Turkey at the edge of Europe, yet in the EU ?

Sorry, seeing that there is actually a British rebate, I think it's a bit ridiculous to state that the UK pays too much to the EU. It should be paying more instead, as it is now one of the richest EU members!
Click to expand...

yes...I am well aware of the rebate :eyebrow:

The fact is what we get out of it isnt great, what it goes to is crap and ideas to change it dont actually do anything. We have the rebate for good reason, as I think has been demonstrated.

I think what FL is trying to say is that the EU infringes upon our sovereignty, and he isn't keen on that. Regardless of how the MEPs are chosen, the laws passed in Brussels hold more weight than local law in most cases.
Click to expand...

Thats it in a nutshell.

Ermmm, FL, you sound there like the EU was a authoritarian monstrum, led by some dictator.
Click to expand...

thats a bit far. My point was that national law should come first. In the 60's there was a UK referendum that joined us to the EEC, the EU's precursor. What we have now was not what the voters signed on for!
 
It is darn tiring to have an arguement against...well, say 5 people (supposedly Brits) who all support each others opinion against your own...I don't know whether you even noticed that.
And we're totally off-topic considering my starting-point, but it feels refreshing to be off-topic!

*yaaawn*

See you tomorrow, I already thought about some great points I could make! :D

(And I just have watched "Bloody Sunday". Leaves a lot of doubts with me. Is Britain the most amazing democracy on our planet? Do countries really not come any better? ;) Oh well, this film is actually not fit to put some smilies to it...but I'll do it anyway.)


*grumble*


But I won't sleep well without having said this:

why the heck should the British rebate be justificated by any standards?

No other, not one single other country gets a rebate! Or is the UK just such a classy country that the EU should actually pay it to have it as a member state? Some of your arguments sound to me just like that.
In my opinion, the UK pays not its fair share of the EU subsidies, and that need to be fixed.
It should not be linked to any decision whatsoever taken on the CAP, because it is already unjust in itself.

Good night. :3
 
It is darn tiring to have an arguement against...well, say 5 people (supposedly Brits) who all support each others opinion against your own...I don't know whether you even noticed that.
Click to expand...

Well, we average Brits (not bloody political correct civil servants) are fiercely patriotic and one of the few things we tend to unite upon is against the EU and politically correct civil servants.

Also it makes sense that there are more Brits than any other European country on the forums, so don't feel out-gunned as such. ;)
 
Thehe, I don't even know what pwnt means actually. But I know what it stands for, of course.

(Off-topic even more: my gosh, you know why there are so few other Europeans, no? The language, the language, boys!! Or would anyone want to switch to, say, French?)

Fierce patriotism?

GREAT, as if the first half of the 20th century hadn't seen fairly enough of that crap!
Most of my friends are quite anti-patriotic, and love internationalism to the core. Me included.

Also, it is wonderful to have you coming up with english articles; it is pointless for me to give you my sources, as they're all not in english. :shrug:

Concerning the graphics:

Look at this outrageously big share of Germany.

Compare Spain and Poland!
Despite Poland:
1. having roughly the same size as in habitants as Spain
2. being ravaged from Communism/old damages from WWII which are/were repaired only slowly
3. having an economy only one fifth as big as the Spanish one
4. having the cited "big and unefficient agricultural sector",

it receives only a fraction of the amount of the subsidies for Spain !!
Needs reform, right?

Also, this graphic still gives me personally no justification for the rebate, sorry. Or do you think it is alright that the UK pays roughly twice the amount of the Netherlands, and having 4 times as much habitants (the GDP per head being comparable) ?


"the laws passed in Brussels have more weight than local law in most cases" ?

Everything else would be ridiculous? No?


Ah, and the EU infringes on your sovereignty?

Helloo-oo, wake up! The EU infringes on the sovereignty of every member country. Only that the Brits seem to have a uncommon big headache because of that. No country is as independent as it was 100 years ago, and be it only because of the international trade. The UK acting absolutely independently and freely is quite a lot an illusion, I feel. One can't ignore what is going on the outside of the country, and if you would do so, you'd end up like North Korea! :P


One of the reasons I don't like the EU. Why should Germany have its citizens safety dictated to like that?
Click to expand...

Because the allmighty EU says so? :eyeroll:

You seem to forget that this is valable in both directions! France also can't hinder German exporters to import wine to France. Or make up examples yourself. Even the UK *shock, we have some rights, too !* may force another country to accept a "suspicious" good for importation.

The whole thing is a shambles, which is why we're so hesitant to throw in our lot completely. I'm pretty sure Britain will stay out
Click to expand...

Hur? Britain is a proud EU member since 1973?

In the 60's there was a UK referendum that joined us to the EEC, the EU's precursor. What we have now was not what the voters signed on for!
Click to expand...

That is correct, but again it is true for every country. And we voters supported European integration (apparently, otherwise it wouldn't have happened) by voting for those parties in the national elections who favoured the EU more or less reluctantly.
 
Vrtbovska Zahrada:
Fierce patriotism?

GREAT, as if the first half of the 20th century hadn't seen fairly enough of that crap!
Most of my friends are quite anti-patriotic, and love internationalism to the core. Me included.
Click to expand...
Commie :P

Also, it is wonderful to have you coming up with english articles; it is pointless for me to give you my sources, as they're all not in english.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
The BBC is about as good as source as you can get though, no?

Concerning the graphics:

Look at this outrageously big share of Germany.

Compare Spain and Poland!
Despite Poland:
1. having roughly the same size as in habitants as Spain
2. being ravaged from Communism/old damages from WWII which are/were repaired only slowly
3. having an economy only one fifth as big as the Spanish one
4. having the cited "big and unefficient agricultural sector",

it receives only a fraction of the amount of the subsidies for Spain !!
Needs reform, right?

Also, this graphic still gives me personally no justification for the rebate, sorry. Or do you think it is alright that the UK pays roughly twice the amount of the Netherlands, and having 4 times as much habitants (the GDP per head being comparable) ?
Click to expand...
That's the Netherlands problem. The UK saw a problem with the spending and decided to remedy it by getting the rebate. Other countries who felt impugned on could have tried to do the same if they had wanted.

"the laws passed in Brussels have more weight than local law in most cases" ?

Everything else would be ridiculous? No?
Click to expand...
Depends how much you value your country's sovereignty.

Ah, and the EU infringes on your sovereignty?

Helloo-oo, wake up! The EU infringes on the sovereignty of every member country. Only that the Brits seem to have a uncommon big headache because of that. No country is as independent as it was 100 years ago, and be it only because of the international trade. The UK acting absolutely independently and freely is quite a lot an illusion, I feel. One can't ignore what is going on the outside of the country, and if you would do so, you'd end up like North Korea!  :P
Click to expand...
No country is independent, but countries should be allowed to govern their countries on their own terms. Personally, I think the EU has too much power at the moment. I wouldn't say it was ignorant to wish your country controlled itself.



One of the reasons I don't like the EU. Why should Germany have its citizens safety dictated to like that?
Click to expand...

Because the allmighty EU says so? :eyeroll:

You seem to forget that this is valable in both directions! France also can't hinder German exporters to import wine to France. Or make up examples yourself. Even the UK *shock, we have some rights, too !* may force another country to accept a "suspicious" good for importation.
Click to expand...
It could be valuable in both directions, but it's not something I approve of.

The whole thing is a shambles, which is why we're so hesitant to throw in our lot completely. I'm pretty sure Britain will stay out
Click to expand...

Hur? Britain is a proud EU member since 1973?
Click to expand...
Britain, the grudging member of the EU since 1973, with our rebate and flat out refusal to join the EMU :P Like I said, whilst the EU remains a morass of bureaucracy and corruption, I very much doubt the UK will join completely.
 
"Morass of bureaucracy and corruption" ?

Who told you that?

Look, it is very easy for national politicians to blame the far, far away EU in Brussels for every problem.
That is one of their arguements!

"Blablabla, the politicians in Brussels are just a bunch of incompetent and corrupt technocrats!"
The EU is not more corrupt than the average body of government, be it the City of London or the Council of Sicily.
 
Helloo-oo, wake up! The EU infringes on the sovereignty of every member country. Only that the Brits seem to have a uncommon big headache because of that. No country is as independent as it was 100 years ago, and be it only because of the international trade. The UK acting absolutely independently and freely is quite a lot an illusion, I feel. One can't ignore what is going on the outside of the country, and if you would do so, you'd end up like North Korea
Click to expand...

Trouble is other countries ignor or dont adopt EU rules they dont like...which isnt something we do. And even so, why should they be allowed to dictate to us? To get a perfect 1 size fits all law is pretty near impossible and some times a country has to act on its own best interest.


"Morass of bureaucracy and corruption" ?

Who told you that?

Look, it is very easy for national politicians to blame the far, far away EU in Brussels for every problem.
That is one of their arguements!

"Blablabla, the politicians in Brussels are just a bunch of incompetent and corrupt technocrats!"
The EU is not more corrupt than the average body of government, be it the City of London or the Council of Sicily.
Click to expand...

*coughs*

1) The EU, to appease the french mainly, spend millions and millions a year moving its headquaters and its entire staff from 1 HQ to another in a different country a few days a month

2) It was recently revealed that EU workers who reveal things of the public interest that embarrass the EU have been forced to quit their jobs on mental health grounds

3) The aforementioned unfairness of the system in certain larger and more influential nations benifit


to name but a few cases of corruption and incompetence
 
A few general comments from the retiree, may it please the ladies and gentlemen of the North Pacific.

First of all, I must react strongly to Joshua and his comparisons of Turkey to the "horrible" human rights records of the United States and the current European Union. As an ardent supporter of liberty myself, I fully agree that the two latter entities need to undergo some serious changes before I accept them as suitably free. Nonetheless, neither really stand in the same league as Turkey. Basing information off of in depth reports from FreedomHouse, where Turkey only receives a rating of "Partly Free," the nation suffered (and indeed still suffers) from heavy military influence in government, increased radicalization (seen over a longer period), failure to recognize Cyprus, and a threshold of an amazing ten percent of electorate support for a party to receive seats in the national assembly (to name but a few issues).

Next, I'd like to comment on some of what I perceive as quite ardent nationalism. For those of you who feel that a home government is responsible for natives only, in the way of a paternalistic state, welfare benefits, social aid, etc. : how do you justify your beliefs pertaining to all human beings deserving somewhat of an economic equality with the notion that only those lucky enough to be born into a rich state deserve the benefits of such systems? For me, it seems to contradict that annoyance with those born to rich families getting the extra jump start in life...
 
Scandinavian Duchies:
Next, I'd like to comment on some of what I perceive as quite ardent nationalism. For those of you who feel that a home government is responsible for natives only, in the way of a paternalistic state, welfare benefits, social aid, etc. : how do you justify your beliefs pertaining to all human beings deserving somewhat of an economic equality with the notion that only those lucky enough to be born into a rich state deserve the benefits of such systems? For me, it seems to contradict that annoyance with those born to rich families getting the extra jump start in life...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that anyone said a home government is solely responsible for natives! In fact, I believe my argument was that a government would and should put the welfare of its citizens before the welfare of others. Do you disagree?

Also, I don't believe that economic equality is a right. Welfare states are a fact of modern politics however, and one must deal with them. If a nation has become effluent through its own ingenuity then by all means it is welcome to share that with foreign citizens but it should be bound to help people of other nationalities if it has a detrimental effect upon the quality of life or welfare of its citizens.

I realise that socialism is a popular political theory nowadays but I find it ridiculous that so many people refuse to accept that whilst the world labours under the concepts of nationality and nation-states, that their first priorities will always be to their citizens!
 
Lord Valentine:
I don't believe that anyone said a home government is solely responsible for natives! In fact, I believe my argument was that a government would and should put the welfare of its citizens before the welfare of others. Do you disagree?

Also, I don't believe that economic equality is a right. Welfare states are a fact of modern politics however, and one must deal with them. If a nation has become effluent through its own ingenuity then by all means it is welcome to share that with foreign citizens but it should be bound to help people of other nationalities if it has a detrimental effect upon the quality of life or welfare of its citizens.

I realise that socialism is a popular political theory nowadays but I find it ridiculous that so many people refuse to accept that whilst the world labours under the concepts of nationality and nation-states, that their first priorities will always be to their citizens!
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, I do disagree. And just a disclaimer, in case you somehow how received the impression, I am most definitely not a socialist. Far from it, in fact. ;)

I do not think that it is the government's duty or right to put the welfare of any humans on its agenda, as the only way it can help through bureaucracy is through force and coercion. Now, I can understand the premises whereby certain advocates of other political philosophies and systems endorse force in the interest of the "general public" and "society as a whole," but why does that only apply to those who, by some stroke of luck, were born near those individuals with sound financial bases? Also, your assertion that a nation becomes affluent is quite ridiculous, in my eyes. Individuals are those who achieve, and why should only those persons born near enough those producing individuals have the right to live off of the latter "producers?"
 
Lord Valentine:
I realise that socialism is a popular political theory nowadays but I find it ridiculous that so many people refuse to accept that whilst the world labours under the concepts of nationality and nation-states, that their first priorities will always be to their citizens!
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Socialism is dead, slightly revived in South America but everywhere else, it's the neoliberal supply side economics and the Washington consensus.

And why do our citizens always have to come first? Because being this selfish was brought down the British Empire in the beginning, look around your room and tell me how many British workers built it and how many British workers would like to build it. Take a stroll around the mall, we live in an international setting, you're infatuation with the revival of the British Empire is not only out of touch but the idea that Britain should step over everyone else for the sake of vanity is the reason why the tube was bombed.

Hate to break it to you, but Britain is not the centre of the universe nor is it the center of Britain or even the G8. Helping others helps ourselves, you've already admitted the effects of internationalism on your own little hill but please tell me how isolationism and a self-serving foriegn policy will help slow the flood immigrants to Britain? How will the divisions in technology, culture, and education will stem the tide of extremism? The list goes on, we live in a globalized world now and we have the means to make it better. Not to make you better, or me, but EVERYONE! Sorry if it gets in the way of the great British citizen.
 
Scandinavian Duchies:
As a matter of fact, I do disagree.  And just a disclaimer, in case you somehow how received the impression, I am most definitely not a socialist.  Far from it, in fact.  ;)

I do not think that it is the government's duty or right to put the welfare of any humans on its agenda, as the only way it can help through bureaucracy is through force and coercion.  Now, I can understand the premises whereby certain advocates of other political philosophies and systems endorse force in the interest of the "general public" and "society as a whole," but why does that only apply to those who, by some stroke of luck, were born near those individuals with sound financial bases?  Also, your assertion that a nation becomes affluent is quite ridiculous, in my eyes.  Individuals are those who achieve, and why should only those persons born near enough those producing individuals have the right to live off of the latter "producers?"
Click to expand...
So, in the interests of Welfare, we should allow immigrants to move to this country and live rough on the streets because we do not have the facilities to cater for them? We should not restrict immigration at all?

My reference to socialism was more to do with the ideals of social rights over the individual, and the concept of a world united rather than nation boundaries and states. This is where we might have to agree to disagree but I believe that the government of a nation should have the welfare of its own citizens as its first priority. How many governments do you believe would get themselves elected on a platform of "We're going to give your jobs and tax money to foreigners because they're so much worse off than you are"?

Humanitarianism is noble and I agree that nations should help those less fortunate, but to believe that one should not prioritise is naive.

Mr Sniffles:
What are you talking about? Socialism is dead, slightly revived in South America but everywhere else, it's the neoliberal supply side economics and the Washington consensus.
Click to expand...
I was not speaking about government, but the followers of the political ideals. You should have met enough communists and socialists on NationStates to realise that it is popular still. In fact, I believe our dear Delegate would agree.

And why do our citizens always have to come first? Because being this selfish was brought down the British Empire in the beginning, look around your room and tell me how many British workers built it and how many British workers would like to build it. Take a stroll around the mall, we live in an international setting, you're infatuation with the revival of the British Empire is not only out of touch but the idea that Britain should step over everyone else for the sake of vanity is the reason why the tube was bombed.
Click to expand...

Because we elect our government to run the country in our interests. If they are working for us, then it stands to reason that we should be their first priority. You are the one who continues to mention the Empire, when it is hardly relevant to this discussion. If you wish to continue with your lovely straw man, then please create a new topic and I'll tell you why I believe colonialism would fix a lot of problems in the world.


Hate to break it to you, but Britain is not the centre of the universe nor is it the center of Britain or even the G8. Helping others helps ourselves, you've already admitted the effects of internationalism on your own little hill but please tell me how isolationism and a self-serving foriegn policy will help slow the flood immigrants to Britain? How will the divisions in technology, culture, and education will stem the tide of extremism? The list goes on, we live in a globalized world now and we have the means to make it better. Not to make you better, or me, but EVERYONE! Sorry if it gets in the way of the great British citizen.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should take a few moments to reconsider your argument. It appears you have misunderstood my arguments completely.

Just to recap:
  • The EC is a big mess, which is why I wouldn't want the UK to join competely
  • A government's first priority should be to its own citizens.
  • Immigration is a good thing, but the UK needs better controls and a better system for dealing with people who cannot find work before we allow free (unrestricted) immigration into the country
I'd be more than happy to continue debating this with you, if you want to read and comprehend my position, but if you do not then I'm afraid I shan't discuss this any further with you.
 
EC? Which EC?

I will always be in favour of the EU, and any other European community. I believe that without the EU, and other stabilising all-European asoociations such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe, Europe would have slipped back quite quickly into a war in the '50s.

Most of my fellow Continentals share this belief, and are willing to pay a huge price to foster peace in Europe.

And I would not hesitate to throw countries countries out of the EU, if they are blocking the process too much, and if they are the only ones to do so.

(The UK does quite well at the moment; there must happen something a bit more nasty to throw a country out. In fact, one of my own countries, Czechia, is one of the biggest blockers. :mad: Damn Klaus!)

Hail Europe! HAIL! ;)
 
I will always be in favour of the EU, and any other European community. I believe that without the EU, and other stabilising all-European asoociations such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe, Europe would have slipped back quite quickly into a war in the '50s.
Click to expand...

Erm..... when?

The big threat to Europe i the 50's and beyond was a war between the USSR/Eastern Bloc and between the west. A threat that began long before the EU and was faced primarily by NATO.

And why do our citizens always have to come first? Because being this selfish was brought down the British Empire in the beginning, look around your room and tell me how many British workers built it and how many British workers would like to build it. Take a stroll around the mall, we live in an international setting, you're infatuation with the revival of the British Empire is not only out of touch but the idea that Britain should step over everyone else for the sake of vanity is the reason why the tube was bombed.
Click to expand...

First point, do not ever use a terrorist attack as justification for your own political point scoring!
Secondly, The US, Australia and many other nations have far more stringent policies on immigration and the awarding of benefits than the UK. No-one seems to complain there. But when British people point out the fact that we cant support a huge number of immigrants at the rate we see immigration now, we are suddnely the bad guy?
 
Fulhead Land:
Secondly, The US, Australia and many other nations have far more stringent policies on immigration and the awarding of benefits than the UK. No-one seems to complain there. But when British people point out the fact that we cant support a huge number of immigrants at the rate we see immigration now, we are suddnely the bad guy?
Click to expand...
Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_det...on_in_Australia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1776938.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1368736.stm
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/hr_violations.php

US:
Anything involving Lou Dobbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_S...reform_protests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4896182.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4712794.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7042201390.html

In fact, in the United States it's the second most contentous issue before Iraq.

Now I'm sorry Lord Valentine but this is debate about immigration and nationalism is obviously an emotional one (also an off-topic one since this began with Turkey.) But I am an immigrant, arrived as an infant, and am quite proud of my mixed heritage and the Canada I live in. I also live in Toronto, where 60% of population were born outside of Canada and 40% are visible minorities. Toronto is the largest city in Canada, has one of the lowest crime and unemployment rates in North America. Why am I lecturing about Canada? Because it is a monument to multicultural diversity and open immigration. The only ethnic squabbles that occur are between the French (who've been there for over 300 years) and the Native Americans (who've well been there forever.)

This our citizens first, this us over them because they're simply not "us" just simply boils my blood. Because humans came first, race, religion, and nationality later. When we come together, we're only richer for it. As for the "lack of jobs" the more consumers, the more production. And Britain's economy is the strongest of the EU and has the lowest budget deficit of all the G8 countries, so I find it hard to believe that quite simply these immigrants will be a problem.
 
mr_sniffles:
This our citizens first, this us over them because they're simply not "us" just simply boils my blood. Because humans came first, race, religion, and nationality later. When we come together, we're only richer for it. As for the "lack of jobs" the more consumers, the more production. And Britain's economy is the strongest of the EU and has the lowest budget deficit of all the G8 countries, so I find it hard to believe that quite simply these immigrants will be a problem.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that Britain is superior to anyone, I am saying that the British government's first interest should be Britain and her citizens. You'll note that I have not spoke about closing the borders, or removing the current immigrants in the country. My argument was that Britain has a limited amount of space and therefore should factor that into its immigration policy. We need to be able to refuse people entry into the country if they would not be able to make a good life for themselves here. At the minute, we're more than happy to allow people to come here to rot on the streets of London and Birmingham.
 
To turn this thread in a different direction (we may split if needed), recent goings-on in Iraq may have an effect on Turkey's EU membership bid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6736825.stm

That article only alleges shelling, but just the other day (yesterday?) news was screaming Turkey moved thousands of troops across the border. Then the Paris Hilton thing happened and it got buried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top