The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
It doesn't explicitly mention it, but it does mention the European Defense Industry, and implies a few other measures that, based on the experience of their actions in other areas, shows only one real outcome.
Deep down I agree it probably will be Tory but we will see.
2020 is a while off.
I things go badly for the country then there may be a big urge for an alternative.
I think Laws should be the same everywhere in the world. We are all human and share the same planet so there is every reason for all of us to want the same, best laws. Anyone who argues otherwise must have an agenda - why would you want a different law from the best one? An educated democratic process would achieve the best laws more quickly if there were no nation states in my opinion.
If you sign a free trade agreement without insisting on employment laws being the same then you are giving both parties the right to reduce employment protection to reduce costs and become more competitive. That always leads to poor health and safety practices, injuries and deaths as unscrupulous employers try to line their pockets.
Labour are always going to have difficulties with this: they have too much integrity so can't woo these voters in the way the Tories and UKIP do.
So you want laws decided by a world body?
Do you think every country in the world will be able to pay the pensions and unemployment benefits that some countries will want?
All of them, on general principle, because they come from the EU.
We didn't elect these people, we cannot remove them from power and therefore we cannot hold them accountable for a single thing.
That's not democracy and that's not how I wish to be governed....EVER.
Indeed.
Again I find myself in the horrible position of being in agreement with Uncle Pete.
Every country has a different economy, relative to its wealth, tax laws and population.
If every country put into one pot, then those countries who pay in the most are going to lose out, as the mean total will favour those countries that are poorer.
How would you deal with rules on pollution? CO2 damages the whole planet. There isn't much point in the UK having tough rules on CO2 unless everyone else does or the increased costs of dealing with CO2 will just make our industry uncompetitive with countries who decide not to bother.
In my neck of the woods, very few 20-30 year olds would vote for him.
One linked for a kick off. Don't just rely on raking the tabloids, Google is your friend.
Milton Keynes is mostly Pro-Corbyn, amongst those under 40 at least.
I would have voted for him over Cameron, too early to judge May's cabinet, though it hasn't been a promising start.
The EU climate change measures were driven by global factors, not internal to the EU. We're still covered by the same factors, and still committed to changes, in fact possibly more so than the rest of the EU.
All EU laws are passed by a combination of the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament. All the ministers are elected as is the parliament.
Your argument applies equally well to say Scotland within the UK or to Edinburgh within Scotland. I live in in Labour controlled county council ward in a Labour parliamentary constituency but all the laws are passed by a conservative controlled council or Government. But my solution isn't for Oxford to leave the UK, it is to try to change from within.
My area is very pro Tory and same as the surrounding areas, only Brum is different.
I'm not saying that countries cant get together and reach agreement on matters.
- Status