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
On the grounds there was no vote, and doesn't need to be on the march to federalisation, it's hardly a profound argument.
So, in plain English if you can; Which of them actually advocated zero immigration?
Didn't think so
We have made changes from within i.e. the Cameron deal of 2013
The federalist ideals of some within the EU largely go against the will of the EU populous. The forthcoming French and Germany GE's will be interesting.
It's utter bollocks.,..
There is zero connection between an agreed security and defence policy and obtaining consent from the people of Europe to give up their sovereignty and become part of a United States of Europe.
Why you insist on perpetuating this rubbish, I've no idea. Other than to try and justify your own warped agenda.
So, in plain English if you can; Which of them actually advocated zero immigration?
Didn't think so
So despite their utterances on the entire subject, not using the words zero immigration would somehow make them advocates of immigration then?
What a ridiculous argument.
They've managed without consent for that on their journey towards their openly stated goal so far.
European federalism is not dead yet
If it is to happen at all, further integration will be down to necessity.
John Thornhill of the FT
If it is to happen at all, further integration will be down to necessity.
John Thornhill of the FT
You keep making the mistake of thinking the electorate matter. They haven't done so far. They've barely even been asked.
This ^
It's been portrayed as something it isn't.
The simple fact remains that had a TRUE federalist agenda hit the table, then we'd have refused to be part of it, and there'd have been virtual unanimous support for that stance.
The irony is that Leave perpetuated these myths and then had the temerity to use the phrase 'Project Fear'
I didn't get it from leave. A fair amount was from the EU itself. There's unlikely to be a situation where it would be asked, it's a creeping process towards the stated goal.
OK,
I challenge you to find a post where I have made an assumption about what you have said. All the assumptions have been on your part you fool as you stated you did not know why a mention was made to immigration by someone else and I gave an opinion as to why it was the case.
That you continue to repeat yourself without actually taking on board that my comments refer to what someone else said and not you is the most telling point of this charade. It just shows a pathetic level of insecurity tbh that you are arguing with someone who hasn't disagreed with you.
Not to those making the decisions they don't. Much of what comes is barely commented on, never mind voted about.
You can repeat your claim all you like, it misses where the decisions are made.
I didn't say you did and I understand that your belief is that creeping Federalism had only one end goal.
My view is and always has been, that it would have never included the UK, same as the Euro didn't happen on these shores.
Not that I think there's any real desire for it, outside of the minds of a small number of Eurocrats.
Cameron failed miserably in his mission to have a few changes. It's what led to the referendum, so it's unlikley we'd be in a position to stop other issues, even if they cropped in a way that would let us or that we realised were happening.
You seem to see the EU as operating in a way that in reality it doesn't.
- Status