Originally posted by DodgyAgent
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Why bother with an EU referendum?
Collapse
X
-
The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.
George Frederic Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park -
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostNot by any classification does your definition of our relationship with the EU mean war. I will add at this stage that I am a big supporter of what UKIP are trying to achieve. War is a terrible thing and you calling your campaign a "war" demeans the seriousness of war itself. You seem to think that just because you define your position within the EU as war you are morally entitled to plunder money from the EU. Let me tell you that you are not.
The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostWhatever the democratic limitations of our relationship with the EU are, successive UK governments elected by the british people within the rules of whatever constitution we have in the UK were legally entitled to sign the Maastrich and Lisbon treaties on behalf of the UK.
According to your logic this removes their legitimacy as the party of government.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.Comment
-
Originally posted by KentPhilip View Post"war on terrorism", "war on poverty", "war on corruption" are three examples of wars that are not terrible things. All that "war" means in these contexts, and the context that I have stated it in, is an uncompromising focus on the target of what we are trying to achieve. I think we would agree that what makes "war" terrible is when innocent lives are lost due to involvement of the military. Wars where that does not happen are never "terrible".
The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.
The difference is that those treaties move the goalposts - change the way that the people in power is decided.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.
George Frederic Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_ParkComment
-
Now I remember where I've seen KentPhilip before
The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.
George Frederic Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_ParkComment
-
-
Originally posted by KentPhilip View Post"war on terrorism", "war on poverty", "war on corruption" are three examples of wars that are not terrible things. All that "war" means in these contexts, and the context that I have stated it in, is an uncompromising focus on the target of what we are trying to achieve. I think we would agree that what makes "war" terrible is when innocent lives are lost due to involvement of the military. Wars where that does not happen are never "terrible".
The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.
The difference is that those treaties move the goalposts - change the way that the people in power is decided.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.
A "war on corruption" does not give investigators an excuse to line their own pockets. There is no legal, political or other mandate for a war on the EU which in the eyes of all parties is a legal (even if unpopular) series of institutions. Much as you would like to pick and choose your definitions of legitimacy your precious members of UKIP have no mandate to screw British taxpayers money out of the EU. If you think for a minute that this policy of yours impresses anyone then I think you will find that once the EU debate is settled your party will disappear.Last edited by DodgyAgent; 3 July 2014, 15:33.Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyoneComment
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostGoalposts are moved by governments all the time. Electoral boundary changes for example are what most people would define as "moving goalposts. this happens frequently in governments.
A "war on corruption" does not give investigators an excuse to line their own pockets. There is no legal, political or other mandate for a war on the EU which in the eyes of all parties is a legal (even if unpopular) series of institutions. Much as you would like to pick and choose your definitions of legitimacy your precious members of UKIP have no mandate to screw British taxpayers money out of the EU. If you think for a minute that this policy of yours impresses anyone then I think you will find that once the EU debate is settled your party will disappear.Comment
-
Originally posted by KentPhilip View PostWell we'll see. I'll pass on your points to my local committee and see what their take is on it - they might have a different perspective perhaps..The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.
George Frederic Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_ParkComment
-
Originally posted by speling bee View PostThe Volkssturm? Excellent idea. If they can hold of the EUSSR invaders awhile, perhaps Le Pen's Charlemagne Legions can break through. IF ONLY THERE WERE MORE TIME!Comment
-
Originally posted by KentPhilip View PostVery good. You should do a Hitler parody videoThe material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.
George Frederic Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_ParkComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment