If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iain Duncan Smith
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This man, unfortuneatly, is the only thing that can stop Britain being completely and utterly controlled by Brussels.
Okay, he has the charisma of a park bench, and reminds me too much of Hague for my liking, but if Clarke wins, then there is NOTHING to stop Blair and his pro-european ideologies becoming reality.
Okay, he has the charisma of a park bench, and reminds me too much of Hague for my liking, but if Clarke wins, then there is NOTHING to stop Blair and his pro-european ideologies becoming reality.
0
Comments
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
On the Euro, I would expect someone who has been Chancellor to have a better understanding of the issues than the man in the pub, but for my 2p worth - given that we have a popularist and selfish democracy anything that moves power from our politicians is a good thing. Giving interest rates to bankers has been followed by a long period of relative stability in interest and inflation rates.
But even if Ken were a lazy politician, who dreams of getting paid to be prime minister, while Brussels does all the work. He would still have most of his party to deal with - or do the tories all mindlessly follow the leader? have they perfected control freakery?
ROFLMAO
hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Yeah, but at the end of the day, if Ken C wins we are under attack from all sides. If Blairs referendum for the Euro fails the first time, then there will be more and more and more to follow, which will inevitably lead to the Euro, which leads to Brussels Bureacts running our economy, the thought of which personally makes me sick.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm afraid that you are spouting complete rubbish. Ken C thinks that the UK would be better if it moved to the Euro for currency. He does not think that we should hand everything over to the European community, and neither does Blair.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No, but at the end of the day, it is crucial for the independence of a country that it can determine its own financial state, and not be reliant on other politicians from other countries. The euro would change a hell of a lot of things in this country, and as i have said its the first step on the road to a euro super state.
so, i'd back the guy who has the best policies on other stuff. such as clarke saying he'll scrap uni tuition fees. fuckin great idea, although he's too much of a smarmy turd to make me ever vote tory. mind you, compare that to ian duncan - shit for brains and no charisma Hague mark II - smith. hardly a most inspiring choice for the proclaimed 'most succesful political party in the world'. my arse. succesful at wrecking things, like the NHS. sorry, this is turning in to a tory-bashing, so i'll stop.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
At least if we were in the Euro our politicians would have _some_ influence. Aside from an inflation blip when we change over, and not having to convert currency when dealing with europe what changes will it actually make to the man/business in the street?
As for a European super state - that isn't likely to happen. Personally, I'd rather be in the Midlands controlled by Europe than the Midlands conrolled by London.
The one good thing about going in late is that we can do a midnight change over instead of the stupid dual currency deal they came up with.
European Army
European Police force
European Currency
European Constitution
Europe dictating our laws
Europe dictating our taxes
Europe dictating our prices
Nope, thats not a European superstate is it.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
The tories have NO chance of winning the election either way.
One of them got me quite scared before i realised it was Irish when this geezer was standing there telling everyone about the changeover and what to expect, things like exchange rates and stuff. My point is that this bloke was either brain washed or being paid A LOT
I think Clarkes policies are better than Duncan Smiths (who by the way is in favour of restoring caning and the death penalty), excpet for the euro, which i beleive makes Duncan Smith my preferred candidate. Its THAT important and issue
As for the Tories being unelectable, some of that is down to negative media coverage (be it reasonable or not). All we ever hear is of infighting, scandals, etc etc, which i beleive is over - exagerrated by the media. And coupled with the fact that they made a mess of their last term in office, yes they are completeley unelectable.
But whether they get into office or not, if Clarke becomes leader, then there is very little political opposition to Blair, which in my opinion, is very very dangerous.
We don't have one of them. ERRF isn't an army, no matter how much you would like it to be so you can say how awful it was. I can see some arguments in favour of having a European standing army, but I doubt it would ever happen.
I've not noticed one. Would be a good idea, for the same reason as having a national one would be. Britain doesn't have one, so I guess it doesn't count.
Nope, not one of them either. But Britain doesn't have one either, so that doesn't count
They don't do that, they don't even get to scrutinise them. More's the pity. but then Our second chamber doesn't get to these days...
Nor that. Some of the europeans would like tax harmonisation, others wouldn't. UK politions wouldn't like it because it only addresses "stealth" taxes and harmonisation would push up our direct taxation by lowering the indirect. I assumethe conservatives are in favour seeing how much thay are against stealth taxes. (Or is it an ireegular compound verb - I raise indirect taxation, you raise stealth taxes, it is european?) they don't even do that. CAP does mean that farmers have a reliable customer, but thay can sell cheaper if they want to. But then again, Britain doesn't dictate our prices either, so that doesn't count. Ooops, did I say its the fault of those greedy farmers? I quite agree, it isn't.
Do you want to try again with something that isn't based on paranoid fantasy?
Of course not, why do you think Portaloo engineered his, umm, defeat, and then quickly withdrew from the political arena?
whoever wins, the conservatives aren't going to get in next time, and the leader will feel compelled to step down. if it was Ken, the party will probably go for another nut like Hague, after which, Portillo will "allow" himself to be persuaded to stand. Panicing the party will elect him, and give him free reign to do all sorts of things - like blair did to labour. If CDS gets in then things are a little trickier for our son of an immigrant. He has to decide whether to risk it.
If you look carefully you will see that I did not say those things were currently in place. All those things I listed have been put forward for debate by various members of European governments.
I posted that list in response to you saying that a European superstate isnt likely to happen. It seems that all the Euro governments want it and who are we to disagree with their agenda? We are after all, just the people they are supposed to serve.
Paranoid fantasy eh...Hmm well everything I mentioned has been brought forward by members of Euro governments...But then I must have imagined that in one of my paranoid delusions then right?
Please, if you are going to reply then at least make it relevant to my point.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
the best way of avoiding a european superstate is to play a very active role in the union, and use our veto to ensure nothing alters to radically.
but, are people opposed to a european superstate if we're not part of it (which i personally feel would be disastrous for the UK's economy). if so, then we cannot withdraw from the union or play any lesser role, else it might happen.
so, its a pardox of sorts - in order to stop the creation of the superstate, we have to take a more active part in the running of the union. irony for you.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
despite your not stating the context, I agreed with your statement that it didn't look like a European Superstate. See, I can be disingenuous too. yes, of course you failed to mention that they had pretty much all been turned down by Europe, without the use of the veto. This process is known as "politics"
then make your point a little clearer. I was under the impression that you thought these were all about to happen, and I have heard others put forward similar views in that context.
You could of course be schizophrenic - in one post telling implying that the public were powerless to stop the European juggernaut was coming, and then in another listing all the things which were not happening and saying that there was indeed no Superstate.
Finally it could be a cheap debating trick - imply something, and when called on it state you never actually said it. Being a non legal person from a legal familly I dislike all such sophistry.
Or, as they used to say last year, "whatever"
[This message has been edited by Carriage Return (edited 30-08-2001).]
No, no civil wars there.
And note, he hasn't said that we will be / are being before anyone should wish to correct that.
The things I listed and things along those lines are being brought up more often these days..It was just this week that Chirac put forward his Euro Constituion idea once again(he put the idea forward last year). Surely this points to the fact that just because something has been dismissed doesnt mean it wont be brought back again.
Do you agree that all those things have been put forward by Pro European politicians? You said that a European superstate was not likely to come about..Well it appears that the European governments disagree. They have a clear agenda on this. Those things have not been turned down by Europe..They have not said a definitive NO to any of those things..They have merely put them on the back burner.
May I ask why you would rather be ruled from Brussels than London?
I thought my point was quite clear..We were talking about future European integration brought in if Clarke came to be PM..You stated it wasnt likely to happen and I showed you things that are wanted by the various governments..I strongly believe we will be dragged into a federal state of Europe..I think its a bad idea.
Edit to answer last post.
The civil war fought to get out of a Monarchy. The Americans did not fight the civil war because they were being forced into a republic.
I didnt think I needed to state that we are being forced into one...I thought that was implied in my post..If it wasnt then im sorry, I will state it for you clearly.
WE ARE BEING FORCED INTO A EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE BY OUR OWN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
[This message has been edited by Balddog (edited 30-08-2001).]
Good point. However, being run from brussels may also have a negative effect on our economy, and the UK would be in an absolutely nightmare scenario of having very little control over its economy. The shockwaves of recession would filter through all of Europe. Think of the damage to trade, particualarly with the Americans.
From a purely patroiotic viewpoint aswell, it would throw away the very things that we fought two world wars for, the right to be brittish and the right to be in control of what happens in this country. OK, Hitlers Nazi's are that bit more lethal than Brussels control, however the principle is the same.
We need to stay in control of our own finances, and not to be sheep by following most of Europe into something which I feel would be a big, big mistake.