The United States of Europe - Federal Europe, demanded by common sense

sure sure... ....

you never said online analysis and I didn't say I understood very much of it, and I also mentioned I wasn't very interested in it.

With a debt of 85.7% of its GDP as of 2011, how is Britain any different than the rest of the world? For its size and prosperity? the country's debt is kind of high... close to that of USA or even bankrupt Portugal and the UK doesn't even use the euro. Everyone has indebted himself throughout the world. The European Union has all it takes to pay back everything faster than anyone in the world.do Wanna know why?

And since UK is not in the EZ don't worry, I think nobody is going to ask you to contribute from your amazing 'wealth'. As far as I know, if I am correct, Britain has only borrowed from the IMF ?

 

Oh yea smile for the camera.

Oh you do? I assume that as an Englishman you also love England then, and precisely because you do, you wouldn't want to see Cornwall, Devon, Lancashire, Kent, West Sussex, North Yorkshire, Durham etc as countries separate from each other. Genuine love can’t be greater or weaker than other genuine loves. If you really loved Europe it would be different. When I’m home I go to the TV to watch the weather on Euronews every 30 minutes. And it’s not the temperature values that I’m interested in. Remember to set the 480p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32szF5MBFyI&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ

 

Indeed you did mention here and for the only time various online analyses. Good analysis of each treaty? But shared no link. But you mention them as the treaties, as if I would & should be able to read them like post cards one after another. You said: Have you read them? Or at least read the various online analyses of them? ...at least as if what is preferable for me to read is the original treaty rather than the kindly simplified analyses you mention & you now recommend me.

the treaties.... heh not just the latest but all since the Rome one you said...

 

I didn’t say Britain was any different or any better for that matter. I’ve even said (post #99, 21 October, 2012) that the UK has serious debt problems and could have ended up in Greece’s situation**. I don’t know where you get this idea that I think we have ‘amazing’ wealth. We definitely don't! The EU has no money apart from what it takes from European taxpayers, and yes I’d love to know how we’re expected to repay the €4.5 trillion the EU decided it would borrow. And if you’re not interested in what’s in the treaties, you’re not debating from an informed position. Curiously, you don’t see anything wrong in this.

The UK has already added billions of pounds to its national debt to give to the Eurozone rescue fund, whilst cutting public services, like help for the elderly, disabled and poor, public libraries, public workers’ salaries and jobs, putting up the price of services paid for by local taxation and numerous other austerity measures. (Remember the vid YOU posted about the anti-austerity march in London and WE talked about it?) But never mind eh, it keeps the Eurozone vanity project breathing and politicians and bureaucrats in their lavish lifestyles, not to mention British politicians in their incompetence. Other seriously indebted countries have done likewise. No doubt we and they will do the same again until we have to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.

And yes, Britain did borrow £2.3 billion from the IMF in the 1970s and repaid the loan in full. It was seen as a complete humiliation here, but we complied with the IMF’s conditions and soon returned to prosperity without drawing down the entire loan. What of it?

You obviously don’t share my concerns, and that’s your privilege, but I still have them anyway.

As much as I love Europe I still don’t want to be governed by the EU, though as other Europeans seem to I wish them well. I share the same culture and language with people in other English counties as my ancestors did for several centuries so sharing a democratic political structure with them comes much more naturally. As I said Europe will probably share one language and culture one day, but it won’t happen if politicians force the pace, and force it deceitfully too. All they’re doing is causing friction between European nations. And I can also see Euronews at home, so I don’t need you to supply me clips, unless there is something specific you wish me to comment on.

And forgive me for only mentioning the online analyses of the treaties only once. How many times do I need to mention them before what I say sinks in for you? I think you should read ALL the major treaties, which in no way did I imply were as readable as postcards; unfortunately they are not. As such, you should at least read some of the online analyses of the Lisbon Treaty and not just the pro-EU ones either so that if you remain pro-EU at least it’ll be from an informed perspective.

After reading them, I began to question what I was told, but please yourself either way. You certainly have no chance of changing my view from such a badly informed perspective. I’m not going to provide you with links because that would only lead to what I see as more pointless disagreements between us and how hard is it to google “Lisbon Treaty analysis” anyway?

** Had it not been for the referendum promise extracted from a previous fake eurosceptic Conservative government, we would have been in the euro and in Greece's situation now. Thank you James Goldsmith!

 

Yes you did and so I did say countless times that much of the debt of Europe to European countries would be forgotten in the event of a Federal Europe. Not everything was from the IMF, isn't that true? And that by not integrating more, we, Europeans, with this common market in these times harm ourselves rather than prevent more of...prevent more of what? You tell me!

What country has other money apart from what the taxpayers give? I don't know that. I'm not saying I'm an economist. So teach me. I'm eager to listen.

If EU was politically united it would encompass huge sources of tax money that are not properly taxed or not taxed at all and it would also cut in its own turn its own trillions of costs that take place at national level. I can give you specific examples of sources of tax money that are not very taxed and would diminish the burned on Europeans. By having a real tax & spend system and one legislation those 4.5 billion will not be a problem. 4.5 billion isn't abnormal for a Confederation of this size which the EU is. For a federal Europe these 4.5 billion will be almost like pocket change given that even NOW, it is only like 30% or something like that of all the EU GDP.

I already told you about what I think of any treaty and don't mix up different topics... I'm confident that none of these pages mentioned any more special rights to borrow than any other state or confederacy that existed in more modern times. AGAIN for its size the EU Confederation has borrowed a reasonable amount, given the crisis, only 30% or 27% of its GDP I don't remember exactly... while UK has borrowed 85% of its GDP. Even Japan, the world's 3rd or 4th economy has a debt, as of 2011 of over 200% its GDP!! Looking at this I'd say confederate Europe does pretty well! And you didn't answer my question... Has the UK borrowed anything from the ECB? From what I know, all it borrowed it borrowed separately, on its own, from the IMF and not the ECB. Teach me I'm listening.

Wait a minute! If all Europe and First World is in this situation of needy elderly/disabled/public workers, would it humanitarianly be fair for the ones in Britain to be an exception? A country like Britain to stay aside and not do this sacrifice like all others struggle to do is altruistic? The EU is more than a community. It's a confederation of nation states that have entered a brotherhood and its kinda like with individuals... when you enter the brotherhood you sort of vow with your hand on your heart. It did so precisely because it knows like ALL OTHERS IN EUROPE that by this temporary wound everything has more of a chance to get back to normal much quicker and simpler, in the nearby future.

You even have the attitude calling it a Eurozeon vanity project? Maybe it's my turn to say back to you 'get real'... Is old Japan, the 3rd world economy a vanity project? again Japan has a debt of over 200% its GDP. EU has 30% and if it just made the switch from a confederation to a federation it would all be even easier.

About a year and a half ago USA had to borrow from the communists - China, remember? And that was YESTERDAY compared to the 70s. What do you think of this? Is the dollar a vanity project?

You got it all so wrong. I said a thousand times on this forum, explained it in detail, that what the EU is trying right now is not to make one culture and language out of all but one political entity. I also explained how there's no way Germans and French WOULD EVER MIX!!

Nobody is forcing the pace, but some traditionalist Englishmen might not be aware that as Barroso wisely said in the State of the Union Speech, 'history is accelerating'. Everyone knows that a confederation will historicaly eventually become a federation. Even you have said in one post that this integration thing they are 'forcing' would come naturally in decades. You said decades. SInce the flow of non-British values and languages hardly enters the island, you might not know that these decades have already come and times that require this are moving even beyond that now! I did say once in a discussion with cenydd that the UK, despite being one of the world's most developed in all ways, nationally, average citizen has stagnated in mentality and is in the 60s/70s. I didn't say that in an insulting way but from the point of view of European and world values. AGAIN. The latest European values take more time to enter Britain thanks to a false impression of cultural self-sufficiency there given that English is the world's official language.

USA once was the same, like this, like EU is now, a confederation without a real central power. And precisely when it decided it's time to become a federation, the true American system that led it to being the world's 1st economy until this hour came into existence. You know... Britain is a very developed European country, but is not
the only one. How come those others want the Federation explicitly? Austria/France/Germany/Belgium? How come? Explain it to me and this time expand on that I don't know of yours. Please make me understand what reasons do you have for not being able to know?

Good point. I wonder if you ever read one that doesn't have a URL that ends in .co.uk

If they are .co.uk then no thanks. I will however try to find some recent analyses of the EU I read, done by Americans and Chinese. I think you will agree that these people are, relative to the EU, as objective as one can get. And if I show you these, I wonder what reviews will you want to see next? Some done by extraterrestrials?

You don't need to tell me. It doesn't matter how informed I am. I'm just an adventurous citizen that wants something new. Instead, go tell the Japanese, 150 million people and the Americans, or even nearby Iceland that they are badly informed.

 

It's about time I ask you to stop evading my main points, some of the previous I even put in bold and urged you to respond to. I will reply to this only when you reply to my main questions from 2 previous posts. You said:

I replied but then you evaded and again said:

To which I replied:

And not only this one but it seems you so comfortably went around all my other direct, specific questions in this post (#118 ) - you answered none but just one of my big questions to you - my idea about the Scots - only a small part of the post.

You also left fairly all of my burning questions personally addressed to you hanging in the air in post #112. For the sake of a constructive conversation and the forum readers, is this how it should be talked here? You are a moderator. So I’m especially entitled to more clarity and completeness from you. Answer only the ones you like? Hmm I bet you wouldn't want those politicians that you want to represent you at local level (or whatever) to only hear and only respond back to just parts of your voice, only the parts they like and think they can deal with. Talking about democracy here you might agree that it implies you to both expressing your expectations of others and equally listening to what others expect from you. Without this = we're not into democracy.

 

...and the market can't have a mind & interests of its own (even in the most or least complete democracy). It is formed subconsciously by common interests of the masses, of all the people. The people, in turn, don't have their own interests regarding the market, they don't know what the marked should look like next, nor what kind of product they want next. It's the corporations and companies that always come up with new product ideas and if it's not good enough people just don't buy it and that's it! Good luck with the next product! I don't think that in the United States of America you have cops pointing guns at your head forcing to praise & buy a particular product...nor just one single company on the TV advertising just one product of theirs from a particular type of product...

 

The wishes of the people are whatever they express through the democratic process. What I want to have, more than the American citizen currently has, is a good system of effectively locally accountable democratic representatives, in close contact with the people they represent, and at the top democratic level of governmental within the state, so that there is a direct connection between people and government. That is what they don't have in the USA, and why they are so deeply suspicious of federal government (and why the federal government is able to act without proper reference to the wishes of the people). That is what I don't want to see develop in Europe via the creation of a higher-level superstate government, and in addition to that in the cae of the EU I don't want to see the legislative process controlled by anyone other than the democratically elected representatives (which is a problem with the EU and the legislative proposal powers of the commission).

Corporations do not follow the wishes of the people. They are not democratic, and their interests are in making profit (as they properly should be, of course). The manipulate the desires and opinions of the people for their own commercial gain through advertising, and politically act (and try to put pressure on politicians to act) in what is in the best interests of their own profit margins, not the best interests of the country. that is a voice which should be heard, of course, because free enterprise is important, but it is not a voice that should be so loud in the ear of the politicians compared with the voice of the people that it over-rides the interests of the people, and the country, and the marketplace itself (since the best interests of already big corporations is to reduce potential competition for themselves and protect their own position, rather than allowing others to freely enter their markets to compete on a level playing field with them). In order from keeping them from having too influence, the elected representatives have to be closely communicating with, and accountable to, to the constituency of people they represent, and they can't do that if they represent more than about 100,000 people each (on average) - in an EU superstate, each member of the top level parliament will have to represent many times the number of people than that, as they do in the USA.

 

You didn't say one word on the Microsoft-US Government scandal I'm talking about... late 90s when with Bill Gates being asked the most uncomfortable questions like any other everyday guy you bring in the interrogation room. There are other famous examples of this kind, in USA, if you’re interested. Please do your own research without links from me so that we stay objective. This proves the US Government to be close to perfect in terms of democracy for its citizens; and that it treats those corporations no different than any hot dog maker in any back alley. I'd like you, in exchange, to name some famous cases of scandals and public opinion criticism towards that govt in relation to a corporation. Come on, prove that USA isn't the highest level of democracy reached so far. Very very few Americans are ashamed of being Americans.

I don't understand how this you're talking about works. You talk as if the representative meets with all these 100,000 people one by one and knows all those 100,000 by name, taps each one of them on the shoulder and has dinner / breakfast with their families, talks about his and their lives, maybe even holds their dicks while they are at the toilet to make it all easier and more comfortable for them. What difference does it make if it's 100,000 or 1,000,000? As long as one corrupt & cunning politician can fool many many people in your superstate, he should have no trouble fooling 100,000. The numbers represented by one guy isn't the problem here. It's precisely the other way around... the more people he represents, the better. The interests of fewer people are less relevant than the interests of those fewer people put alongside many others.......... A very high number of people really do because that way you find out what truly is a common need of the humans rather than just get stuck at the level of an egotistic selection of personal caprices. Local equals more personal. If you stop to solve personal matters every time you meet one you as a society only close in yourself and humanity stagnates at best. The fewer people represented and the more personal the politician-citizen dialogue is, the higher unfair subjectiveness you have and the greater the rapture you get between different groups of people. People need to find a common goal and share traits whenever possible, with the slightest occasion, let alone a big one like this. That's what boosts their progress & evolution as intellectual beings. Harvesting more and more local types of dialogue only increases misunderstandings between peoples of the small continent, it alienates them from one another and it teaches them that they are so impossibly and unearthly similar with each other and makes them rather badly believe that's naturally. In time it completely & pointlessly sophisticates some unique channels of communication that are developed by each small group only to talk about their identical needs...

 

Look around these forums at the level of distrust between a great many of the people and their Federal Government.That is what such remote, large scale representation brings - the people do not feel connected to the politicians in any way, and the politicians don't deal individually with the people. They spend their time dealing with the all of the various intrigues and lobbying that go on at the central level where they all meet and take decisions. They inevitably have far more regular and close personal contact with corporate lobbyists who are paid to gain their attention and persuade them to do, or not do, certain things than they ever can have with the individuals who they are supposed to be representing. Once they have won their election, they spend little time dealing with the regular man-on-the-street that voted for them, until they need to get themselves elected again a few years later. The same is true whichever party they represent - their attentions and loyalties are inevitably given more to that party and the people around where they work at the centre of politics than they are to the people who are supposed to actually be being represented by them. One group they meet lots of personally every day, the other they generally meet a few of every few years at election time (and mostly then only at carefully managed campaign events), and those groups are entirely the wrong way round for representative democracy to be working properly as it should.

That doesn't mean they always do the wrong thing, of course, but it does mean that the most important influences on them and their decisions are very often not the correct ones democratically.

They don't know them all personally as a matter of course, obviously, but those people can contact, speak to, lobby and ask for help and information from their representative on a personal one to one basis of they wish to. That is about the maximum scale at which the representative is personally contactable by the people they represent, rather than having junior office staff that they barely know to deal with such piffling details while they carry on with being involved in the central lobbying, internal party politics, and so, that goes on in parliament instead. That's a fundamental part of democracy - that the representative and the people are actually able to be in individual, personal contact.

My current parliamentary constituency is a little over 50,000, but there are larger ones in the UK that operate the same way (100,000 was a maximum figure, not an ideal figure - it could work at that level just about, but not any higher than that). If I want to contact my representative member at the top level of UK democracy in parliament, I can email him directly (and get a personal reply), telephone his office and get a personal call back from him, or go along to one of his regular local 'surgery' sessions where he meets people individually that come along and want to speak to him. I can ask him about issues, about how he plans to vote on certain issues, I can lobby him to consider different things and vote different ways, I can express my views and ask his views, I can ask him for information and explanations of things that are being done, and I can get him to look into any personal issues I have with government departments and agencies. He travels mainly between London and the constituency, and is in my local town for much of his time, talking to the people who actually elected him (irrelevant of whether they voted for him or not - even if they didn't, as I didn't, he is still their local representative, and still equally accessible to them).

My EU parliamentary member, on the other hand, would be one of 4 who collectively represent over 3 million people in a geographical area of over 8,000 square miles. None of them are regularly anywhere near my town even when they are in the country, as opposed to being at the EU parliament itself. I can't directly contact or speak to them in anything like the same way. I can contact their office, of course, and speak to their staff, but that's as far as it goes - I'm highly unlikely to ever get any kind of persnal contact with any of them, because they can't deal with the volume of such contact from the size of populatin they are supposed to represent. They are effectively very remote figures who are not able to deal individually and personally with the people they represent. They do the other side of things, of course, as do UK parliamentary representatives - they are subject to party politics, parliamentary intrigue, being lobbied by lobbying groups and organisations at the parliament, and so on, but they aren't accessible to the people that they are actually supposed to be representing. That is a very bad way to operate a system of 'representative democracy'.

 

But there's no country in the world where people don't blame the government for one reason or another except perhaps North Korea. Nothing's perfect.

But a United Europe is only about a loose federacy. The local government & parliament is preserved. And they continue to deal with local matters, that are specific to one member state, the matters inside the state. The government in Brussels is to deal with the inter-state matters, and represent Europe as a whole on the international scene and other matters - the ones that current EU members can't solve with this current EU system.

 

Vlad, who tells you this stuff? You should find a more reliable source, because your present one is way off!

The EU is about a tightly controlled system of government. Local govt and parliament are preserved to implement EU directives and regulations and they cover almost all aspects of what parliament and local govt do. National lawmakers can work within EU policies but they cannot ignore them. The EU has a huge body of law as a look around the European Commission's website will show.

 

Many people say about Farage that all the things he vehemently predicts for the nearby future aren't confirmed when that time comes. They are so right. Here's a video from 2 years ago when he hatefully talks with pro-European Britons about his personal vision of the doomed Euro Zone. Here are some responsible British MPs who disagree with him (Ken Clarke - Justice Secretary, Gloria de Piero - Shadow Culture Minister and former leader of the liberal democrats Lord Ashdown):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5LxWwfyHyY&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ

 

Nigel Farage's answer to those who said he got it wrong ...

[video=youtube_share;Vms_vd_yWgY]http://youtu.be/Vms_vd_yWgY[/video]

And so responsible are Ken Clarke and Paddy Ashdown, they campaigned for the UK to join the euro, so that kind of 'responsibility' we can do without. And Ms de Piero voted against a referendum in the UK and seems clueless as so many EU supporters are, so she can stick 'responsible' where the sun don't shine.

 

Don't live that much through sources or anyone telling me anything. It's called anticipation - more or less accurate it works by putting next to one another an accumulation of observations of Europe and how life in this Europa world works (compared to the one some time ago and the one before that). It is fairly true that it's impossible to bring definitive proof about something that does not exist - not yet - and that is a more united Europe. In the absence of years like 2017 or 2021 there is a lot of room for wild speculations like Farage's. Heh I think I explained, throughout the thread why I think that most Europe has reasons to be pleased/happy to say the least about this transformation and I acknowledged those inconveniences that are likely to arise and why it will turn out to be a good trade nevertheless. Anyway nothing's gonna be absolutely perfect. You however seem to believe in a principle called 'gain but offer nothing in exchange' or 'win but without any sacrifices'. Wait to see how things are going to evolve as we approach the end of this decade. You will want to make some heavy edits to your posts xD

 

You think I haven't watched this 10 times already?

I did. You know, the European Parliament would have looked a bit boring without him. His presence and the volume of his anti-EU voice there is proof the EU is democratic. Not having gained the support in his own country in the past he now plays on the nationalist instincts of significant parts of the middle and especially lower classes, instincts that give them some motivation and a sense of meaning in life. I bet most (but not all of course) of those supporting him are one or more of the following: people without girlfriend or wife/uneducated young guys working on minimum national wages or a wage not very much above that/baldies with swastika tattoos and pocket knives hanging around at street corners all day/old people, very old who have lived in a completely different era and can't possibly imagine the new times.

In some years this guy will be so ashamed he'll be walking around with a shopping paper bag on his head like in cartoons.

 

An interesting vid. This shows that even separatist Catalonians can be pro-European:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYkkDvwEyCI

 

A little cute of you to say "Many people say about Farage that all the things he vehemently predicts for the nearby future aren't confirmed when that time comes. They are so right. Here's a video from 2 years ago when he hatefully talks with pro-European Britons about his personal vision of the doomed Euro Zone" if you have watched his reply 10 times then.

You can bet anything you like; it won't make your prejudices realistic. And Farage gained quite a lot of support in the last European elections. His nemesis, Barroso, on the other hand wasn't even elected and neither were his commissioners. Farage will gain even more support next year, public feeling towards the EU being what it is here. And last time the UK elected MPs for our national parliament, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems spent £16.5 million, £8 million and £4.5 million respectively. UKIP spent £733,000. [Even though they spend millions on campaigning, our larger parties still have the nerve to argue that the taxpayer should fund them!]

I doubt it. It's the people who insisted on the vanity eurozone project who should be hanging their heads in shame, but no I don't expect they will either. Having a bag on their heads is the least of what they should bear.

If your version of European integration actually existed, I'd consider supporting it myself, but unfortunately it's a figment of your imagination. You cannot provide any evidence to support your belief, can you? I've already proven it to be nonsense anyway.

 

Nigel Farage to Angela Merkel today and her reply

[video=youtube_share;w5VsW1W2Zek]http://youtu.be/w5VsW1W2Zek[/video]

 

Well everyone can call anyone a crazy one and a fanatic for not existing the way he or she wants. That's not new, not just to Farage but to old-fashioned types of politics discussions. That's very easy and simple to say, it takes one single mouth. This is not an argument - that those due to fail did not fail because you forgot to remember that they are fanatics - but a weird kind of some wide excuse that can fit anything, that can fit collectively anything he might have ever said including things he may have forgotten.

Heh? If my prejudices are not realistic then how come I have prejudices? How do these words fit together I can't get it... If my prejudices are not realistic then hooray it's good it means I have no prejudices and am an open-minded citizen! Yeah!

Maybe you want to say that my view is not realistic?

Oh yeah yeah YEAH prove my point further. That's exactly what I said myslef and I'm glad you agree with me, that Farage gained support recently because that's when the EU started forecasting its moves for further integration and for none other reason; so the neglected Farage found a way to gain popularity and attention among more Englishmen (not British just English), the least educated ones of course, a mass that comprises the majority of the middle class in any country nowadays and a totality of the lower (completing a degree and managing distribution of diapers by size and company is not education btw) by discovering that he can stimulate some very primordial senses in many of his people - only to attract popularity and secure himself the position of a hero. Of course, I'm sure he will gain a lot more popularity in the coming years, there is a possibility some will even urge that he is made the king of England (Farage the First - sounds so awesome, cool and nonetheless noble for his new royal role).

Oh no xD

Aren't we a bit extremistic here? Britain finally managed to formally abolish the death penalty by hanging in 1998 or something like that and now you want it back? How about the implementation of the burning at stake? That was quite an iconic image of life in England in the Middle Ages. Heh... memories from the Middle Ages. Oh yeah... the instinct... that instinct... that genetic property of some I mentioned in my very first post on the forum. That keeps coming back again and again and nostalgic ones want to relieve it... to not lose traditions...

Then why the need to tell again ahahahaa? Not for my insanity's sake but for the people who supposedly read anything you write, provided they believe what you say of course? My version of European change that you would support would be one of disintegration, not integration... your fascination with the stillness, unchangedness of again...

I don't need you to admit anything to me. My reason for arguing about European integration was to make everyone who reads the forum see my views & points just as vehemently disagreed with by a Nordic skeptic and not necessarily to convert you or anyone else and I thank you for that, you did a good job and helped my points stand out more by coming up with your contradictory ones. But at a deep level - admit it to yourself not me or anybody else cause there's no point- you have a problem with federalism as a political ideology more than you have with the EU. You more or less keep telling yourself, more or less consciously that the EU is deliberately evil to justify it to yourself -more of a pretext- that you don't like federalism applied to Europe. It's been proved successful before - the federalism. So for one minute let's assume there was something else in Europe that wanted the same thing as the EU, something with perfect politicians... What problem would you have with it? For one minute put the EU aside and just grasp the bare idea of European Federalism without EU involvement but a different organization, most democratic by the highest standards of your views... What's wrong with it?

I think it's more of a psychological barrier to some. People had a hard time -hundreds of years- accepting that atheism/agnosticism, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, Mormonism are harmless to the society and are to be respected. In the middle ages atheists or homosexuals or husband/wife cheaters were hanged or even worse, burnt at stake. Just like that you call upon those parts of the rich history of Europe to be manifested again, even today, for federalists - to be hanged or something similar. The English are said to have helped bring open-mindedness and individual liberation to the people of the world, as a concept, very very much. Now this is the ultimate test of open-mindedness for them.

 

Just found another nice video. I'm glad I watched yours, it shows things are developing fast. Now more than ever they need to. Maybe it's time the sad inevitable has to happen: Britain leaving the EU. But what can you do... if it hampers an entire continent it is better that it leaves. Anyway it's a chilling prospect of what's going to happen there next, on the longer term.

From now on I will advise all my friends not to keep British pounds as savings in foreign currency in the house. I'm not necessarily saying that the pound sterling will not survive but it will have no means of maintaining itself at the same level on the longer term. If in 20 years from now it will exist at all, the Australian dollar might be worth something more. Once UK leaves EU there will be no austerity indeed and many will stupidly be gasping with relief. That's the price of being instinctual and believing the nice round world has the limits of the round frying pan and what you put in it right this second, without anticipation & preocupation/ interest in what things are to be like later in the world. Austerity now doesn't mean that the EU is about bringing austerity into your frying pan.

Once UK leaves the EU, it will gradually be coming, as years pass by, to the Brits' awareness that their chosen future is more and more bleak. Ultimately extremely bleak. The current fundamental problems UK has are not because of the EU and there's no graspable reason why it should get any better if outside, while the room for worse in this scenario is plenty.

Here you have the voice of sanity. It's not too late!! Stay with us!!! I think it will be bad for all if you left now but worst for the British if they do not want to be with the USE:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_PqZrwALcA&feature=g-all-u

 

Economic advice from the man who thinks European integration is 'only about loose federacy'! Please spare me your moral advice too. You and Angela Merkel will have to accept that we're perfectly capable of deciding what's in our best interest. Thanks for all your replies. I'll be sure to remember them when I come to put my X in the 'yes' to withdrawal box on the referendum voting slip when we eventually get it.

Please note: The English expression 'to hang one's head in shame' simply means that a person should be ashamed of themselves, not that they should be hung or executed in any way. The death penalty was abolished here in 1969 and I don't want it back.

 

The more integrated the better. I hope you are right and it's more than just loose cause that's what I hope for Though it's more likely to be loose in the beginning... A federation is still a federation be it as loose at it can get and it nevertheless has to have a common government. More integrated it will be as Europa advances through the next decades! It's not like in chess where you move from this square to that square as much as you may think that things can turn from black to white like a gun pow! Of course everything must undergo transformations over time and trying to keep something the exact same way as in the remote past will only slowly erode that thing. Europa is now where America was in the XVIII/XIX th century but it will go through all evolution phases way faster than that.

Thank you Tamora. Take care.

…………….

What else is put on someone's head in order for him/her to be punished physically other than the black sack for the rope to be tied around the neck or that metal helmet used in the electric chair executions?

The death by hanging only was last applied in 1969… Formal removal from the official papers was in 1998. So from the point of view of your beliefs in papers, it would mean that Britain was in the Middle Ages until 1998.

 

You can take a careful look at the European Commission's website and find out the reach of its powers. You will be more than reassured about its integration plans.

And stop being a drama queen. I said nothing about physical punishment.

The UK Parliament voted to abolish hanging in 1969. In 1999 the UK signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights and formally abolished the death penalty (but it still allows signatory states to reinstate it in certain rather vaguely worded circumstances). And governments, their lawyers and the courts to which they subject themselves, believe in 'papers' even if you don't.

A vote in parliament is more than good enough for me. If parliament voted to reinstate the death penalty, it would be something I would have to consider when voting at the next election. It's a moot point now as the death penalty cannot be applied in EU member states unless of course a member state gets a derogation from its obligations under the Convention. What national parliaments think is irrelevant now in this as with many other issues.

And thanks for your good wishes. I wish you luck as well.

 

Actually I am very perplexed that none of the EU's federalist idea is reported here... none whatsoever. All of the many local TV channels here don't mention a thing. Not even the national ones. They talk about a lot of some other useless local stuff but this is never mentioned... Quite strange!! ...while in a few other countries people have adopted it as a therapy, as a fashionable national sport, as a way to relieve stress, to spill their personal frustrations over the EU, here however, these pro-EU people don't have a clue about it. It is very pro-European citizens like me that watch Euronews all day and are subscribed online to all EU stuff who know. I think it's because, unfortunately, private TV channels are very politically oriented and many of our ex-communist politicians here don't like the EU that much. They do not like EU scrutiny over what they do and would be terrified at the idea of the population supporting this new idea of the EU. They don't because by looking from the outside of the country, it is hard to account for 85-87% of the national GDP vanishing each year, being shifted away from hospitals and education and everything. That must be the reason.

But my point here was that those Scots, one day after Barroso's federalist speech don't seem to be bothered at all in their EU aspirations. To them this has an aura of normality, it is natural.