It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Europeans: Why Did You Willing Cede Your Sovereignty to Brussels and the EU?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: grainofsand

I have to admit that the U.K. did a good job of reaping most of the benefits of the E.U. without a lot of the drawbacks. In a way the U.K. politicians did a good job for their citizens at least in this case.


Here is a prediction I made a little while ago regarding the true nature of the UK in regards to the joining of the EU.

I personally believe that this is a long game plan and I will find out if I am correct sometime next year.

"Germany made two attempts by force to control Europe and failed, The UK has a long history of conquest but is now sadly in decline. In order to create a European union countries had to willingly agree to join of there own accord and as such there must have been a benificial reason to do so. Now that most of the countries worth having are in then it could be said that it's time to move into phase 2.

The EU has been pushing the limits with the UK for some time now and the media has been allowed to run with this, at the last general election Ukip and there leader Nigel Farage(a former tory and commodity broker) fired up the UK population to such a degree that the Tories were "forced" to promise an in/out referendum.

The Tory party wish to stay in the EU but in order to placate the UK voters certain concessions will need to be made in order to give the UK a better deal and vote to stay in the EU. Our esteemed leader will then DEMAND that if the EU wishes to keep the UK then these demands will have to be met or we will leave.

The EU will initially kick up a big fuss refusing to allow the UK special treatment but will eventually reluctantly agree IF... France and Germany are given the same concessions and privilages.

At this point all the other nations in the EU will also demand the same deal and will be told in no uncertain terms to sod off as they are not important enough to warrent such a deal, that they now need the EU to survive and by the way they owe quite a lot of money so keep it zipped.

So I predict that we will stay in the EU but have greater powers alongside France and Germany, a couple of countries may get the odd pre arranged benifit to placate there own disgruntled populations somewhat and the big shots can then start thinking about moving onto phase 3.

So in simple terms within a European union all countries are equal but some are more equal than others."

The thread did not gain much interest but can be found Here




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: uncommitted

since when did the elected officials speak for the people ,come to my town and i will show the elected officials avoiding the people,


i guess you mean the elected officials voting to keep the tampon tax as speaking for the people too


If you are representative of your town, I don't blame them.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: uncommitted

The latest Ipsos-Mori poll (for what they are worth!) shows 42% - 41% in favour of leaving as to staying........so too close to really call at the moment.

I am something of a rarity politically in the UK in that generally speaking I am a Conservative (Left wing Tory) in favour of Europe - yes, some of us actually do exist!

Frankly, Europe can be a complete and utter pain in the a$*! at times but i firmly believe that we are better together. Aside from anything, 2 nations now have populations greater than our entire continent - we need to group together to compete. We also need to accept the reality that many anti EU stories in UK media are simply made up, or at best misinterpretated.



Actually Flavian, my political balance is fairly much the same as yours, although I can veer to the right or left depending on the issue at hand, unlike, oooh, let's say some UKIP supporters that fix their view and can never deviate.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Flavian

we are better being trading partners not europe deciding our laws,and those statistics not even close to the truth,
we are better being friends not being dictated too


There is that dictated to thing again. For the most part, this is a floored argument and is willfully misinterpretated by our media.

A simple example - competition tariffs for national contracts. We always here that EU rules mean that there has to be fair competition for awarding national (eg Army) contracts throughtout Europe. In the UK we interpret that to mean everyone has to have the same chance. In Germany, they have national laws that say German firms are in favoured position but the contract is open to all firms. In simple terms, a very simple rewording of the law means German firms therefore have a much better chance of landing the plumb German contracts. In Britain, we don't have the sense to do this and instead whinge about EU laws impacting upon us.

There are numerous similar examples from all over the EU sphere.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
I think it's a push to say the Tory party want to stay in the EU when even in the cabinet there are those that don't, and a lot of the Tory voters remain unconvinced. I personally think that had more to do with pushing the referendum than a one issue media luvvie like Farage.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: nonspecific
I think it's a push to say the Tory party want to stay in the EU when even in the cabinet there are those that don't, and a lot of the Tory voters remain unconvinced. I personally think that had more to do with pushing the referendum than a one issue media luvvie like Farage.



I think the trick is to understand that the cabinet is a temporary thing as are the current party members.

If you look at this as a plan set in motion decades ago then it makes a lot more sense, have you ever read or seen "yes prime minister"?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: nonspecific
I think it's a push to say the Tory party want to stay in the EU when even in the cabinet there are those that don't, and a lot of the Tory voters remain unconvinced. I personally think that had more to do with pushing the referendum than a one issue media luvvie like Farage.



I think the trick is to understand that the cabinet is a temporary thing as are the current party members.

If you look at this as a plan set in motion decades ago then it makes a lot more sense, have you ever read or seen "yes prime minister"?


I am more than overly familiar with yes minister/prime minister, but if I understand your inference correctly then you are saying it is not a Tory/labour/SNP/Lib Dem/ UKIP thing but the Whitehall machine? If so, then my point still stands if we assume Whitehall doesn't care which party is in charge (to your point that the Tories want to stay in Europe), but Whitehall has the final say.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: nonspecific
I think it's a push to say the Tory party want to stay in the EU when even in the cabinet there are those that don't, and a lot of the Tory voters remain unconvinced. I personally think that had more to do with pushing the referendum than a one issue media luvvie like Farage.



I think the trick is to understand that the cabinet is a temporary thing as are the current party members.

If you look at this as a plan set in motion decades ago then it makes a lot more sense, have you ever read or seen "yes prime minister"?


I am more than overly familiar with yes minister/prime minister, but if I understand your inference correctly then you are saying it is not a Tory/labour/SNP/Lib Dem/ UKIP thing but the Whitehall machine? If so, then my point still stands if we assume Whitehall doesn't care which party is in charge (to your point that the Tories want to stay in Europe), but Whitehall has the final say.


My personal opinion on this is that yes the party currently in power has nothing to do with the long term plans that were set in place a long time ago.

As I said before I have nothing to back this up but I genuinley do think that the EU referendum will bring greater power to the UK, France and Germany and the other nations that so happily signed up to the EU of there own free will will regret it when they realise they have been duped by a plan set in motion by people who are now most likley dead.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
The UK joined the EEC in 1973.
A referendum was held in 1975 to determine continuing membership or not.
The electorate voted 67% in favour of remaining in the EEC.

The EEC was essentially nothing more than a free trade agreement between northern and western European countries.

At no point was political union ever openly on the agenda and the British people have never voted to transfer any sovereignty whatsoever to Brussels and the EU.

That European Law can now supersede UK Law is a disgrace and the gradual transferal of sovereignty from Parliament in Westminster to the EU is nothing short of treason and all Prime Minister's from Heath onwards along with the current Monarch have been complicit in this treason.

I'm still doubtful that the proposed referendum on UK membership of the EU will actually go ahead but if it does I just hope the possible benefits and disadvantages of both sides of the argument are presented in a clear and concise manner that enables the electorate to make an informed decision.

Personally I have no problem with a Free Trade Association etc but I will not vote for anything that allows Brussels to dictate to the democratically elected government of the UK and its Parliament.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus


Now I will admit I don't understand how a country can voluntarily agree to give up their national identity and sovereignty, but maybe there are some Europeans here that can explain it to me.

The reasons are similar to those that caused the individual states of North America to cede their sovereignty to the federal government under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.


Nazi's are outlawed...

Yes, so annoying, isn't it?


...and you can't even speak against global warming in Germany anymore

What utter rubbish.


I know the NWO also wants to centralize power in the Americas and Asia as well so...

There is no NWO, and your post is a typical example of the unreality and paranoia that currently dominates the thinking of the American political right.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
The UK joined the EEC in 1973.
A referendum was held in 1975 to determine continuing membership or not.
The electorate voted 67% in favour of remaining in the EEC.

The EEC was essentially nothing more than a free trade agreement between northern and western European countries.

At no point was political union ever openly on the agenda and the British people have never voted to transfer any sovereignty whatsoever to Brussels and the EU.

That European Law can now supersede UK Law is a disgrace and the gradual transferal of sovereignty from Parliament in Westminster to the EU is nothing short of treason and all Prime Minister's from Heath onwards along with the current Monarch have been complicit in this treason.

I'm still doubtful that the proposed referendum on UK membership of the EU will actually go ahead but if it does I just hope the possible benefits and disadvantages of both sides of the argument are presented in a clear and concise manner that enables the electorate to make an informed decision.

Personally I have no problem with a Free Trade Association etc but I will not vote for anything that allows Brussels to dictate to the democratically elected government of the UK and its Parliament.


at least you are telling the truth like me ,its a disgrace what they have done
as to the vote they will fake it they have too
or they will loose and they know it.
as for delaying the vote till the servicemen died even more disgusting



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I do not call you ignorant, but I can not agree with your opinion, as in my eyes, this is very flawed as it seems that your opinion is based on what you have heard from local media rather than having actual experience on how the situation in European nations (or EU members) actually is like. Being personally interested in US politics and local life, during the past years I have been looking into different channels of news (MSM, alternative) trying to understand the whole picture, but based on personal perspective, the more conservative the channel of information is, the more ignorantly it tries to paint the picture from reality based on opinions not facts/personal experience.

Firstly, I come from nation who has suffered under communism due to Soviet occupation, so I know well what it is like. There are no socialist (communism) nations in Europe. Social democracy (or democratic socialism) has nothing to do with actual socialism or communism. Of course, the public sector is larger than in nations which have less public programs, although the econmies are still capitalistic. The fact that a few sectors are run by government from taxes does not mean that private sector does not exist or entrepreneurship is lower.

Let me give you a few facts about this particular nation: tax rates are 20% income tax, 20% VAT and there is 33% social security payroll tax. These taxes cover universal healthcare, higher education, one of the best public school systems in the world (private schools are not able to compete with public schools), free high-quality public transportation in the capital, 3 years paternal leave (either mother or father), for children free school meal, one of the most (if not the most) technologically advanced publi IT-system online. Bureocracy is minimal due to the fact that nearly every government service is available online. Filing taxes taxes less than 5 minutes (and you automatically recieve these back the next day, starting a company 15-20 minutes, voting can be done online as well as countless other measures to make private sector more effective (digital signatures for example). If it was socialistic nation, this should be in chaos, yet entrepreneurship is one of the highest in the world, start-up rate per capita is one of the highest in the world, government debt is lowest among OECD nations (around 10%), public education is one of the best in the world (2nd according to PISA test in Europe far ahead USA). Corruption is generally low due to IT-systems making goernment activity more transparent. In every freedom index the nation is doing reasonably well, usually even better than USA.
I wrote this just show you that the nation is not a socialist nation, but a well-functioning capitalistic economy with public sector just as in every nation in Europe. '

When it comes to EU, I can not agree with you either. This nation joined EU in the beginning of 2000s and so far it has brought nothing than good. Generally speaking, it is just economic union. European nations can differ by language or culture more by US states, yet there is a need of trade between each other. With the interconnectedness of the economies (for example, if Greece economy fails, it affects its major trade partners,which affects their partners etc). Whichever economy fails, all suffer. Whether greece had euro or not, it still would have hit all economies in Europe, especially if they were not helped out by EU. Being member has made travelling, import/export far easier due to fact of open borders between nations and not having the need to exchange currency every couple of hundred miles. Having unified higher health/safety standards has made it easier to trade and made it better enironment for either health or economy. Altogether, there is nothing than good so far that I have noticed (besides better standards for companies so they would not exploit the environment/their Iemployees /clients that much). EU government in Brussels has less power over its members than federal government has over US states. The hate speech issue has nothing to do with EU government, but is an internal issue of nations. Generally people, at least among people I know from different countries, it just comes down to common sense.

All in all, after this long post, I would say European Union has not affected any rights I have had during my life. Having lived in different European nations, as well as in USA, I would say I personally see myself having more rights here, life is far less stressful. I pay the taxes for myself and my future family, not others. I can choose whether to work in priate sector, public sector or just start my own company. The environment in cities is generally safer (and cleaner) than what I encountered in US. I have more rights as an employee here + have time for my family and friends without the need of working 50 hours a week (even 40 is too much imo). I know my kids will receive high quality healthcare and education (if they choose to), whatever happened to me without the need of getting into debt for the rest of their lives. There is no authoritan government, who dictates what I can say or do. European Union government in Brussels has had no negative effect on my life.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

Thank you for your most well thought out and written post.
I can easily agree with everything you said and understand your perception of EU membership as a good thing for your country.

Would you like to share if your country is a net contributor to EU finances, or net benefit recipient?
My country, the UK, pays about £10 Billion (GBP) every year (net) for the 'privilege' of being members of the EU. What is the net contribution/benefit figure for your country?

£10 Billion GBP could build 100,000 houses each year in the UK, pay for 300 thousand or so nurses, fund half a million care home places for old and infirm people, or a couple of million rented rooms a year for homeless people.
It is a massive amount of money and could be spent well in the UK.

So is your country a benefit recipient of the EU, or a taxpayer?
...I assume you see how that can influence perspective for citizens.

*Edit*
Oh and just to be clear, I am voting for the UK to leave in next years referendum, but for many other reasons as well as my comments above.

*Edit Again*
Oh, and just for clarity, here's a link to last years EU budget showing who is paying for all of it, check it out please!
www.telegraph.co.uk...

...if you are from Poland I ain't surprised you love being members of the EU. Lol, if it didn't make me disappointed that good money could be helping needy people in the UK instead of so other EU nations can afford free public transport and school meals etc.

edit on 16.12.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Thank you for your reply.

One thing I do believe you fail to consider is the hidden data behind the statistics. I do agree 11 billion is a huge amount and could help lots of people locally. Although what is received from the 11 billion pounds is a different story. UK exports and imports 10s of billions of dollars worth of products every single month. In 2014 the exports where over 500 billion dollars per year, while the imports exceeded 800 billion. The economy of UK is largely dependent on trade with European trade partners (just as the opposite). Leaving EU could easily mean losing very profitable trade contracts in addition to making harder to access European markets, which would mean higher prices on imported products in addition to losing a large number of jobs, especially in sectors which are dependent on import or export. In the long run, this would cost far more than the 11 billion.

I am not from Poland, but from a small nation of Estonia. The local population is 1.3 million compared to 63 million in UK. This country is merely 25 years old and the economy is weaker (one of the best if not the best among preious USSR nations), although due having to rebuild the nation from zero since then. I would not say that this is a poor nation due to lower living of cost, although the salaries and budget (even per capita) are incomparable to UK or any other Western/North-European nation. (average salary is about 1000 euros per month).

Comparing these nations is like comparing apples and oranges due to economical differences. The whole budget of this nation with population 48 times lower than UK and budget nearly 150 times lower. In 2014 Estonia contributed 180 million to EU budget, which is 2.5% of the national budget. UK contributed 11 billion, which is around 1% of the local national budget.

Possibly at the moment, Estonia recieved more than it has paid in as has any other nation of previous USSR members. This has not been used for paying for the transport or lunches. About transport (something was used to buy extra new buses, but these came from some other EU nation (maybe even UK or Ireland, so the money ended back in EU creating extra jobs locally). Majority of it has been used on infrastructure as it makes it easier for other EU nations and local companies gaining access to Russian, Finnish and Swedish markets. About UK, after joining EU, there are many startups moved over there, creating 1000s of jobs, millions of extra revenue for taxes etc, In addition to that, Estonia created virtual citizenship program, which already helped over 5000 international companies expand to European markets.

What I am trying to say, economies are interconnected. EU might redistribute finances between nations, although in the one way or another this comes back whether via additional trade, companies expanding to other nations, creating new jobs/additional tax revenue, from product costs being lower due to easier, faster logistics within EU or some other way



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

Thanks for your reply, no wonder you are so happy, Estonia had a net benefit of £800 Million GBP's from the EU for its population of 1.3 million last year. That works out around £600 per person per year, lucky you, more than 60% of your average citizens monthly earnings based on what you posted earlier!

British citizens each paid around £150 per year (net) for the benefit of being members of the EU.
I'm voting out. The Germans will still trade with us when we are able to vote again with our seat on the WTO.
BMW/Audi/Porsche exec's will be the first on the phone to Merkel demanding decent trade tariff's if we vote to leave, within hours, that is guaranteed.

Sorry fella, I'm hoping you will lose my tax money next year.

*Edit*
If I was so inclined I could look at the chart link I posted and work out exactly how much of my own personal £150 contribution last year funded your nation. Easy to work out, but I won't because it would needlessly annoy me.
edit on 16.12.2015 by grainofsand because: Clarity



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

First of all I'd like to thank you for your well written posts.

But I think you may be missing the point slightly.

Most people in the UK understand and appreciate the benefits of a Free Trade Association between the countries that are members of the EU and probably support that.
What we don't support is the move towards political union and the transferal of sovereignty to the EU.
We don't want Brussels dictating UK domestic policies and rule making - the UK democratically elected Parliament and legal system should take precedence over EU dictates.

People make the mistake in believing that those of us who oppose government from Brussels are anti-European.
It's not that, we just want to be able to govern ourselves the best we can.

Those who seek increased political union wish to centralise power in Brussels and diminish the power and influence of the elected bodies of the EU's constituent nations - that is something I personally passionately oppose.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Now I will admit I don't understand how a country can voluntarily agree to give up their national identity and sovereignty, but maybe there are some Europeans here that can explain it to me.


I can't speak for other countries, but in the UK there was no such voluntary agreement on the part of the public.

Put very simply, the original public vote taken in the early 1970s was for Britain to unify with Europe in a soley economic respect, to become part of the European Economic Union. It was not sold to the public as being a political unity or a forerunner thereof.

In the early 1990s the European Economic Union was reconfigured into the newly created European Union, an entirely politically unifying entity. The British public were given no vote on this.

Over subsequent years British politicians have gradually tied Britain politically ever closer to the the European Union, and consequently the European Union has gained more and more power over the UK.

The lack of public consulation regarding membership of the European Union, combined with a growing public frustration and anger at the level of encroachment of the European Union upon the UK, is part of the reason why the country will next year be holding a referendum on whether the UK remains a part of the EU.

That referendum will be the only vote the British public have ever been granted in regards to membership of the European Union.




edit on 17-12-2015 by Motorhead because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hm just wondering how big of an factor was that they prepared to these days with this whole EU BS, like taking over some poorer countries that was perhaps going to make some deals with Russia and such that many EU elites sees as mortal enemies.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join