ANGELFIRE1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I think history will look back on the EU as a "not fit for purpose" institution. The problem we have, most of the 60 million Brits don't want it, but a small majority of 650 Parliamentarian Parasites in London do. So we appear stuck with it, as the 650 TELL the 60 million what is good for them, as THEY make the rules WE have to abide by. (unless it's general Election time, then they will tell you what you want to hear, does Clegg ring any bells). Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 It's likely to fall in on itself soon anyway. Loads of member states are totally naffed, leaving the richer ones to pay up. You simply can't lie your way to a united currency and expect it to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I agree. Logically, even those in favour of the UK's continued membership of this squalid and expensive farce ought to be in favour of holding a confirmatory Referendum. Wonder why they're not? Because everyone knows that they'd lose; and the UK would be freed. 'Never, never, never shall be slaves'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I agree. Logically, even those in favour of the UK's continued membership of this squalid and expensive farce ought to be in favour of holding a confirmatory Referendum. Wonder why they're not? Because everyone knows that they'd lose; and the UK would be freed. 'Never, never, never shall be slaves'! Referendum's, while getting a taste of public opinion, are not always helpful when making important decisions. If a referendum was held today with the question "Should we scrap all taxes and make contributions voluntary?", you can guarantee "Yes" would win, but within 3 months the country would have fallen apart. Another example is "Should Police be allowed to shoot rioters on sight?". Three weeks ago it would have been a resounding "No". Two weeks ago, a defintive "Yes". To make an informed decision about whether to stay in the EU, everyone voting needs to be in possesion of all the facts, and leave their preconceptions behind. Judging by the last referendum, all it would take for the "No" argument to win would be Clegg to put his name behind the Yes campaign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 But, taken only just a little farther, your logic would prohibit General Elections too! At least HM Government should be compelled to obtain an independent Cost/Benefit analysis of EU membership. The Electorate would then have access to the facts that you seek, as source material informing their Referendum voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 But, taken only just a little farther, your logic would prohibit General Elections too! No it doesn't. An election is there to allow us to choose who represents us at making exactly these types of difficult choices. People who can be paid to sit there and look at the facts, and who have direct access to those who can explain the benefits of either option. It's not workable to have that kind of access for the entire population. The only reason people want a binding referendum on the EU, is because they don't believe the people they elected, and who have access to those facts, are making the correct decision. That's more of an argument for scrapping our general elections, and even our entire scheme of politics. At least HM Government should be compelled to obtain an independent Cost/Benefit analysis of EU membership. The Electorate would then have access to the facts that you seek, as source material informing their Referendum voting. I agree. The more information, and the more detailed that information is, the better. At the moment, the entire topic is driven by people with an agenda, rather than the facts. As long as discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of being in the EU contain "'Never, never, never shall be slaves'! " rather than actual facts, we won't be able to have a sensible, adult discussion about our (as a country) future in the EU. Just look at the OP: Why hasn't the EU been investigated? There is so much wrong with the EU I don't know where to start. It has been proved to be a hotbed of corruption and waste OK, so the EU's not been investigated, but it's been proved to be a "hotbed of corruption and waste"? Surely that sort of proof can only come as the result of an investigation? On the other hand, our Government has been investigated, and proven to be a hotbed of corruption and waste. Should we opt out of that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I am quite enjoying seeing the Germans suffer! they can't help trying to dominate other nations,they have tried two wars and lost and it looks like they are going to lose this one! Having been responsible for wasting billions whilst providing a luxury lifestyle for useless failed politicos,the whole EU clubmed farce is going to need some deep pockets to save it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 There is so much wrong with the EU I don't know where to start. It has been proved to be a hotbed of corruption and waste, so if we (and other European countries) are so desparate to save money, why do we continue to pour it into this bottomless pit without demanding it puts its house in order first? And when are we going to get the promised referendum? Many of us non sheep are asking the same question. http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 So who is bigger than the EU who could oversee an investigation, ensure openness and then impose fines, punishments and make the changes that the investigation brought up? Until you could identify this person/organisation and then work out how on earth you go about choosing a committee to actually carry out the investigation in an unbiased fashion then there's no point in wanting it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 So who is bigger than the EU who could oversee an investigation, ensure openness and then impose fines, punishments and make the changes that the investigation brought up? Until you could identify this person/organisation and then work out how on earth you go about choosing a committee to actually carry out the investigation in an unbiased fashion then there's no point in wanting it to happen. And that's precisely why they are getting away with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.