Why Eurozone should become should become United States of Europe, by David Cameron

reply to post by EvanB

Great! As the USA big federation was not enough an outsanding proof of a weak an evil monetary system, extremly bad economy police and a goverment that is so militatry, financial and media strong that is completely out of control.
Now EU leaders want to sell us the very same deal: more slavery and blood, for a lot more of debt and some oil. Can't wait...We are completely screwed.

Originally posted by suvamedia
reply to post by EvanB

 

Great! As the USA big federation was not enough an outsanding proof of a weak an evil monetary system, extremly bad economy police and a goverment that is so militatry, financial and media strong that is completely out of control.
Now EU leaders want to sell us the very same deal: more slavery and blood, for a lot more of debt and some oil. Can't wait...We are completely screwed.

We will be screwed with that kind of thinking!

It is not over yet. Treaties are mere paper.

If the signature in that paper does not have a clear mandate from the people to the tw@t that signs it, it is then illegal.

There is a reason we have courts,

If enough of us got together we can force the government through the courts to hold a referendum.

reply to post by EvanB


The Daily Mail is renown for crap, but if this turns out to actually be vaguely true of what he said he wants, his days in Downing Street are numbered.

Like you, i want a referendum...actually i demand one.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by EvanB

 

The Daily Mail is renown for crap, but if this turns out to actually be vaguely true of what he said he wants, his days in Downing Street are numbered.

Like you, i want a referendum...actually i demand one.

Regardless of whether the daily mail is right or not is irrelevent (its true though, i watched the interview on sky yesterday).

Fact is, the lisbon treaty that was forced on us is illegal as the ratifier of the treaty did not have a mandate from uk voters. They basically railroaded us!!! Sold us out!

This lot are doing the same

Why do you think they are pushing ahead with cutting the military. The plan is to have a shared European army.
www.acasefortreason.org.uk...
www.redicecreations.com...
www.tfa.net...

The amalgamation with Europe is a gradual insidious process. I'm old enough to remember how it was sold to us as The European Market - purely trade.

Originally posted by Johnze

And its moronic sentiments about "the war" that hold nations back from realising true global potentials...

yum yum how's the kool aid? tastes a bit synthetic i presume, doesn't it?

anyways, with all its warts, history can be understood (radical concept, i know) and to believe that all people up until your enlightened-ness have been stupid must, almost by definition, be the pinnacle of hubris.

do you honestly believe people created countries just for the proverbial lulz? if they wanted to simply live, they'd need such an arrangement at one point, do you think make-believe will change that over night? the writing is on the wall, today's elitist, disconnected policies are quickly eroding and undermining the entire world's foundations in the quest of - wait for it - a diffuse ideological goal. the whole circus reeks of deception, otherwise, transparency wouldn't be fought tooth-and-nail.


in the 19th century, presidential elections campaigns in the USA included hotly debated (and opposed) central banking proposals, today the same topic is relegated to 'conspiracy' material (which should tell you something, btw). does it work? yes? in your favor? against you? will you finally get my drift?

the desire to eradicate nations is the desire to eradicate entire cultures and people, and there can be no middle ground since the inherent differences will either break the whole endeavour or 'conflicting' traits have to be eliminated. things like language, food recipes, clothing, housing, etc.

the more traits you have the more incompatibilities will arise, ergo, the farther globalization is taken, the more destruction by social engineering we will experience, at which point we'll see a variety of premature collapse (before NWO is attained) or an already established NWO failing slowly while trying to solve its problems with violence. in a nutshell, that's a choice with the extremes being nuclear holocaust and nazis running the world for a while (maybe longer than you'll live to see).

make no mistake, if this latest stab at dictatorship gets out of hand and fails bloody, the supporters of the then failed system will without a doubt face formal treason charges, if they're 'lucky' enough to survive that long, mind you. it's not child's play, there has been too much harm done already to just walk away and expect things to resolve themselves.

i don't see why euroscepticism and a united states of europe are incompatible. it's in britain's best interest to have a strong europe, all the benefits of membership while maintaining its own monetary policy/currency. a breakdown of the euro on the other hand would put pressure on british banks who have lent to the likes of greece, and a meltdown of ireland would surely affect the uk.

Originally posted by bcccl
i don't see why euroscepticism and a united states of europe are incompatible. it's in britain's best interest to have a strong europe, all the benefits of membership while maintaining its own monetary policy/currency. a breakdown of the euro on the other hand would put pressure on british banks who have lent to the likes of greece, and a meltdown of ireland would surely affect the uk.

USE would not be a problem, as long as they have absolutely no powers whatsoever to suggest changes, implement changes or otherwise alter the laws and power structure of our country. Start making every single person who wishes to enter the UK need a visa regardless of where they come from, then fill in the Eurotunnel.

reply to post by EvanB


its not nice when a country stops having its independence and is governed by other powers outwith its border.


I mean look at English history, im sure Wales and Scotland wanted nothing to do with the English but the English tyrants still 'took' them and made a united kingdom. ..

Wait wasn't the old British aka (English) empire made from stolen countries

change happens and UK is for drop

Originally posted by SpectrumSeven
reply to post by EvanB

 

its not nice when a country stops having its independence and is governed by other powers outwith its border.

No it isn't, just like the West Lothian Question.

Originally posted by SpectrumSeven
I mean look at English history, im sure Wales and Scotland wanted nothing to do with the English but the English tyrants still 'took' them and made a united kingdom. ..

You can be damned sure the English don't want anything to do with the Scottish and Welsh money leeches either. That's all they are, fat greedy leeches sucking off the wallet of every English taxpayer.

Originally posted by SpectrumSeven
Wait wasn't the old British aka (English) empire made from stolen countries

Yes it was. Is there a problem?

Originally posted by SpectrumSeven
change happens and UK is for drop

Hahaha, you think? Not on your life sonny. People have died for this country to be free, you can be sure that if push comes to shove the same will happen.

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by Johnze
reply to post by EvanB

 

And whats the major downside of it?

The loss of our institutions and soverignty for a start.

The European union (united states of europe) will allow Nato to invade any
country that refuses to implement sharia law
and their countries mumification.

Iam heartened to see we who oppose globalism in the U.S.are not alone in being declared"unenlightened xenophobes" for wanting to keep our sovereignty and not submitting to yet another layer of bureaucracy andglorified tinhorn politicians with control issues.

Like we tell the Afghanis and the Iraqis, either you're with us or you're against us. Now which one is it gonna be?

/sarcasm

Originally posted by EvanB
Regardless of whether the daily mail is right or not is irrelevent

That's a fairly remarkable comment coming from the person who posted the Daily Mail article as the lead for this thread

Originally posted by EvanB
Fact is, the lisbon treaty that was forced on us is illegal as the ratifier of the treaty did not have a mandate from uk voters.

Your grasp of the British constitution seems a bit limited. The ratifier of the treaty was the UK parliament which was mandated by the previous General Election & to suggest that it was an illegal act is absurd. For heavens sake, even Bill Cash wouldn't suggest that which is saying something. You don't seem able to grasp the difference between a policy that you disagree with and one that is unconstitutional.

Similarly, if you are going to use opinion poll data to support your arguments you need to understand the difference between leaving the EU and keeping the pound, (i.e. remaining outside the Eurozone); that would give your posts a little more credibility.

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by EvanB
Regardless of whether the daily mail is right or not is irrelevent

That's a fairly remarkable comment coming from the person who posted the Daily Mail article as the lead for this thread

Originally posted by EvanB
Fact is, the lisbon treaty that was forced on us is illegal as the ratifier of the treaty did not have a mandate from uk voters.

Your grasp of the British constitution seems a bit limited. The ratifier of the treaty was the UK parliament which was mandated by the previous General Election & to suggest that it was an illegal act is absurd. For heavens sake, even Bill Cash wouldn't suggest that which is saying something. You don't seem able to grasp the difference between a policy that you disagree with and one that is unconstitutional.

Similarly, if you are going to use opinion poll data to support your arguments you need to understand the difference between leaving the EU and keeping the pound, (i.e. remaining outside the Eurozone); that would give your posts a little more credibility.

For you to think that it is ok to go against the will of the British people and sign a document without a mandate or will of the British people makes you a first class moron and borderline shill!

Whether little old you thinks it is ok does not matter.

The British people say NO!!!

Negate or see irrelevance as you will

But you will be sooo very sorry you did!

reply to post by timeless test


One could argue that as Parliament was elected, it had a mandate..

But...

In the past several elections, we have been promised either that no more powers will be given away, or had the prospect of referenda dangled in front of us at election time, only to be recinded once the election is over.

Time and again, the overwhelming opinion by the British public that our position in Europe is one that has been foisted upon us by misinformation or downright lies. The only time the public have ever been asked directly about Europe, it was just a free trade zone.

The argument that because a party was elected it had a mandate to do what it liked with regards to Europe is weak. Many people may have voted for reasons other than our position in Europe, such as other policy area's and to be honest, none of the parties (even the Tories) seem to actually register that we simply do not wish to be sucked into a European super state, which is what is happening.

For something as large and constitutionally impacting as given powers away to Europe, there should a seperate vote on that issue only. Bunging it in with a whole myriad of other policy area''s (and usually trying not to discuss it at all during an election) is dishonest. For example, I may vote for party A because their policy x, y and z is better than party B's z, y and z. People forget about the policy for Europe when voting on other issue such as taxation, health or education.

Originally posted by SpectrumSeven
I mean look at English history, im sure Wales and Scotland wanted nothing to do with the English but the English tyrants still 'took' them and made a united kingdom. ..

Scotland joined the Union willingly because they had bankrupted themselves and wanted English gold to bail them out..

Which brings me on to Alec Salmonds speah today..

he took great pride in declaring that Scottish finaces are in better shape than the UK's as a whole, because the UK ran a deficit and Scotland had a surplus for the past 4 years..

What he fails to acknowledge is that it was the UK Government that picked up the tab to rescue RBS and HBOS, which had it been down to the Scottish parliament or an independant Scotland, would have simply been impossible and sent Scotland the way opf Greece or worse. It was totally dishonest of him to claim Scotland was in better shape, because Scotland didn't have to pay to rescue their banks.

The total rescue package was several times larger than the whole of Scotlands GDP combined.

Originally posted by stumason
One could argue that as Parliament was elected, it had a mandate..

But...

In the past several elections, we have been promised either that no more powers will be given away, or had the prospect of referenda dangled in front of us at election time, only to be recinded once the election is over.

You're right of course, even to someone who is firmly in the "Europhile" camp, (which I am happy to admit to being), it is abundantly clear that from Thatcher to Blair a succession of Governments have agreed to treaties which have changed the UK's constitutional relationship with the EU whilst desperately trying to avoid any more public debate than was absolutely unavoidable. Why they did that and what effect it has had on this country, good or bad, is a potentially interesting discussion.

Meantime, Cameron has decided to nail his Eurosceptic colours firmly to the mast with his "referendum lock" legislation, (which we may yet come to regret), but it will certainly please many in the short term.

My previous comments were aimed at clarifying some basic untruths which have been thrown about on this thread and were deliberately simplistic because I was answering a poster who has written nothing so far which gives me reason to believe that he is capable of handling anything too complicated.

Originally posted by stumason

Which brings me on to Alec Salmonds speah today..

he took great pride in declaring that Scottish finaces are in better shape than the UK's as a whole, because the UK ran a deficit and Scotland had a surplus for the past 4 years.

He also forgot to mention that as far as I am aware Scottish Ministers have no powers to borrow money in the first place which makes it pretty hard to run a large deficit.

reply to post by stumason


Actually it was not the UK Government as you put it whom saves the tabs, It was the UK Taxpayer. And may I remind you that it was not just RBS whom were going down, it was Northern Rock also.

So quit the pathetic swip at the Scots, or if you want a bigger swip from you will get it.