Mudcat Café message #3796631 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #160019   Message #3796631
Posted By: Teribus
20-Jun-16 - 01:54 AM
Thread Name: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
Steve Shaw - 18 Jun 16 - 08:57 PM

It would seem that in general we are much in agreement

1: "Well, the UK has been outvoted on 58 issues in the last fourteen years but has agreed on over two and a half thousand issues. Most of those 58 issues have hardly been life-threatening. Pretty good for a club now with 28 member states."

Britain has always been popularly portrayed as always being at odds with the EU something that is a gross misrepresentation. Anti-EU feeling in the UK runs at about 49%, in countries such as Spain, France, the Netherlands and Germany that percentage is much higher. Britain has never said No to the EU or called a referendum on any EU issue France has, the Netherlands have, Denmark has, Ireland has. Didn't help any of them, their Governments just rejigged the questions until Brussels got the result they wanted. The UK's "contentment" with the EU stems from deals that were made with it by Margaret Thatcher that excludes the UK from specific things the principle one being our currency - we can never be forced into joining the Euro.

2: The basis of peregrina's statement on wars is bloody obvious. The two biggest wars of all time by a country mile were between European states, at least at their outsets, and the Common Market's forerunner was set up with the express aim of preventing such conflicts in the future.

Peregrina put the point very badly and inaccurately. The European Steel and Coal Community was set up to specifically reduce the risk of any future war between France and Germany and to "control" Steel and Coal production so that in the environment of what was known as the "Cold War" West Germany could rearm. To date the EU has not shown itself capable of deterring anything, NATO on the other hand has.

3: "you fail to inform us that Norway must comply with rules on free movement of people, the numero uno campaigning gambit of the racist "out" campaign."

The trouble with the EU is that rules are not interpreted and applied in any standard uniform manner. If you actually think that Norway complies in the same manner as the UK, France, Germany or the Netherlands then you would be very much mistaken. Anyone thinking that they can just travel to Norway and look for work would be in for one hell of a shock.

4: "As for workers' pension funds, we have one of the worst state pension provisions in Europe and we have arseholes like Philip Green sucking money out of pension funds. Nothing to do with the EU one way or the other."

Who said pensions had anything to do with the EU? I didn't. In mentioning pensions I was addressing peregrina's "profits for the rich" nonsense. I was also not referring to State Pensions, but private and company pensions that rely on companies making profit. Oh and Sir Philip Green whose actions generally are to be condemned did nothing that Labour's very own darling and financial genius Gordon Brown didn't himself do with the State Pension fund while he was Chancellor under Blair. Which could be why our State Pension Provision is so poor.

5: "As for unelected officials, you appear to be resoundingly silent about the half-dead, the unelected party lackeys and the men in frocks who infest the Lords. Last I heard, they were heavily involved in making our laws..."

26 men in frocks and 92 of the "half dead" {If you are referring to who I think you are} out of a chamber of 800 sitting members. Hardly a "heavy presence" - most as you correctly state are party lackeys like the Kinnocks who have amassed a fortune worth over 10 million from their adventures in politics, the bulk of the money coming from their careers in the European set up. And no they are not heavily involved in making our laws, they have a role to play, they can even introduce a Bill that may or may not make it onto the Statute Books but they cannot make laws only the House of Commons can do that. The House of Lords can suggest amendments to Bills but the Commons are under no obligation to accept those amendments and the Lords cannot stop any Bill from becoming Law after its third reading. That dates back to The Parliament Act of 1911 that curtailed the power of the House of Lords and was discussed at some length in the Easter Rising thread. Did you know Steve that anyone can apply to become a member of the House of Lords there is even a website for it so that you can apply on-line - their success rate is 50%. Get cracking now that you have some spare time on your hands you could go there and reform it from the inside.