"David French" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:VWhHc.14537$I%[email protected]...
> > > No. There is no one party which accurately represents everything I
> would
> > go
> > > for. Lib Dems are by far the closest at the moment. But of course, I
> > don't
> > > agree with all their policies.
> > >
> > If you don't understand and agree 100% with their european plans you
> should
> > not vote for them however much you agree with their other plans as their
> > european policy involves giving away all sovreignty making their other
> > policies irrelevant as they will not have the power to implement them.
>
> I don't recall that being in the manifesto. In fact the Lib Dems are keen
> on devolving government to the regions - not centralising to Brussels. I
> think you are mistaken here.
>
I'm afraid not - it is lib-dem policy to hand over control of national
taxaton to the EU. If they hand over control of tax, they will not be in
charge of the money needed to fund amongst other things, education.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/documents/policies/Manifestos/2004EuroManifesto-small.pdf
> > A simple glance at the markets will tell you what the implications are.
> > Compare the UK economy with those of euroland. Compare euroland levels
of
> > tax. Look at the euroland pensions crisis - they have only a fraction of
> the
> > pension funds necessary to maintain their current pension levels, the UK
> has
> > huge pension reserves the EU is desperate to absorb towards the euroland
> > pension deficit. Compare current UK unemployment levels with those
across
> > euroland.
>
> Huge pension reserves in UK? Huh?
>
Many people in Britain are already members of private occupational pension
schemes, or have taken out personal pension policies. This has partly been a
response to tax incentives which the present government has largely
withdrawn. This has placed Britain in a far better position than several
other EU countries. There is little private pension provision in Germany and
Italy, for instance, and so the pension 'overhang' in these countries is
much greater than in the UK. It is widely acknowledged that these unfunded
pension liabilities will become a serious burden, and this is a concern for
Britain as a member of the EU because of the likelihood that we shall be
obliged to assist through the EU budget. In simple terms this means the EU
hoovering up our pension reserves to fund other less well prepared
countries.
> > The real implication of the EU is communism - what is commonly refered
to
> in
> > EU circles as 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation in reality means taking an
> > average. This is great if you live in a country which is in the bottom
> half
> > of the EU - you can expect your standard of living, social security and
> > pensions to rise. If you live in the 4th largest economy in the world
(the
> > UK) you can expect the inherent wealth of that economy to be used up to
> > bring the poorer countries of the EU up to the average, while we are
> dragged
> > down to the average. That is harmonisation.
>
> Personally I think there's a big difference between the EU and Communism.
> There's no question of getting rid of free market capitalism, any more
than
> the UK being governed from London makes it a communist state.
Harmonisation
> is NOT about taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor.
> It's simply not the case.
>
Harmonisation is about getting the same levels of taxation across the EU. As
one of the richest economies with the lowest tax levels we will have to use
our money to fund the poorer countries whilst dropping to the average. An
average across the EU is not possible at our level of wealth and taxation -
we will have to drop for others to rise. This is EXACTLY what harmonisation
means.
> > Your argument is weak because the EU only fund the propaganda for one
> side.
> > In the UK it is electoral law that all parties who poll above a certain
> low
> > level are granted free access to party political broadcasts so that the
> > electorate may see all sides. The EU is undemocratic and does not
support
> > this fair access for all and thus people only see the EU message or
> believe
> > the tabloids by your example. This is the fault of undemocratic
practices
> > within the EU propaganda machine that under UK law would be illegal. If
> you
> > want an educated electorate campaign for our taxes to be spent fairly to
> > give both sides, not kept by the EU and spent on one-sided propaganda.
If
> > you are not stupid enough to believe the tabloids, it is very
patronising
> of
> > you to assume that most others do. You evidently believe yourself to be
> far
> > more intelligent that the poor mass of tabloid reading fools who believe
> > everything they read. Perhaps people like yourself should be given
several
> > votes to make up for all the electoral dunces who aren't as bright as
you?
>
> Could you clarify, by the way, where this E200m slush fund comes in? Now,
> how about the power of the media moguls, notably Murdoch, who maintain
> editorial control over what the majority of the UK press puts out?
>
Under the 1996 British education act political indoctrination of any kind is
illegal. Despite this EU Education Ministers' Resolution 88/C-177/02
provides 200 million euros per annum for propaganda much of which is used to
support the following section of the above EU resolution:
"strengthen in young people a sense of European identity;
prepare young people to take part in the economic and social aspects of the
Community;
make them aware of the advantages of the EU;
improve knowledge of the Community."
No monies are provided from enforced taxation for those who do not wish to
be encouraged to tow the EU line whilst at school or to demonstrate the
disadvantages of the EU.
And now you advocate the curtailing of a free press if it does not agree
with your aims - closer and closer to communism. . . . . .
> Now Julian, it's you who has introduced this idea of "stupid". You say
it's
> evident I believe myself more intelligent etc. In fact here you're just
> making things up. Please don't insult me by coming up with this crap.
> You're not reading what I'm saying, you're taking the bits you want to see
> and ignoring the rest.
>
I'm reading exactly what you are saying just as anyone else reading this
thread is - 'I can make an educated decision but most anti-EU sentiment is
knee-jerk or a tabloid opinion.' You are the one who keeps saying you know
what is going on but most of the electorate can't be trusted to work it out.
> In particular do NOT try to pick me out in this way as being some kind of
> snob. You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no IDEA of what
I'm
> like. You're just being insulting and provocative. You evidently believe
> that you can bolster your "case" by trying to make me into some sort of
> intellectual pariah.
>
Just re-read what you wrote - you can make a reasoned decision but you don't
think most of the electorate can on EU matters. Cut the bull**** and
prevarication - that is what you said and now you are back-peddling. You are
right that I don't know you, thats why i base these posts entirely on what
you have said, not assumptions that other people aren't bright enough to
decide like you have.
> Next thing you'll be outside the door with a bloody pitchfork and torch.
I
> can see exactly what you're trying to do here Julian.
>
Of course you can see it, you wrote it. Being more able to make a reasoned
decision than us tabloid reading knee-jerk anti-EU types you are bound to be
well ahead of me.
> > > > Ones own reasoning is always fair, the opposition are always
knee-jerk
> > > > reactionaries. This is the same flawed reasoning that sees 90% of
> > drivers
> > > > rate themselves as above average - the mathematical contradiction is
> > > > obvious.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. The "opposition's" opinions may or may not be
> knee-jerk.
> > > In this case, I think they are. Taking other examples, such as
> education
> > > and healthcare, I think most people have taken time to weigh up the
> > options,
> > > whether or not they agree with my opinions.
> > >
> > You think anti-EU opinions are knee-jerk because you don't agree with
> them.
>
> No. You've not read what I've said. Julian, take time to read what I'm
> writing, don't just keep coming up with bull****. I've not even said I
> don't agree with them. You're just being an asshole now.
>
It's you who needs to re-read it. It's typical of your superior attitude to
become abusive if anyone dares to disagree with you. If you can't enter into
a political discussion without resorting to personal abuse and childish
name-calling, you should avoid politics.
> > You have already made it clear you think you know better than much of
the
> > electorate - whereas you can see through the nationalistic knee-jerks,
the
> > rest of them just drink it in as gospel. I don't have such a patronising
> > attitude towards the electorate, as any successful politician will tell
> you,
> > the british electorate have a remarkable ability to spot the bull****
and
> > underestimating them has been the downfall of many a politico.
>
> No, I'm not saying that. I said the majority of the electorate don't
> understand European issues. In fact, if you read what I've written this
> evening, you'll see that I've not even claimed to understand these issues
> myself. Stop extrapolating and interpreting to try to make me look a
fool.
>
So you say the majority of the electorate don't understand european issues?
You also say in an earlier post that you know enough about europe to make a
reasoned decision when most others are lead by tabloids. What patronising,
intellectualist nonsense. Has it never occured to you that everyone believes
like you they can make a reasoned decision and that it's the others who
can't?
> And if the British public are so good at spotting the bull****, why do we
> have the government we have now? Somebody must have voted for them. And
I
> certainly didn't see it until it was too late.
>
The electorate worked perfectly at the last election - they reasoned that
although the incumbants were deeply flawed, they were nonetheless still a
better option than either the conservatives or lib-dems at the time. Though
of course you will continue to assume they vote entirely on the basis of
their tabloid headlines I am sure. . . . . . . .
