It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Brussels has wiped England and the English Channel off the map

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Reise Reise
Yikes! Remember folks, the Germans really really hate it when borders start changing.

Hello Reise, these borders of Regions shouldn't be mistaken for national bounderies.

There's hardly a border in Europe that contains even a 90+% of any given nationality, that might be only the Danes on their peninsula and many islands. Any juristriction border splits neighbors and hinders commercial exchange, creates only problems, sooner or later leading to war. Therefore me think it's a good idea to ignore national borders; they're still there, so you can say you're in this or that country. But the Region criss-crosses that old border and exchange is free.

Great idea, it seems to me... great way to prevent war.

It seems somebody in the EU has their own version of PNAC....

While we for certain have black hidden powers in control equal to U.S. neocons, in Europe they don't sport an agressive militaristic expansion-ideology like their American brothers do, neither do we pursue hegamony. The EU is not a military power, it's a trade power, whos only weapon are the benefits from their trading.

But who knows what the endgame is with EU, expanding it's way East. If Turkey and former Soviet states are to join, it'll go all the way to China. Hopefully without loosening a shot.

All I know it'll be mostly for the bankers and the players holding the strings, but I do think they'll let us stay a little longer in Europe than U.S.A.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:59 AM
I just don't seen the reasoning behind this!

I was born in Kent and I happen to love that it is (was?) considered the Garden of ENGLAND, not fracking FRANCE.

There is no way that this is a good idea. Kids are confused as to what a stable reality is today as it is, but change the boundries of their worlds and that rips the carpet from underneath them!
I know that boarders have been re-assigned in the past in other areas but that was as a result of war or civil termoil, why would you do it if there was NO REASON??!

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:32 AM
The DAILY MAIL well the only people who should get upset about this must have an IQ in single DAILY MAIL readers!

Still at least Daily Mail readers have double the IQ of Sun readers.

For all you non British folks out there the Daily Mail and Sun are tabloids who are well know for twisting Ok I'll say it LYING about anything they see fit to stir up the xenophobes and increase paper sales. The difference between the two is that the Sun has a big pair of breasts on page3.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Charity
reply to post by Rapacity

Seems a bit rough that first generation immigrants can't vote in this referendum of yours.

The first wave of mass immigration to the UK was from the Caribbean in the late 1940's ... so someone who's lived here the best part of 60 years can't vote ? But they can work their guts out, pay taxes & raise a family here ...

And legally forced to vote ? Controversial ... what sanctions would you impose against those who can't be bothered ? And only 21 or over ? Disenfranchising 18-21 year olds is just soooo going to get them interested in the political system ...

I don't buy your sovereignty argument either. In England & Wales sovereignty is vested in Parliament and while they have the ability to pass an Act repealing our membership of the EU we've nothing to worry about. Sovereignty in Scotland is vested in the people ... we can vote ourselves anything we like if we could ever be arsed ...

Charity, I should have replied to your post immediately after you placed it last night but having read many of your posts in other threads and agreeing with them, out of the respect I have for you, I gave your post a lot of consideration. I stand by what I originally wrote. My reasoning is presented below:

The decision to merge a nations sovereignty with any other nation or group of nations has consequences far beyond the needs of any individual. Any decision taken, whether for or against, will impact on every person currently in that nation, on the psyche of that nation, its presentation to the world, its history and its future. It will impact politically, socially and economically. It affects the legal system. It will affect the very sole of the nation. It is a decision that requires a lot of consideration; and will weigh heavily on every voters conscience.

This type of decision should not be given to the young, they should be heard and their thoughts considered. However, upto tha age of 16, most people are still in education and thus their opinions are shaped by those whom educate them e.g those whom are forced by governments to pitch a particular type of education (I'm not saying all educators toe their government's line but many will for fear of job security and intimidation. Indeed, many educators have never been out of the education arena because they go from school to teaching in schools. The young can be very naive. By the age of 18, many will have tasted working life and will be adjusting their attitudes and behavior toward the "real" world yet still many will only just be getting over the shock that the media and the educators tell half-truths. At this point in life, many will start to develop their own opinions. By age 21, many will be seeing life as they will until death. Not all people at 21 will be ready (in mental maturity) to commit their nation's sovereignty to another's with comprehension of that commitment's effects but at least their opinions will most likely be their own and not another's... Tell me, why do the military prefer young recruits to old? Why is most commercial advertising aimed at the young? The young are most impressionable. Most people do not reach the brain development required to make good decisions until early adulthood.

Continued below...

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:49 AM
Continued from above...

This vote should not be given to first generation immigrants. No exceptions. They should be heard only. This vote is not simply about local services, local politics and taxation. This vote is about signing away a country's history. Everything for which a country has fought will be washed into antiquity. Think of it as a marriage, your marriage, would you want your neighbors to tell you who you can and cannot marry? If the wrong decision is made and the climate becomes violent then who do you think will be first to the guillotine.

Were I in Jamaica, and Jamaica were to vote on whether to join a United Africa, I would not want to participate in the vote. It would be none of my business. Tell me, why is Scotland moving toward independence? Is it because Scotland doesn't consider that the English, Welsh and N.Irish should determine Scotland's heading? For how long must someone have been living in the USA for him/her to be eligible to be president? Why? I think the points are attuned.

The Lisbon treaty removes a country's sovereignty albeit not entirely directly. It is part of a long chain of treaties that together will remove the parliaments of its member nations. I'm not against the EU. I think it would be better to be in the EU than not. At least in the EU the English and Welsh will have an identity. At the moment, we have nothing, it has all been stripped from us.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:01 AM
You think the teachers would be able to change a 16 year olds mind. Even younger children will still know what they mean over the age of 14 or so. I know I would.

my my you are wrong, the teachers will be going with the government under fear of job loss. So that means they will be trying to make me and my friends want to become part of another country, as part of this generation I can tell you that you are bringing up a hugely patriotic bunch of kids. Not always for the right reasons but even so.

Many people in my school are so pro-England that the spread BNP graffiti around. People still regularly speak of their hate of Germany for WWII STILL. Change the borders, have an entire generation show up at number 10, along with the veterans of WW II, and just about everyone else in England.

And theres the fact that leadership would break down after two weeks anyway, one government can not suddenly adjust to so many more people when they have trouble as it is, and if bigger governments are created to cop then more arguments start.

I can only assume this to be true of many of countries that would be affected as well.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by umbr45]

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by Rapacity

That's a very good post ... starred ... although I don't necessarily agree with much of it. I'll reply later tonight when I've got a wee bit more time.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:28 AM
If we english are going to be ruled by other european coutries does that mean we can have our right to own guns back like people in these countries?

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by stumason

The buggers got us in the end and it was the Labour Party that sailed us down the river. Those scumbags in power are even trying hand over fist to give Gibraltar to the Spanish and are even more keen to hand the Falklands over to the Argies.

This poll sums up the feeling amongst the English towards the whole mess Labour has caused. With the devolution of Welsh and Scottish powers but England getting no representation, alongside huge amounts of English tax money paying for free Welsh and Scottish prescriptions, University and council tax freezes, the animosity is growing:

Wouldn't it be a slap in the face to all the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalist parties? Just check out the disparity between GDP on wikipedia, it's hilarious. And yet, they want to be set free! Good grief!

We'd only reconquer them a few years later anyway...

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by Rapacity

Just wanted to give a nod of agreement Rapacity.

Non-British should absolutely not have the right to vote. They don't have a vested interest in this piece of land - past or future - generally speaking they only care about its present, the space of time that they'll inhabit Britain. And why should they care about Britain's long-term? They have their own ancestral homelands. Britain (or if you'd prefer - England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) isn't in their blood. Therefore I don't see how they're qualified to vote. I'm sorry if this sounds a little too right-wing for some members but it's a feeling that has developed objectively over many years.

Regarding the carving up of Britain and Western Europe - were it a serious proposition (and as far as I know, it isn't), it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being established. I say it time and time again, but we Brits are at the end of our tether. It isn't going to take much for protest or even riots to occur in our current circumstance, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let Brussels steal my homeland.

Speaking hypothetically, if this were to happen - I'd see it as nothing more than a calculated move to create more borders and boundaries in the hope that all borders will be cheapened and eventually forgotten. What better way to help the British forget old borders than to bombard them with additional ones? It's essentially a backdoor to a genuinely united Europe. We'd notice if they erased the borders one day, but those same borders will fade - slowly and surely - if numerous new ones are juxtaposed atop them.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by umbr45

I'm not saying that all under 21's are naive and unable to develop there own (genuinely formed) opinions. I know some do. When I was in schooling, I did; but I was exceptional among most of my peers who wouldn't look any further than the comfort of their parentally, educationally directed and TV guided opinions. I was the lad who sat at the back of the class debating the whys and wherefores of the lessons being taught. I have always liked debate even where debate leads to confrontation (provided others' safety are not risked). Many people of school age, even when their opinions are formed, would fall back to the opinions they are guided toward (whether patriotic, racist, benevolent or not) just because an authority figure's opinion is more "trusted" i.e through lack of confidence in their own judgment.

My opinion stated above is based on a general observation - most people under 21 are not in a position to draw an effective conclusion of the merits and demerits of a nation merging its sovereignty with another's and the effects there-of... As such, it would be wrong to over complicate matters by introducing clause and sub-clause (to my opinionated voting age w.r.t. the matter of Europe and the Lisbon Treaty) whereby a person under the age of 21 may be entitled a vote in a referendum if criteria XYZ of critical thinking were met. It sounds harsh and it is. But it is better than the alternative of allowing those not mature enough (by biology) to decide a nations fate.

This may seem at odds with my statement but I'll say it anyway - I've heard many under tens make very reasonable, rational opinions of events happening in their lives and the world. I've heard under tens say things that put adults to shame. They see life so much less complicated that its dumbfounding. The moment a child hits puberty and secondary school, its thinking changes. It's ability to judge a situation and discern the truth (even from him/herself) seems to disappear. That ability to see clearly doesn't return for a long time. We all go through a lot of changes as we age to adulthood.

[edit on 24/4/08 by Rapacity]

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:37 PM
I can sort of see where your'e coming from, but times are changing.

My history teacher openly believes in a conspiracy in 9/11 and openly tells us most of what he teaches us was made up by the governent because 'we' won the war.

Times are changing and the people who work for 'the government' are going against them as well.

I would also like to say we are perfectly able to make decissions by ourselves; it is only in the past few hundred years that people have decided we are not. Do not underestimate the youth, there are just as many adults who will do what the government want as younger people.

If something of this size was brought to light, and there was a vote I truly think that people of ages as young as 13 (or there abouts) should be able to vote. Having labour or conservative parties in charge does not directly affect a child, but suddenly becoming French does.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:40 PM
Wait till the globalist piss off the Scots... Won't be fun to wake up with a battle axe stuck in your body somewhere. Just ask former Kings..

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by stumason

Our British pride and independence retired with Maggie!!!!

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:46 PM
Maybe I am just an ignorant Yank, but I believe in national soverignty. I am not a soldier, but I would fight to defend the UK from her enemies, including a hostile takeover by the EU. Do so few still hold their heritage and nations dear? I am disappointed that so many who post from within the EU just accept it as the world's course!

I wish you all very well - you and your nations are in my prayers.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:28 PM
Too funny

The British will doubtless bend over for this just as they bend over for every other liberty that has been taken away from them.

I wonder what the new national language will be, could make business trips a little more tricky, other than that, I could care less.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:38 PM
Somehow I doubt it, we may be too lazy to stop other things, but then isn't everyone else. When is the last time America got together as an entire country and did something.

But becoming part of a different country, they'd have to turn whole towns into prisons because there will be quite a few unahppy people.

We wouldn't let something like this happen, we'd lose our currency, our own breakfast and our ability to laugh at everyone one else because of our slightly better money and appearance to the world.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Retseh
Too funny

The British will doubtless bend over for this just as they bend over for every other liberty that has been taken away from them.

I wonder what the new national language will be, could make business trips a little more tricky, other than that, I could care less.

What you and everyone else on this thread appears to completely fail to understand is that we NEVER had the rights to be taken away. We in Britain are subjects not citizens. Inclusion in Europe would in actual fact raise us up from that position.

It is the US that had independence and rights as individuals and it was they that have bent over and allowed the Patriot Act to be steadily inserted.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:44 AM
We might get a vote on Lisbon yet...

Take a look at this link HERE. - Britian might still get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/European-Constitution...

And this one HERE.

On 22 April there was a hearing in the High Court of my action against the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in which I seek a judicial review of their refusal to hold a referendum on whether the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified. Judgement was reserved. This meant that the judge needed time to consider the arguments and would give his decision later. 2 May 10:00 a.m. - I am delighted to say that in his judgement delivered at the High Court this morning Mr Justice Owen decided that permission to apply for judicial review would be granted to me. In other words the result of the hearing last week is that we won. I expect to put more information on this website shortly. Although I am the person bringing the action it is, in effect, on behalf of all those of us – well over half the population – who want our say in a referendum. There are, I believe, two reasons why there should be a referendum: 1. The Labour Party, as well as the other two main parties, made an unambiguous promise that they would call one. They should keep that promise. 2. The Treaty is immensely important and so, irrespective of whether you think it should be ratified or not, you should be allowed a vote on it. The legal case is enormously expensive and I need help to pursue it. I am very grateful indeed for those who have already given me financial support. If you would like to help please make cheques payable to Stuart Wheeler Lisbon Litigation Account and send them to me with this contribution form. If you need to know anything else which is not covered by this website please e-mail me at

posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 06:18 AM
1989? Thatcher? No,

The root of all this lies in 1973 with Heath. When we went into the Common Market, Mr T promised there would be no loss of sovereignty. He later confessed he knew there would be. It was also in the early 1970s that the first European maps excluding the word "England" (broken up into regions) were published.

I blame Thatcher for anything I can. But she didn't start this ball rolling.

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in