Liverpool FC Forum

[Boocity]

I don't think us Brits have ever considered ourselves as European's and I don't think the European's have ever considered us Brits as European's.

True.

Britain is more American orientated the European, and in fact the EU seems to be resented in Britain.

Ireland is a strange mix of pro Europe but yet close relationships (economically and socially) with UK and USA - maybe from the language (not that I can understand Geordie like!)

To me its the erosion of powers that are transferred to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels, I lived in Brussels for three years and its so corrupt its unreal:-

1. If you think our MP's expenses are bad, look at the Eurocrats.
2. Whats the point of Strasbourg, they have no powers.
3. All this legislation that is making European companies so uncompetitive, Europe wont make anything in 50 years time.
4. European human rights bill, we seem to be the only fecking country in Europe that adheres to it.


back to the pigs, Greece will be bailed out and I bet you a bottom dollar that all EU states will have to contribute and not just the Eurozone. I am glad the UK never went into the Euro because we would probably be in the same boat as Greece now, a government has to be able to control its own monetry policy, the problem is, you cannot have monetry union without political union.

[Big Niall]

I don't think us Brits have ever considered ourselves as European's and I don't think the European's have ever considered us Brits as European's.

True.

Britain is more American orientated the European, and in fact the EU seems to be resented in Britain.

Ireland is a strange mix of pro Europe but yet close relationships (economically and socially) with UK and USA - maybe from the language (not that I can understand Geordie like!)

To me its the erosion of powers that are transferred to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels, I lived in Brussels for three years and its so corrupt its unreal:-

1. If you think our MP's expenses are bad, look at the Eurocrats.
2. Whats the point of Strasbourg, they have no powers.
3. All this legislation that is making European companies so uncompetitive, Europe wont make anything in 50 years time.
4. European human rights bill, we seem to be the only fecking country in Europe that adheres to it.


back to the pigs, Greece will be bailed out and I bet you a bottom dollar that all EU states will have to contribute and not just the Eurozone. I am glad the UK never went into the Euro because we would probably be in the same boat as Greece now, a government has to be able to control its own monetry policy, the problem is, you cannot have monetry union without political union.

The Euro has pros and cons. The big positive is that companies don't have to worry about exchange rate movements within the Eurozone.

The downsize is that the Eurozone countries economies move at different rates, one country could be booming and another struggling so one interest rate doesn't suit.

I'm not a big fan of governements printing more money though.

[Boocity]

I don't think us Brits have ever considered ourselves as European's and I don't think the European's have ever considered us Brits as European's.

True.

Britain is more American orientated the European, and in fact the EU seems to be resented in Britain.

Ireland is a strange mix of pro Europe but yet close relationships (economically and socially) with UK and USA - maybe from the language (not that I can understand Geordie like!)

To me its the erosion of powers that are transferred to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels, I lived in Brussels for three years and its so corrupt its unreal:-

1. If you think our MP's expenses are bad, look at the Eurocrats.
2. Whats the point of Strasbourg, they have no powers.
3. All this legislation that is making European companies so uncompetitive, Europe wont make anything in 50 years time.
4. European human rights bill, we seem to be the only fecking country in Europe that adheres to it.


back to the pigs, Greece will be bailed out and I bet you a bottom dollar that all EU states will have to contribute and not just the Eurozone. I am glad the UK never went into the Euro because we would probably be in the same boat as Greece now, a government has to be able to control its own monetry policy, the problem is, you cannot have monetry union without political union.

The Euro has pros and cons. The big positive is that companies don't have to worry about exchange rate movements within the Eurozone.

The downsize is that the Eurozone countries economies move at different rates, one country could be booming and another struggling so one interest rate doesn't suit.

I'm not a big fan of governements printing more money though.

I'm not a fan of printing money either.

I do think that the 'pigs' would be in a better position to come out of recesion with their own currencies, their currencies would devalue on the world currency market enabling them to be more competitive and stimulate exports. With the Euro they cannot do this and prices are artificially high. Maybe the 'pigs' should never have been allowed in the Euro in the first place.

[Boocity]

All you would get is people putting their preference for one of the mainstream parties first and then their other choices would be fringe parties, like, Green, BNP, UKIP, Monster Raving Looney etc and you would get some right weirdos in parliament

Brown knows his time is up and its just another example of him trying everything to cling to power. If Labour were steaming ahead in the polls to get another term, do you honestly think he would be pushing this, of course not.

I prefer first past the post then you should get a pretty stable government.

It wouldn't work that way. It would be the other way round. Somebody might vote the BNP as their number 1 choice and Labour as number 2, if the BNP guy gets the lowest first choice preferences then he gets knocked out, and they look at the number 2 choices of his supporters.

The concept is that if this person can't have who they really want in power,  which of the bigger parties is the lesser evil.

The system isn't quite PR which we have in Ireland, that has a district of 5 times more people than the UK ones but there are 5 seats in the area and the main parties will probably have 2 or 3 canditates so you might get 2 Labour,2 conservative and 1 Lib dem to represent one area.

I know what you mean about strong government but something just doesn't seem right that barely 30% of people that voted, voted Labour but they got a big  majority.

I agree that Labour had no interest in it when they were popular though.

Sorry BN but I don't agree with you on this, I am not a floating voter so out of the three main parties in the UK, I vote for one of them and would never vote for the other two, each party has its own ideals and policies so if you don't agree with them how could they be a choice at all. One of them I would never vote for even if it was 100th choice.

No, I would probably put the finge parties down as my 2nd & 3rd choices, like 'monster raving looney' or 'the no tax on fuel party' or something obscure like that.

[JoeTerp]

The biggest mistake the EU ever made was letting these  shaky (in terms of economy) countries in, it will be the death of it. They either need to boot these countries out or dissolve the whole bloody thing, I favour the latter as I have never liked the concept of the EU and now it's just become a bigger and bigger drain on resources for the wealthy countries.

down the right path, now why don't you extrapolate that idea to its natural conclusion. Why stop at the country level? why not take it to the county/province level or the city level? or the neighborhood level? or the individual level?

Would you prefer if the 50 states of USA went independent?

yes. that is more or less how it was "supposed" to be anyway.  But I would see something similar to the Articles of Confederation as a great leap forward.

[JoeTerp]

All you would get is people putting their preference for one of the mainstream parties first and then their other choices would be fringe parties, like, Green, BNP, UKIP, Monster Raving Looney etc and you would get some right weirdos in parliament

Brown knows his time is up and its just another example of him trying everything to cling to power. If Labour were steaming ahead in the polls to get another term, do you honestly think he would be pushing this, of course not.

I prefer first past the post then you should get a pretty stable government.

It wouldn't work that way. It would be the other way round. Somebody might vote the BNP as their number 1 choice and Labour as number 2, if the BNP guy gets the lowest first choice preferences then he gets knocked out, and they look at the number 2 choices of his supporters.

The concept is that if this person can't have who they really want in power,  which of the bigger parties is the lesser evil.

The system isn't quite PR which we have in Ireland, that has a district of 5 times more people than the UK ones but there are 5 seats in the area and the main parties will probably have 2 or 3 canditates so you might get 2 Labour,2 conservative and 1 Lib dem to represent one area.

I know what you mean about strong government but something just doesn't seem right that barely 30% of people that voted, voted Labour but they got a big  majority.

I agree that Labour had no interest in it when they were popular though.

Sorry BN but I don't agree with you on this, I am not a floating voter so out of the three main parties in the UK, I vote for one of them and would never vote for the other two, each party has its own ideals and policies so if you don't agree with them how could they be a choice at all. One of them I would never vote for even if it was 100th choice.

No, I would probably put the finge parties down as my 2nd & 3rd choices, like 'monster raving looney' or 'the no tax on fuel party' or something obscure like that.

just a guess here:

if this were to go through, if people were interested in politics, it would now make a lot more sense to spend a bit of time learning about alternative parties, and maybe more would pop up, maybe one that is actually more in line with your values than one of the bigger ones.  Then you could sort of both vote your heart and your head.

Or, If I understand there are three main parties, or 2 main parties and then a pretty seriously sized 3rd party, no? In that case it would be more of a voting against the party you most disagree with.

Obviously, if you are a rank and file member of one of the bigger parties, then your right its not going to make a bit of difference to you.

[JoeTerp]

having the government control the supply of money and the interest rates is a recipe for boom & bust cycles.

[Lando_Griffin]

The biggest mistake the EU ever made was letting these  shaky (in terms of economy) countries in, it will be the death of it. They either need to boot these countries out or dissolve the whole bloody thing, I favour the latter as I have never liked the concept of the EU and now it's just become a bigger and bigger drain on resources for the wealthy countries.

down the right path, now why don't you extrapolate that idea to its natural conclusion. Why stop at the country level? why not take it to the county/province level or the city level? or the neighborhood level? or the individual level?

No I think that would be inefficient, you need to have some form of centralised control, in Europe that has worked for a long time at the country level until the EU started forcing ancient enemies together, ok I'm over-dramatising a bit but you see what I mean, e.g the Dutch and the Germans who fecking hate each other about as much as the Brits and the French.

Other than forming an economic block to counter China and the US I can see no need for the EU and in any case EFTA can provide that same economic block in a more efficient manner.

The entire World hate the French.

Snail-eating surrender monkeys.

[Lando_Griffin]

The biggest mistake the EU ever made was letting these  shaky (in terms of economy) countries in, it will be the death of it. They either need to boot these countries out or dissolve the whole bloody thing, I favour the latter as I have never liked the concept of the EU and now it's just become a bigger and bigger drain on resources for the wealthy countries.

down the right path, now why don't you extrapolate that idea to its natural conclusion. Why stop at the country level? why not take it to the county/province level or the city level? or the neighborhood level? or the individual level?

No I think that would be inefficient, you need to have some form of centralised control, in Europe that has worked for a long time at the country level until the EU started forcing ancient enemies together, ok I'm over-dramatising a bit but you see what I mean, e.g the Dutch and the Germans who fecking hate each other about as much as the Brits and the French.

Other than forming an economic block to counter China and the US I can see no need for the EU and in any case EFTA can provide that same economic block in a more efficient manner.

I thought forcing ancient enemies together was a lot of the point of the EU?  Make the main combatants of Europe economically and politically more integrated and maybe a 3rd world war could be averted.  It sounds a little far-fetched now but the memories of WWI & WWII were surely on the architects' minds at the time?

No. Harry Hun couldn't beat us in a fight so decided that he'd use his propaganda in a different way.

Bullsh*t baffles brains.

[Big Niall]

All you would get is people putting their preference for one of the mainstream parties first and then their other choices would be fringe parties, like, Green, BNP, UKIP, Monster Raving Looney etc and you would get some right weirdos in parliament

Brown knows his time is up and its just another example of him trying everything to cling to power. If Labour were steaming ahead in the polls to get another term, do you honestly think he would be pushing this, of course not.

I prefer first past the post then you should get a pretty stable government.

It wouldn't work that way. It would be the other way round. Somebody might vote the BNP as their number 1 choice and Labour as number 2, if the BNP guy gets the lowest first choice preferences then he gets knocked out, and they look at the number 2 choices of his supporters.

The concept is that if this person can't have who they really want in power,  which of the bigger parties is the lesser evil.

The system isn't quite PR which we have in Ireland, that has a district of 5 times more people than the UK ones but there are 5 seats in the area and the main parties will probably have 2 or 3 canditates so you might get 2 Labour,2 conservative and 1 Lib dem to represent one area.

I know what you mean about strong government but something just doesn't seem right that barely 30% of people that voted, voted Labour but they got a big  majority.

I agree that Labour had no interest in it when they were popular though.

Sorry BN but I don't agree with you on this, I am not a floating voter so out of the three main parties in the UK, I vote for one of them and would never vote for the other two, each party has its own ideals and policies so if you don't agree with them how could they be a choice at all. One of them I would never vote for even if it was 100th choice.

No, I would probably put the finge parties down as my 2nd & 3rd choices, like 'monster raving looney' or 'the no tax on fuel party' or something obscure like that.

You don't have to vote for a number 2.  You only vote number 2 as a means of saying I really want canditate A  but if he gets eliminated I'd prefer  Canditate B than canditate C. It actually gives you a bigger choice.

However, if you hate B and C, then don't give anyone your number 2.

[Big Niall]

The biggest mistake the EU ever made was letting these  shaky (in terms of economy) countries in, it will be the death of it. They either need to boot these countries out or dissolve the whole bloody thing, I favour the latter as I have never liked the concept of the EU and now it's just become a bigger and bigger drain on resources for the wealthy countries.

down the right path, now why don't you extrapolate that idea to its natural conclusion. Why stop at the country level? why not take it to the county/province level or the city level? or the neighborhood level? or the individual level?

No I think that would be inefficient, you need to have some form of centralised control, in Europe that has worked for a long time at the country level until the EU started forcing ancient enemies together, ok I'm over-dramatising a bit but you see what I mean, e.g the Dutch and the Germans who fecking hate each other about as much as the Brits and the French.

Other than forming an economic block to counter China and the US I can see no need for the EU and in any case EFTA can provide that same economic block in a more efficient manner.

The entire World hate the French.

Snail-eating surrender monkeys.

That's not true.

The French love the French.

[maypaxvobiscum]

hang on, does it matter which minister get the most votes or get into Parliament? the PM himself has the power to dismiss them if they dont share his views or his policies. like how a fair number of ministers left when Blair sent troops to Iraq without consulting them. so basically, it gives the chance for other parties to have representatives hence Parliament would be more diversified but it really doesnt solve the problem at all. right?

The prime minister cannot dismiss an MP though and it is the MPs that vote to go for war. The cabinet could theoretically all support a war but if the MPs don't vote for it in the house of commons then they cannot go to war.

he cant dismiss them, but they would have been forced to resigned due to the doctrine of "collective ministerial responsibility". i remember Claire Short being very critical of Blair and also, Robin Cook and John Denham left as they did not support the war on Iraq.

i might be wrong here as this area of law isnt my best but im pretty sure that the PM is capable of making decisions even if it is contrary to majority of the MPs opinions.

[Big Niall]

you are wrong. The PM cannnot decide to go to war. The house of commmons must vote for it. Not even the presidennt of the USA can decide to go to war and a president has more power than a PM. Thatcher was ditched as PM by her own politicians.

[maypaxvobiscum]

you are wrong. The PM cannnot decide to go to war. The house of commmons must vote for it. Not even the presidennt of the USA can decide to go to war and a president has more power than a PM. Thatcher was ditched as PM by her own politicians.

nope i dont think im wrong

Prior to British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms "advisory" as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he could formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative and declare war. the only reason why he didnt do so is because he had a Labour majority in the HOC and the support of the opposition Conservatives.

[Lando_Griffin]

The biggest mistake the EU ever made was letting these  shaky (in terms of economy) countries in, it will be the death of it. They either need to boot these countries out or dissolve the whole bloody thing, I favour the latter as I have never liked the concept of the EU and now it's just become a bigger and bigger drain on resources for the wealthy countries.

down the right path, now why don't you extrapolate that idea to its natural conclusion. Why stop at the country level? why not take it to the county/province level or the city level? or the neighborhood level? or the individual level?

No I think that would be inefficient, you need to have some form of centralised control, in Europe that has worked for a long time at the country level until the EU started forcing ancient enemies together, ok I'm over-dramatising a bit but you see what I mean, e.g the Dutch and the Germans who fecking hate each other about as much as the Brits and the French.

Other than forming an economic block to counter China and the US I can see no need for the EU and in any case EFTA can provide that same economic block in a more efficient manner.

The entire World hate the French.

Snail-eating surrender monkeys.

That's not true.

The French love the French.

The French would love EVERYONE if they could, the dirty f*ckers!