US voices concern over UK exit from EU

When they say 'US voices concern', what they really mean to say, is that they like the EU, because, apart from anything else, it weakens, without question, the right to self determine, instead, decisions are made by some faceless pen pushers, at Brussels. The whole of the EU is a scam, if you got a sheet of paper, and were honest, putting aside all it's benefits, to all the negatives, the latter would outweigh the former, by almost the whole page.

Greece were tricked into it, and the Eurozone. Look at them now. Italy and Spain ceded their OWN currency. Big trouble ahead there, this year. There are plenty of good countries not in the EU, and they manage just fine, thanks.

I am glad if we are going that way, and it has nothing to do with the US.

**

The United States has publicly announced its concerns over Britain’s leaving the European Union (EU), saying that a possible referendum on its membership would be divisive.


US assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs Philip Gordon raised concerns over Britain’s break up from the EU and said Britain’s voice within the EU is “critical” and “essential” to the United States.

"We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU”, he added.

Washington has previously warned the departure of Britain from the EU could put the country at risk and also reduce the US influence on the continent.

This comes as the British Prime Minister prepares to deliver a long-awaited speech later this month, in which he is expected to set out his prospect for Britain’s future in the EU.

Cameron is under growing pressure from backbenchers for a referendum on whether to leave the European Union after 40 years.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/09/282695/eu/

 

I don't think leaving the EU will be good for us though I am sure that with any referendum that will be the result. When I notice that the main reason right wing conservatives are keen on us leaving - to not be obliged for human rights - something which the UK itself gave to the EU, I am even less impressed. If Scotland goes for independence and has a vote, she too will decide to leave. Those in favour are assuming that the EU is going to give us our cake and let us eat it. Will it? Who knows. If not we are going ....I do not know...maybe all those new contracts with Israel will be our life blood?

It won't make us any more of a democracy as we make so much of our money out of financial services. They hold the power, getting the Government to bend to it's whim. I think if Britian leaves the EU I am more for Scottish Independence regardless of whether she leaves or not ...but ...I would rather see a development of the Eu into a much more democratic 'institution'.

Britain will of course lose her influence. The US will have no interest in her. Germany will be the main power with France biting at her heels (sorry Paris

The one thing I always liked about it was it's court. That kept us on track when we could have moved even more to the right..so with no EU, reduced human rights, no safety nets, recession and depression, to be honest I hate to think what England will turn into - so as I say I will escape into Independence - and what the hell will England do then?

(I'm waffling, I know

 

Cameron wants the UK to remain within the EU but he is wary of any new deal that emerges as a result of the EU's further enlargement to Eastern Europe, upon which the UK public's fresh consent could be sought in the form of referendum if the Tories win the next general election in 2015. But it's a long shot as Labour leads Conservatives by 10% in recent polls and Labour will return to Tony Blair's foreign policy.

 

UK should definitely do what is best for the US, even if it is to the detriment of the UK and even if a referendum evidences it is against the wishes of the majority of UK citizens what does that matter? Who cares about the UK anyway, the world is a film about US...[/sarcasm]

 

I would definitely vote to secede from the EU if I was a citizen of the UK.

Then again, I would also vote in favor of seceding from the UK as a citizen of England or Scotland.

Only Wales and Northern Ireland seem to benefit from being part of a larger collective. In most other cases, devolution is preferable both in terms of representation and fiscal balances.

 

Viv, what any true leader would be saying, in essence is 'This is our business, and our destiny. It is not your business to meddle in affairs that impact on our people'.

I said 'true leader' of course, and that is what Cameron, and all of that type aren't. Could you honestly look anyone in the eye and say Cameron was a leader of men? After all, if one is to follow the example of the leader, then he has to be worth following, right? What he is, is yet another out of touch, simpering, career politician.

Do you recall his cringeworthy 'junior partner' comments?

What does dissapoint me, is that we Scots have a chance that many would die for - literally.

We could say ta ta to the union, no more Tory Gov's, no more need to waste money on nukes, no more need to prop up a Monarchy. But look how afrraid and apathetic most are. That is why I think it will be voted against, when it comes along, lack of vision + fear. If we were free from fear + had vision, we could look at nations like Norway, and see how they have done just fine, and I do not believe they are in the EU either.

Quietly going about their business, known for positives. Held up as a bit of a beacon of virtue, actually.

There is no reason why we could not be along those lines, and leave all the ********s that want wars, and to crap on the people, behind.

As a nation, we would find our own place in N Europe, for a country of our size.

On top of that, what irked me as well, is the half truther, Salmond.

For me, either people will want to leave it or not.

Watering it down to make it into a half truth, is no truth.

For instance, by trying to pander to the monarchy crowd here. Why bother? Why peddle a half truth? If we were to be independent, I would want that to mean in every sense, and I would not want this 'Queen' as my head of state here. They are not going to win over the unionist crowd anyway, so why pander?

It would also be a good chance for Scotland to establish it's own true central bank, and coin it's own currency. They are effectively be part of a banking system, which is owned by private foreign investors, that can print money from thin air, then lend it back to your country, at massive interest, which then gets passed on to us, when you could coin your own currency, and have a true central bank, that would not do that. Sure, I know there would be obstacles to address, but for me, if you are going to be visionary, go all the way with it.

Don't tell your parents you are moving out, then live in their shed!

There is no use selling a weaker offer, just in the hope you can get some floating votes, or a few businesses will approve. Like I say, if you are going to strike out, good, do it, but at least use the chance to the fullest, explore everything.

Scotland would not need to be in the EU either, another thing that dissapoints me is Salmonds pandering to this, as well.

As to Britain at large, for another thing, I would boot out all US corporations that operated here, yet used a battery of shill lawyers to ensure they paid NOTHING.

Amazon, Google, they could either cease with such shilery, or just be booted. There are alternatives, and we do not HAVE to let them operate here. It's like renting a stall at a market. You expect to pay fees.

 

At least someone gets it! The world is a film about the US!

The World: Starring the United States.


co-starring the EU and a bunch of other countries that aren't important unless they're making trouble.


Tickets are sold in US dollars only.

 

Ha ha ha..

 

Not waffling at all, what you had to say is the voice of reason.

 

I'm afraid you are misguided.

 

No he isn't.

Well, not really.

He is entirely right about the EU.

Aside from the OP, I laid it all out before, the pro's, and the many con's.

 

What's needed is a restructuring of the EU. The principle is good if taken to its logical conclusion as envisaged by Delors, the execution, bad as it currently stands.

 

Ok, maybe I was being generous with saying that Wales and Northern Ireland benefited from the union.

 

No ta.

That would just be another excuse for them to spend yet more national wealth on the process, including an obscene amount to a 'design agency',for a new logo.

Then, having done all that, it would be no better.

We don't need to be in it man.

It's not that I am anti Europe, I am anti EU, the structure, and the reach that it has.

 

Thw way forward is for the existence of smaller entities within the context of a reformed EU. I'll expand on that in due course.

 

With costs and actual hard and fast benefits, to us, as a country, please...

 

This is exactly correct!

The EU manages to subsume all national identities into a monolithic entity, as if, say, the traditions and customs in Spain were identical to the traditions and customs in Ireland. Or as if the desire for fiscal responsibility in Germany were precisely the same as the desire for fiscal responsibility in Greece.

The EU was created, I believe, to serve as a counterweight against the US, since no European country's economy, just by itself, can compete with the American economy.

It was, I think, an enormous mistake...

 

I'll explain in greater detail my rationale underpinning my support for the principles guiding the EU in due course. But first I want to summarize my view and how an entity like Scotland and it's people could benefit from this. I'm choosing Scotland as an example, because Jack lives in Scotland.

Like I say, I remain broadly in favour of European integration in principle, and entirely in favour of Europe’s open internal borders, but still very mindful that those driving the European project do not really believe in democracy if it means that common people can tell great minds like them what to do.

Focusing specifically on England for a brief moment, I think that democracy actually stopped meaning anything in my country some years ago as all the main English political parties were bought for the neo-con agenda.

In Europe, today the European Central Bank is imposed on the Greeks by the Germans as their Prime Minister, and as former EU Commissioner Mario Monti is forced upon the Italians, in neither case with any voter having a chance to do anything about it.

This kind of structure has resulted in rabid anti-Europeanism, as for example, displayed in last years House of Commons debate on EU funding - a clarification of a simple political truth if ever one was needed. This is where Scotland comes in.

The real choice facing Scotland in 2014 is, “Which union do you wish to be in?”

Scotland can either be independent within the European Union or part of the United Kingdom outside the European Union. In joining the pro-UKIP wing of the Tory Party in the vote, Ed Milliband was, with short term shrewdness, tapping in to a bottomless well of English atavism that I have no doubt is leading England inexorably out of the European Union.

UKIP support rises, the Tory xenophobes bray, New Labour joins them because as always it scents the way to money and power. The English have already kept the UK out of Schengen and the Euro, the two most important developments in the history of the EU and both of which it would be great to be in. The UK is already out of some of the most important aspects of the EU, snad the rest will follow.

When did any major English political figure dare to suggest in public that the EU is a good thing? That, incidentally, is a genuine question. Any answers? Neither English politicians nor media care to hide their gloating at the Eurozone’s economic difficulties, and the London media still makes daily predictions of the end of the Euro, despite having been wrong on the subject 1,000 days in a row.

Most amusing is when pundits who don’t actually support the EU themselves leap with glee when they can find a Spaniard wishing to be disobliging about an independent Scotland’s EU status. Said Spaniard is suddenly the ultimate authority on EU law, even though the same pundits deride Spain in every other circumstance.

It won’t be on the ballot paper. But the real question for the Scots is “Which union do you wish to be in?”

 

You are correct with most of what you write, imo.

I like it to a sort of communist model. It cannot abide anything nationalist, therefore, sets out to weaken having dominion over the nuance of our own laws and culture. Moreover, mixing up all the nationalities serves only to further that.

Then you get a lot of E Europeans who can come here, and after one year, they can get welfare and housing benefit.

Try rocking up in Krakow, and seeing if they are happy to give you a paid for house, and money, they won't.

How can it be fair to be putting an extra strain on OUR welfare system, and our housing?

This island is also the second most over crowded place in Europe, the first being Malta.

The EU has lent itself to that. The host nation also has to give more than is given back. People will argue otherwise, or roll out one example when this was not so, but by and large, it is the host people that must keep on giving, and making the concessions, to accomodate the other. Which I do not see as attractive or fair, to be honest. There are no standards whatsoever, in who is let in. If you see your country as your home, and you as a resident, why are we not allowed to say who we can have in, and who we cannot have in? And how many? They would not ask the people, and you know why..

The EU is just there, much like communism, in an attempt to consume countries, it doesn't care really who, or if they are even European even, like Communism, it is not particular, and it will trick countries in, if it feels they have national wealth to rob, and they can enslave that nation to the EU machine.

There is a whole lot of other information that I put out there, into the public domain, which I am afraid makes it appear what it is, a £30mill a day waste of money, for something we do not need to be in, and most would be better getting out of.

Any benefits are merely incidental and crumbs.

 

Neither.

If you are giving me a free choice, my choice is neither.

 

In the absense of the corrective and regulative power of the EU, nation states, even the best of them, are dangerous entities which employ force against their own and other citizens and can be an active danger to international peace. The EU has the potential to regulate the relations between states by international law to reduce conflict. Some countries are much more danger than others: Ghana, to take one example, has never invaded anybody while the UK has at various times invaded or bombed the territory currently occupied by three quarters of the states in the World, while the United States projects deadly physical force overseas by a variety of means on a daily basis. Reining in these rogue states is a major priority.

There exists a body of international law which had been gaining in respect and conformity in the decades since the Second World War, but both the United States and United Kingdom, and others following the neocon lead, have in recent decades driven a coach and horses right through the fabric of international law, through invasion, extraordinary rendition, torture, detention without trial, indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, targeted extra-judicial killings by shootings or by drones, murder of journalists in war zones, and so on in a depressing litany.

Fundamental platforms of international law violated by the UK, US and their neo-con allies from the BushBlair period on include: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Nuremberg Principles, The Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Convention. Recently the UK was proposing in effect to tear up the Vienna Convention too.

International law can be strengthened through the EU and thus potentially brought back into repute. The idea of the nation state as the basic unit of political organisation should be radically attacked; that the period of history is past in which the development of the nation state was a force for the good of its citizens and the world community.

I believe that the nation state should be attacked from top and bottom. From the bottom, as societies internationalise the idea of an ethnic basis to state boundaries becomes anachronistic. Advantage should be taken of this trend to deconstruct states from within, breaking them down into a combination of smaller states and/or of powerful autonomous regional polities. And this Jack, is where an independent Scotland within a reformed EU comes in.

We need to see many more states split up, especially among the westen democracies but also very definitely Russia, China, India and states in their orbit.

From the top, and with particular reference to the UK, I view the European Union as an excellenct prototype of the sort of organisation that can attack the sovereignty of national states from above. Nobody dares to say this should happen – when those few Europhiles brave enough to state their beliefs talk of greater integration, they talk of “pooling sovereignty” to disguise from themselves and their listeners the fact that what they really mean is appropriating and destroying national sovereignty – and a (*)(*)(*)(*) good thing too.

The problem of the Euro, as I observed a decade ago and everyone now agrees, is that a currency union is not really feasible without a fiscal union. The answer to that is a fiscal union. Where the European Union has gone wrong is not that it has gone too far in integration, but that it has not gone nearly far enough.

After a period of disastrous free-for-all, what we now have is a de facto fiscal union in the Eurozone in which the German government in effect dictates policy – in this case austerity policy – to everyone else. Democracy is now even more meaningless to the Greeks and Spaniards than it is to the rest of us.

The cause of this is the fundamental weakness of the European Union – its deference to the nation states it should be eliminating. Executive power within the European Union needs to be removed completely from the nation states in the Council of Ministers, or Council of German Orders as it should be better known now.

The executive body of the European Union should rather be dependent on, and largely drawn from, a majority of the European Parliament. That parliament divides along ideological, not nationalistic lines and does provide a much broader range of representation of opinion than most national parliaments.

The existing European Commission would become simply the Civil Service to this new, democratically elected, European Government. The European Commissioners themselves, devoid of administrative responsibilities which would pass to the new parliamentary ministers, might form some kind a second chamber, of a deliberative and revising nature, to the European Parliament. Rather like the US Senate, this would give a balance of due consideration to the interests of smaller nations; it might also encourage the break-up further of over-large “national” units to ensure more second chamber representation.

 

I am not convinced that the tendency toward an ever-expanding union is a good thing.

In fact, I would not be at all disturbed if the 50 states now comprising the US were to return to a much looser federation--one as existed, say, under the Articles of Confederation, until the latter part of the eighteenth century.

 

Its nice we finally agree on something.

 

Sounds scary to me guy!! Nope---you can take international law and shove it.

 

Awkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!