This is so biased and stereotypical. If you have ever had to deal with European subsidies, you would know that they are among the hardest to obtain, and they are very strictly ruled. You can't mess with EU money, and there's always so many conditions attached to those subsidies.

Only because you think you have heard some unknown Greek economists talking about some unknown Greek farmers taking advantages of European subsidaries doesn't mean it's a the truth or a common thing.

 

For all it's worth, I think the EU is the only way to get out of this crisis, and our countries won't be able to get out of the water if they play the game on their own and refuse to cooperate with their neighboors.

 

Not to mention the History of our continent which is a sufficient reason on its own to cooperate and to work together as a whole.

Having looked at the programme again it was a Greek Journalist and author who said it- the programme is "The Party's over: How the west went bust" Episode 2-available on iplayer- it's all there in the first 10 mins of the programme actually to prove that I didn't just dream it up. Obviously if someone is in position to talk about something that I confess I know less about then I have to assume they are more informed.

 

I dare say it may not be the "only" truth, but without personal experience everyone takes the side of one group or the other.

 

Ultimately only time will tell if Cameron has done the right thing or the wrong thing.

Exactly. And that's not to mention its role in upholding democracy. I'm old enough to remember when Spain, Portugal and Greece were under right wing dictatorships. Their membership of the EU has played a major role in building democracy in those countries. Don't forget there was a (rather farcical) attempted coup in Spain just before they joined. The EU is now in a position to do the same to countries in the former Soviet bloc and Soviet Union. We should be proud to be part of such an organisation.

Well that's the thing with history though isn't it? you can use it to justify just about anything, including views opposite to yours. Let's not forget that the gran daddy of all dictators was leader of the Socialist German Workers party.

 

We must remember that the UK (or England at least pre unification) has one of the oldest parliaments in history and is often credited with the spread of democracy across the world, indeed it could be argued that no nation has fought so hard for it, and in its name as the UK. If the EU were a democracy then perhaps I would have less grumbles about it but with block voting etc it is far from it and Mercozy demonstrate this with every passing summit.

I don't think anyone would claim that the EU is perfect. However, to paraphrase Churchill (who, incidentally, spoke in favour of a federal Europe), it's a lot better than the alternatives. And, of course, our chances of achieving sensible reforms will be zero if we are pushed to the sidelines.

I don't think anyone would claim that the EU is perfect. However, to paraphrase Churchill (who, incidentally, spoke in favour of a federal Europe), it's a lot better than the alternatives. And, of course, our chances of achieving sensible reforms will be zero if we are pushed to the sidelines.

Surely if the reforms are "sensible" anyway then whether or not we're in the decision making process there will be no problems. One thing is for sure, if they are not advantageous to Mercozy then they won't be getting passed.

Surely if the reforms are "sensible" anyway then whether or not we're in the decision making process there will be no problems. One thing is for sure, if they are not advantageous to Mercozy then they won't be getting passed.

If that idiot Cameron had kept his party in the mainstream centre right grouping in the European Parliament rather than joining a bunch of nationalists, xenophobes and homophobes, his relations with Merkel and Sarkozy would be a lot better. When Major managed to negotiate various changes to the Maastricht treaty that was largely due to the fact that he had built up good relationships with other leaders. Helmut Kohl persuaded other leaders to accept the changes to help Major out. Cameron chose a path which meant that he had no allies among the leading EU members.

If that idiot Cameron had kept his party in the mainstream centre right grouping in the European Parliament rather than joining a bunch of nationalists, xenophobes and homophobes, his relations with Merkel and Sarkozy would be a lot better. When Major managed to negotiate various changes to the Maastricht treaty that was largely due to the fact that he had built up good relationships with other leaders. Helmut Kohl persuaded other leaders to accept the changes to help Major out. Cameron chose a path which meant that he had no allies among the leading EU members.

I did have a chuckle to myself at Dennis Skinner today- he was right of course- always good entertainment value. Mind you Cameron was pretty much damned either way, if he had come back with an agreement he'd have faced a revolt from the benches then we'd of had 92-97 all over again. Milliband today just seemed opportunistic and shifty refusing to say whether or not he would have signed later admitting, via aids, that he wouldn't have.

Having looked at the programme again it was a Greek Journalist and author who said it- the programme is "The Party's over: How the west went bust" Episode 2-available on iplayer- it's all there in the first 10 mins of the programme actually to prove that I didn't just dream it up. Obviously if someone is in position to talk about something that I confess I know less about then I have to assume they are more informed.

 

I dare say it may not be the "only" truth, but without personal experience everyone takes the side of one group or the other.

 

But still, it's not something that only happens with EU subsidies. It's the same with national subsidies or local subsidies, you will always find people taking advantage of the system and handling the money wrongly. It doesn't mean the whole system is shit. As I said the EU subsidies are probably the most conditioned ones, it's not like they're giving money away just like that.

 

And actually it goes to show my point : the Greek farmers messed with EU subsidies and look at them today : they're broke ! So if anything, it proves you should never mess with the EU or if you do it's at your own risk (take care Cameron...). ^_^

Well that's the thing with history though isn't it? you can use it to justify just about anything, including views opposite to yours.

 

Meh, sorry but here in France that's the argument the French BNP use and I always find it really dangerous. No, you can't use History to justify anything, what happened in Europe (and incidentally in the world) happened and you can't use it to say the EU is shit and useless.

It did a lot to bring our countries together after WW2 and still today I'm pretty sure it does a lot for democracy and peace.

Edited December 13, 201113 yr by Hayzayy

But still, it's not something that only happens with EU subsidies. It's the same with national subsidies or local subsidies, you will always find people taking advantage of the system and handling the money wrongly. It doesn't mean the whole system is shit. As I said the EU subsidies are probably the most conditioned ones, it's not like they're giving money away just like that.

 

And actually it goes to show my point : the Greek farmers messed with EU subsidies and look at them today : they're broke ! So if anything, it proves you should never mess with the EU or if you do it's at your own risk (take care Cameron...). ^_^

I don't mean to say that the whole system is "shit" as you so nicely paraphrase my argument. I say that in it's current form it is undemocratic, and that the Euro is clearly floundering, and in my opinion won't last in its current form, and that furthermore Greece will default. I merely used that as an example to illustrate perhaps why the Greek economy is in the state it is despite getting all those subsides over the years. Besides the ides that you should "should never mess with the EU" is slightly threatening don't you think? Sounds bit like there is a not so much of a veiled threat there.....

 

 

Meh, sorry but here in France that's the argument the French BNP use and I always find it really dangerous. No, you can't use History to justify anything, what happened in Europe (and incidentally in the world) happened and you can't use it to say the EU is shit and useless.

It did a lot to bring our countries together after WW2 and still today I'm pretty sure it does a lot for democracy and peace.

:lol: Another attempt to close an argument down by throwing the BNP/ right wing extremism into the mix. THAT goes to my prove me point surely? That to justify those actions people use History (whether correctly or not- an academic argument can be found to support just about anything). Again I don't use it to say the EU is "shit" (which appears to be your word "du jour") I assume you mean that the EEC (since the EU only came into being in 1992) has done a lot to bring countries together post WWII, and I do not contest that in its historical context, that doesn't mean to say that it doesn't need reform and the role and power weilded by Mercozy needs to be addressed.

Edited December 13, 201113 yr by Dasher76

I don't say it doesn't need reform, I'm all for a new federal European system. ;) :lol:

 

The whole "countries lose their sovereignty because of the EU" thing is quite annoying. And then? Decisions can't always be taken with the approval of 27 countries (especially with people such as Cameron, we wouldn't do much in the end if we had to wait after him). I don't call it undemocratic. It's like saying all the members of your National Parliament have to all agree on decisions for them to be taken.

 

Once again I agree things could be changed and made better for the EU, but I don't see how things could go better WITHOUT the EU, both on economic and political points of view.

 

(And yes I do use simple/awful terms like "shit" because English isn't my native language and I sometimes find it hard to express precisely what I think with beautiful words. So you can pick on my language, but it won't make the debate more interesting, in my opinion.)

Edited December 13, 201113 yr by Hayzayy

The system of EU subsidies is certainly in need of reform. After all, a system which doles out hefty subsidies to some of the richest landowners on Britain (e.g. the Duke of Westminster) is far from ideal.

 

However, in some ways, this illustrates why Cameron is wrong. If Britain had been involved from the start when the EEC was formed in the late 1950s, we could have had a say in drawing those rules up. However, we adopted the usual British "it will never happen" attitude and stayed away. Now the French (using the same powers of veto Cameron is so keen to use thus allowing the remaining members to draw up more rules for us to whinge about in perpetuity) stand in the way of major reform.

I don't say it doesn't need reform, I'm all for a new federal European system. ;) :lol:

 

The whole "countries lose their sovereignty because of the EU" thing is quite annoying. And then? Decisions can't always be taken with the approval of 27 countries (especially with people such as Cameron, we wouldn't do much in the end if we had to wait after him). I don't call it undemocratic. It's like saying all the members of your National Parliament have to all agree on decisions for them to be taken.

 

Once again I agree things could be changed and made better for the EU, but I don't see how things could go better WITHOUT the EU, both on economic and political points of view.

 

(And yes I do use simple/awful terms like "shit" because English isn't my native language and I sometimes find it hard to express precisely what I think with beautiful words. So you can pick on my language, but it won't make the debate more interesting, in my opinion.)

 

Sorry by the English flag in the avatar area I assumed you were English so apologies for my error in that respect. I mean undemocratic in the sense of block voting.

 

 

The system of EU subsidies is certainly in need of reform. After all, a system which doles out hefty subsidies to some of the richest landowners on Britain (e.g. the Duke of Westminster) is far from ideal.

 

However, in some ways, this illustrates why Cameron is wrong. If Britain had been involved from the start when the EEC was formed in the late 1950s, we could have had a say in drawing those rules up. However, we adopted the usual British "it will never happen" attitude and stayed away. Now the French (using the same powers of veto Cameron is so keen to use thus allowing the remaining members to draw up more rules for us to whinge about in perpetuity) stand in the way of major reform.

I seem to recall that we did all we could, virtually falling over ourselves in fact, to court De Gaulle in the 60s/70s to get into the EEC whilst he was busy black balling us so it's not quite so clear cut as that. It remains to be seen if some of the other countries can get it through their respective parliaments but I think we should stop trying to salvage Greece and let it go, clearly the Greeks want and need that (that's why the threat of a referendum was such a powerful tool for the Greek government to use, the EU knew very well what the answer was going to be to that).

I seem to recall that we did all we could, virtually falling over ourselves in fact, to court De Gaulle in the 60s/70s to get into the EEC whilst he was busy black balling us so it's not quite so clear cut as that.

But that was still after the EEC had been formed. When the initial six members were going ahead, we just sat back and let them get on with it.

But that was still after the EEC had been formed. When the initial six members were going ahead, we just sat back and let them get on with it.

No dispute from me on that one, Without US intervention in the war it is arguable, that the War would not have been won by the Allies so the opportunity for an EEC or an EU would never have arisen- certainly until a much later date so perhaps we felt our obligation lay to the US rather than Europe? I don't know I wasn't there but i'm sure the reasons are multiple.

No dispute from me on that one, Without US intervention in the war it is arguable, that the War would not have been won by the Allies so the opportunity for an EEC or an EU would never have arisen- certainly until a much later date so perhaps we felt our obligation lay to the US rather than Europe? I don't know I wasn't there but i'm sure the reasons are multiple.

I wasn't there either. I'm not that old :lol: However, from what I've read, it was largely due to Britain adopting the usual attitude of "it will never happen".