case the UK had large participation and where was Europe, lagging.


I agree Europe do lag, the worst example being Kosovo, but that is exactly why I think it is a good idea to remove vetos from the EU, with vetos nothing gets done, as shown by the countless times (your examples are in the minority) that UN has stood idly by, admitedly it's often not the UN's fault, but Russias, Americas, Britains or Frances for using their veto.

Originally posted by Critic

The German system as you have described it will create a larger base of quality in that trade


But thats the whole point of having decent vocational training, if we had a system similar to Germany there would not be skills shortage in the construction industry like we have.

Originally posted by Critic

You can bring up your reports from the CBI and how they view areas of the vocational sector in the UK but i've been there and seen it and i can tell you that in Business fields that that just doesn't aquare up qith what i've experienced.


Yes I am sure the CBI were lying, obviously your experience is the definitive source.

Originally posted by Critic

There is a lack of certain skilled fields but if people don't want to work in that sector then it does make things difficult, the stigma of some skilled jobs isn't helping but they are reasonabl well paid and things are looking up, every plubing course in the UK is heavily over subscribed [as of a month ago] so we will atleast have a lot of plumbers charging time and a half for something you dohn't need :)


Plumbing is a good example of the problem with our vocational training, for at least a year plumbing has been getting some coverage for being an area where we have a skills shortage where you can work for yourself, get out of an office and get paid suprisingly well, the only problem being that due to our less then great vocational training system as soon as the number of applicants reaches any level at all it is unable to cope and loads of potential plumbers are turned away or told to come back in six months.

Originally posted by Critic

Some of the country wouldn't stand for it and it would depend what it concerned, now i'm not suggesting that it was common place but if the issue was large enough and would impact the nation in scuh a way that a constitutional monarch felt that they had to act it might help balance things up. A decision once every few hundred years would do it like about now. The Queen would be out of a job if the EU CON was implemented in its current form so you couldn't blame her for doing it.


But that the trouble, I want someone who can provide a balance regularly, not once every few hundred years, clearly given how she got her position and how most people view hereditary peers in the house of lords, she will not be able to provide this service.

Originally posted by Critic

Oh generally speaking about his thread, you seem to think that Blair is some kind of Dictator who bribes and forces his way through government, i think that is a bit OTT, on some issues recently Blair has needed the Conservatives to help him carry the day and there have been a lot of large rebellions recently. If the MP's can't hold their nerve then they are too weak.


No I don't think that Blair runs his government and party like a dictator, I think he run runs it like a president, something our system was not designed for an dcannopt cope with.
MP's shouldn't have to hold there nerve, they shouldn't be threatend with demotion or promised promotion on the strength of their vote, our system has clearly shown by pms question time is antiquated and needs reform, frankly it is embarrasing.

Originally posted by Critic

So you feel that the office of Prime Minister is antiquated? ah and the fact that you are a Republican or lean that way does not surprise me. How you view the system is up to you and i'm not going to change your mind on that, you obviously seem to think we need a lot of checks and balances, oh no MORE RED TAPE for the gov now.


It has nothing to do with red tape and you know it, has for the office of primeminister as such I don't have a problem with it if there is someone else (a president, chancellor etc) who can provide some checks.

Originally posted by Critic

You talk about seperation and how the US system is so superior but here are some examples that would suggest otherwise, reports suggested that Blunkett lead a rebellion within the cabinet over top-up fees and that kind of high profile stance cnould not happen in the states. Here is something more important for me, when was the last time you heard that a third of the republicans or democrats in Congress or the Senate rebelled on a major issue like can and has occurred over here; even with the whips and other pressures i'd suggest that it appears there is more opposition and freedom to so over here.


And when was the last time a rebellion actually defeated a bill Blair was trying to get through, I'll tell you, never, unlike the US where bills actually do occasionally get stopped.

Originally posted by Critic

Looks like a classic CBI over reaction to me, they represent industries that are in recessionso things won't look good anyway.

I would conter that we are attempting to shift more freight back otno trains and the Canal/waterways network in the UK so attempts are being made to spread the load. There is a new wave of airport construction underway and they could reduce congestion if they rotated some of their working hours a tad, the CBI is awfully good at buck passing and there they are doing it.


Oh yes trying to shift more frieght on to trains, like the royal mail who are completely abandoning the use of trains and transfering it to the road.

Yes thats right the CBI are making it up that our transport system is pitiful, along with a host of university professors, most of the public and Mr Blair, who had this to say about our transport system in 2001:


"Secondly, there is the chronic weakness of our infrastructure. You know the crucial importance of an efficient transport system. We all know we don't have one. Decades of under-investment have left their mark."


Originally posted by Critic

I got from London to Manchester in a few hours the other day so the travelling of the nation oule be improved if some of those driving used a bit of foresight and checked regularly for jams and gridlock and go around it, the system is there to use and i've saved many many hours through it.

Now that it is balanced up i would agree with you to an extent that things could be better, heck i'd like some trains with a new different layout with more standing room and tannoys but that isn't gonna heppen in a hurry.

If you think our transport system is not so bad please give me an example of another developed nation where the road network is more congested and where the rail system is worse, because I can't think of one.


Originally posted by Critic

However could you tell me how the Working Time Directive is aiding in closing the gap? And their [continental EU] rates of taxation?


To a certain extent I disagree with Working Time Directive, or more to the point I think it is two low, at it's current level it does hinder productivity in the EU, although that only highlights our problems, because both France and Germany have much better productivity levels than us.

Which taxation, corporation tax, income tax?

Originally posted by Critic
[B]
Going back to what YOU have said, i though that those we elected didn't really run the country as special advisors played that part and Blair pushed eerything through with Bribes , just your words not mine, so you now put your faith in them as they have studied the situation yes?


It's the lesser of two evils neither on eof which I am particualry happy with.

Originally posted by Critic

If the war had gone to a referendum it would have been sold to the public in a differnent way to that of MP's so it would not have been such a certainty.


It could of been sold any way they liked, as obvious as it is judging by every single bit of reasearch in this country that the majority of people in this country are against the Euro it is equally obvious by the all the research that they were against going to war with Iraq.

Originally posted by Critic

You say you would rule out a referendum on any subject as you are against them full stop, so you think it is ok for one man and his dream to decide on the destiny of a nation. This is bigger than the euro, you are going from an independent country to a region or a state. Surely a decision of that magnitude should be should be put ot the people, in my opinion anyway; i don't say have multiple referenda in a year as that would slow down governance but here i feel it should take place.


No I don't think it's okay, but I have patently explained several times our system is very outdated and badly needs reform, something which would solve the problem of one and his dream deciding the fate of the country.

I don't see the problem, plenty of farmers in Africa want use GM crops for religous reasons, they would gropw non-gm which could be exported to Europe as for GM crops if the playing field was level they would be able to export to the US, Canada, etc.[/QUOTE[

That was just one possible end result, either way it would not tb beneficila for those in LEDC's if it was all level just like that, it would need to be phased in over time unless the WTO is happy to see the native farmers and companies purchased on mass by the MEDC's to counter the reduction in farms in their domestic regions, i can't see them being happy with that so the subsidies will still remain a problem.

[QUOTE]Yeah I know it's never going to happen, I just get a little tired of people (no I don't mean specifically you) going on about how much of our money we give to in aid to places like Africa, when countries like Britain, France and America screwed these countries over in a fashion Stalin and Hitler would of been proud of so they could become rich.


Stalin and Hitler proud of our actions, on any kind of same level.. :D :angry: :D We will have to discuss that one another time.

I agree Europe do lag, the worst example being Kosovo, but that is exactly why I think it is a good idea to remove vetos from the EU, with vetos nothing gets done, as shown by the countless times (your examples are in the minority) that UN has stood idly by, admitedly it's often not the UN's fault, but Russias, Americas, Britains or Frances for using their veto.

Well i've said that i don't like the proposed population based voting system and vetos in the EU CON so i don't need to go into that again. Well as you know the UN can't act efficiently without its member nationscontrinutions meeting demand; that is when i think it is let down, a resolution is passed to do something and then they can't enforce it and that is why it can lead to independent action.

Yes I am sure the CBI were lying, obviously your experience is the definitive source.

I never said that i was the definitive source so that is you saying that but as you haven't even gone through the system you can't just throw your CBI report on IT or consultation at me and say what you experienced is inaccurate. The CBI isn't wrong but what is says is a generalisation, i wouldn't comment on the system at LSE as i haven't been there so i feel for you to belittle what i and others have actually seen is a bit poor. :disagree:

But that the trouble, I want someone who can provide a balance regularly, not once every few hundred years, clearly given how she got her position and how most people view hereditary peers in the house of lords, she will not be able to provide this service.

We don’t need a President to balance the situation, the Queen and the EU CON was more wishful thinking on my part tha a solution; if we need greater balance and checks we can accomplish it in other ways; here are some tat I have thought of >>

A committee of civilians randomly selected from all over the country to form a panel that is given access to information that a result of its security classification they could not normally see., then the committee would have a block vote worth 20 or something and they would act as a bridge to the public.

Rees to increase the accountability of MP’s to their constituency and if they vote against it that the have to explain why.

I am happy with the office of Prime Minister and see it as more open and less authoritarian than that of President. An example of where our system s better than others around the world is the PMQ’s, it is unique and useful but I do think that the MP’s should be replaced with 600 people two out of the four weeks each month but it will come in time

The Queen and the monarch is a useful and necessary institution in the UK that aids us now but allows us to look back at the same time.

The system isn’t embarrassing but it is definitely unique.

And when was the last time a rebellion actually defeated a bill Blair was trying to get through, I'll tell you, never, unlike the US where bills actually do occasionally get stopped.

Well the House of Lords has defeated them many times but in the commons it hasn’t happened but Blair has majority that is no the case in the US, we [the public] voted them all in and not to mention the fact that our multiple part system plays a part and th Conservatives have sometimes saved him [Blair] from defeat.

Oh yes trying to shift more frieght on to trains, like the royal mail who are completely abandoning the use of trains and transfering it to the road.

Yes thats right the CBI are making it up that our transport system is pitiful, along with a host of university professors, most of the public and Mr Blair, who had this to say about our transport system in 2001:

So instead of just criticising the transport system in the UK how would you deal with it, knowing full well the characteristics of the British persona toward taxation??

This s the balancing act that you have to perform and if you do it wrong it can lead to some of the problems that we have now.

So??

If you think our transport system is not so bad please give me an example of another developed nation where the road network is more congested and where the rail system is worse, because I can't think of one.

Well I have not been around the world bt I can offer some nd it is up to youwhether you agree or disagree >>

United States
Spain

Now these aren’t across the board but relative to certain reas and that s the same as in the UK.

To a certain extent I disagree with Working Time Directive, or more to the point I think it is two low, at it's current level it does hinder productivity in the EU, although that only highlights our problems, because both France and Germany have much better productivity levels than us.

Which taxation, corporation tax, income tax?

The fact that some EU nations produce more concentrate on manufacturing] and we concentrate on our strengths which is the tertiary industry will contribute to your statement. Area where we are their [EU] better could include airlines and mobile phones or oil but we have aleady discussd this and I have agreed with you on certain points about our industry.

Taxation well let’s look at corporation tax first for this year, the UK is at 30% and this probably would be lower I the Conservatives were in power, compare that to France who are above 33% and Germany wh have increased theirs and stand at 40%.

VAT >>

France = 19.6%
Germany = 16%
UK = 17.5%

Income Tax >>

France = Lower rate >> 9.5% Higher rate >> 54%
Germany = Lower rate >> 25.9% 53%
UK = Lower rate >> 10% Higher rate >> 40%

If you have aspirations of being well off France and Germany seems to like to make you feel it in the pocket more and by the way, according to some research I have been doing social security costs and the like increases the burden in France.

What do you think about those figures and how it would affect business if in place in the UK nd anything else that you have to add

It could of been sold any way they liked, as obvious as it is judging by every single bit of reasearch in this country that the majority of people in this country are against the Euro it is equally obvious by the all the research that they were against going to war with Iraq.

So YOU are trying to tell me that if they have lead with the humanitarian cause that it would’ve been the same result?? Please nd this is not the place for me to argue th toss about Iraq.

No I don't think it's okay, but I have patently explained several times our system is very outdated and badly needs reform, something which would solve the problem of one and his dream deciding the fate of the country.

So you are saying that if we had a President and a Labour one that that would stou going into the EU CON against the wishes of the population how exactly?

I’m sorry but the Presidency is not the solution to our woes and on an issue of this wide ranging impact for yrs to come with such a large majority against it MUST have a referendum.

Now I know hr s something I need to edit but I can’t remember wher it is but it looks ok.

I might add a bit later but that will do for now. :cool: