Quote from Polyracer :

Give me a vote and it would be an emphatic NO

Exactly.

Quote from Kalev EST :

If a country wishes to join the Schengen Agreement then there will be no borders. Some countrys have refused to do so, like UK.

We cannot sign up for the borders bit of Schengen unless ROI go in with us due to the Common Travel Area. We're in parts of it, though.

I'd like to see GB join Schengen, but there would be issues with it.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

If there is any way at all that this will reduce the number of representatives needed to govern me, I'm all for it. Especially if most of my laws are decided by a centralised authority and Westminster becomes nothing more than a tourist attraction.
I'm not against the idea in principle, but experience tell me this will will simply be an extra burden and waste of resources, as it already is.
Free trade yes, but most of the rest of it is not good news from my viewpoint
I think if any part of the world is adequately prepared for a union like this it's Europe, as it consists mostly of established industrialised nations with similar politics and solid diplomatic relations.
Nah, as the saying goes - too many chiefs and not enough Indians - or too many cooks spoil the broth.

Too much central control, and too many individuals with their own agendas.
We see countless millions going to waste now, - and thats what we know about - it will get worse.

They have never submitted any accounts at all, which can only indicate possibly how bad things might really be.

Why would they care? - they're never going to be voted out of their jobs are they? - so nobody is accountable.

As an American I think I have a pretty good idea of how important borders are. Who is to keep all the people from emmigrating from their crappy countries in the EU and moving to countries that have great healthcare coverage and pensions? This problem is especially apparent in America. The birthrate is only 2.1 children per family, yet our population in increasing exponetially at a rate estimated by the U.S. customs and border control to be 3,000 people per week. Obviously our economy is failing and not even upper middle class has enough money to do much of anything. I'm sure you don't want your countries to be anything like America

Quote from flymike91 :

As an American I think I have a pretty good idea of how important borders are. Who is to keep all the people from emmigrating from their crappy countries in the EU and moving to countries that have great healthcare coverage and pensions?

What this says to me is that you believe you are more deserving of a comfortable existence than another man, based entirely on the lump of rock upon which you happened to be born - something you had no control over, pure luck. You're saying you have the right to be lazy and decadent while others deserve to toil through starvation and die at a young age of eminently curable illnesses, because they weren't lucky enough to be born where you were born.

Are you starting to feel ignorant yet or should I carry on?

I feel like our border buddies' government seems to have enough money to pay members extraordinary salaries yet I go there every spring break and build houses there. So no, I don't feel ignorant because I try to help them make the place they are at better so they don't have to burden other people. How would you feel if every poor person in Europe came to the UK and expected all the services the government provides (that you work and pay taxes for) for free. You might feel pretty ignorant I guess.

Quote from flymike91 :

How would you feel if every poor person in Europe came to the UK and expected all the services the government provides (that you work and pay taxes for) for free. You might feel pretty ignorant I guess.

What do you mean "if"? It's already started to happen - the UK gives out one of the best welfare packages and so people make their way throughout Europe to the UK...

I feel sorry for you, welcome to my world. People who are born here (lucky me, I guess) and work here and pay taxes should never have to support people from other countries if they don't want to. I choose to do so, but I don't expect other people to, its a personal choice I have made.

Quote from flymike91 :

I feel like our border buddies' government seems to have enough money to pay members extraordinary salaries yet I go there every spring break and build houses there. So no, I don't feel ignorant because I try to help them make the place they are at better so they don't have to burden other people.

While your government is systematically ****ing them over. How much of a difference do you think you'll make? And to be honest I find it rather odd that you're feeling charitable enough to help build stuff in foreign countries but you won't extend that charity to them at home. It's like saying you'll visit someone for an evening and bring the food and wine, but you're only doing it because they're not welcome in your house.

Quote from flymike91 :

How would you feel if every poor person in Europe came to the UK and expected all the services the government provides (that you work and pay taxes for) for free. You might feel pretty ignorant I guess.

The situation in the USA with Mexican immigration is borne out of stubborness on the part of your government, and driven by ignorance on the part of your populace. Without cheap Mexican labour your economy would be even more ****ed than it already is. Your country can't support the rabid consumerism that it encourages without the benefits of slave labour and that's essentially what the majority of illegal Mexicans provide - they are forced to work way below the minimum wage because their employers have to keep costs down to stay afloat, because the american consumer demands an easy ride.

You turn your nose up at the occasional Mexican trying to get health care (HEALTH CARE) on the cheap when thousands of their cousins are subsidising your lifestyle with their own sweat and blood? You sound like a proper cock.

Quote from flymike91 :

I feel sorry for you, welcome to my world. People who are born here (lucky me, I guess) and work here and pay taxes should never have to support people from other countries if they don't want to. I choose to do so, but I don't expect other people to, its a personal choice I have made.

You've described a token gesture you perform which you feel gives you credit to deny anything else to people from less developed nations. You're greedy but you have enough of a conscience to realise that you're wrong. Just not quite enough to change your mind.

Quote from flymike91 :

I feel sorry for you, welcome to my world. People who are born here (lucky me, I guess) and work here and pay taxes should never have to support people from other countries if they don't want to. I choose to do so, but I don't expect other people to, its a personal choice I have made.

You are aware that England has always used immigrant labour in one form or another? We have been doing it long before we even knew about America, so welcome to OUR world.

Fact is many countries would die a painful death if it wasn't for immigration, as they are willing to do the same jobs for lower pay, and more often than not will work a lot harder than those born to a country.

You say that mexicans are enabling rabid consumerism, so perhaps we could come to the conclusion that without illegal immigrants we would be forced to rethink our lifestyles and become less materialistic. Sounds good to me, I'm all for America learning to be self-sufficient. I would rather that homelessness and poverty was completely eliminated among our citizens before we help anybody else that we are not responsible for. People expect America to give and give. They think we should send money and troops to Darfur or that we should pay for healthcare for a whole other country or that we should end our trade relations with China because of Tibet. WE HAVE NO MORE TO GIVE.

Mexicans are not forced to come here and work. There are fields in Mexico that they could work in and stimulate their OWN economy and make it a better place. Thats how countries develop, not by leeching off of others. We would be temporarily ****ed without them, but we would be forced to recover and become self-sufficient. I would lov to see that.

When I go to mexico, I go to help them develop their country. I can't do it singlehandedly, you're right, but at least I'm trying to help them better their country. How can they develop it if they rely on us for healthcare and free money?

We are in a pass on the blame society, and as long as we have immigration people will be willing to pass the blame for them being unable to get a job on immigrants, the fact is most are just too lazy, or too stupid to get a job.

Quote from flymike91 :

that we should end our trade relations with China because of Tibet.

That annoys me, Tibet is better under Chinese rule than it ever was under the Monks rule.

Nobody is too stupid to harvest. Any person who goes to school past the 5th grade is smart enough to get a job over an illegal immigrant, so i agree that is a cop-out.
People depend on illegal immigration and they depend on our welfare system. If we stop depending on them and do the work ourselves, they won't be able to expect stuff for free. If we were self-sufficient, it would be an incredible era of prosperity in America.

I don't have an opinion on Tibet as I'm not Tibetan or Chinese but I know its not our responsibility to do something about it. We have people who are living in the streets in the US. I would rather they were in cheap housing before we send a dime to another country. Why is it always the US? Why doesn't France send it's fearless army in to help the monks? Why don't the Norwegians step in to end the genocide in Darfur?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

While your government is systematically ****ing them over.

How so?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I find it rather odd that you're feeling charitable enough to help build stuff in foreign countries but you won't extend that charity to them at home. It's like saying you'll visit someone for an evening and bring the food and wine, but you're only doing it because they're not welcome in your house.

It seems to me that Flymike is willing to be personally generous and charitable, while even recognizing that it is not his prerogative to legislate U.S. immigration law, by himself, nor to ignore it.

You, however, perhaps have the prerogative to make your house open to the public. I am inclined to propose that you "let me know how that works out for you," but my actual expectation is that if you DID make your house open to the public, you would not likely be able to use your computer (in order to provide me with the requested information, much less to play LFS), nor your bed, bathroom, food and kitchen appliances or most other living space; I expect that the first news that I would get, on the subject, would be that you had moved out of that house, to find one of your own (since it would seemingly be inappropriate for you to have kicked everybody out, inasmuch as having regarded them as unwelcome).

Quote from thisnameistaken :

The situation in the USA with Mexican immigration is borne out of stubborness on the part of your government, and driven by ignorance on the part of your populace.

I notice that Flymike is a resident of California, which is a State that (among others) has been profoundly affected by financial, civic and infrastructure burdens, resulting from illegal immigration. And your comparitive lack of "ignorance" on the subject is the result of what?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Without cheap Mexican labour your economy would be even more ****ed than it already is.

I wasn't aware that the U.S. economy was "****ed" (although we do suffer from widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of "Constitutional government," and a consequent inclination of governmental agents to overspend money).

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Your country can't support the rabid consumerism that it encourages without the benefits of slave labour

This seems, to me, to be political ideology without definition (especially, the part about "slave labor").

Quote from thisnameistaken :

and that's essentially what the majority of illegal Mexicans provide - they are forced to work way below the minimum wage because their employers have to keep costs down to stay afloat, because the american consumer demands an easy ride.

The majority of "illegal Mexicans" are neither forced to work, nor even to be present in the USA. They agree to work for wages below the legal minimum, because they enjoy a benefit of doing so, and because their employers enjoy a benefit of their doing so, and perhaps also because it is not practicable for them to assert a formalized claim that they are owed employment according to legal standards, since legal standards specify that they are not permitted to be employed at all (or even to be present).

Quote from thisnameistaken :

You turn your nose up at the occasional Mexican trying to get health care (HEALTH CARE) on the cheap when thousands of their cousins are subsidising your lifestyle with their own sweat and blood? You sound like a proper cock.

I am not familar with the idiom "proper cock," so I'm not sure if its meaning is literally good or bad; I'm guessing that you simply intend to be sanctimonious.

WRT "health care," it is expensive. The burden of providing it (often, free-of-charge) to many millions of illegal immigrants, has caused profound problems for legal residents (including long waits for, or unavailability of, medical treatments and additional expense for treatments and for medical insurance, as well as the complete closure of several hospitals and other medical facilities).

wow there are actually other americans that care to defend ourselves on the internet, i'm truly surprised.
I really do want an answer as to why we don't see the U.K. going to protect monks or end genocide in Darfur, yet they expect the US to do it. UK certainly has the money and the support to do it, which we don't have. I love the hypocracy though. If we went around and played world police even more than we already do, Europe would hate us for it even though they expect (and want) us to do something about all the problems in the world. I wish the US was as unimportant as Spain and we weren't expected to do jack shit, it is not in our best interest economically (we don't have the money to pay for the health care of a completely seperate country) and socially (people want to kill us and ofteb do just because we are Americans or not predominantly Muslim) to be a world superpower. So far, it seems the UN only means the US.

EDIT: Canada helps too, thanks guys

Quote from flymike91 :

So far, it seems the UN only means the US.

Canada is the only country in the world to serve in every UN peace keeping mission. The reason the UK try and stay out of things is because we have such a bad history with a lot of countries, thanks to our empire, that us getting involved will only make things worse, add to the fact our armed forces are not quite what they used to be (from memory it is only 100,000 strong)

Well perhaps if this lisbon treaty goes through you will be able to consolidate all your armies and do all the things you expect us to do. Now, Europe calls us imperialist because we are in a state of war against Iraq. Here is an example of the UK accusing the US (ironically) of building an empire

Quote :

In England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

flymike, where do you pull this shit from? And why do you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Persia?

For starters, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not speak on behalf of the government, let alone the entire friggin' UK. The current Archbishop is renowned for being a complete left-wing bearded loony. This is the twat that recently suggested that Sharia law be applicable for Muslims in the UK. He's so off the mark of the "general opinion" in the streets and pubs of Britain that he's taken much flak even from his religious peers over his comments.

That said, I do agree about his comments about empire building in Iraq. If you still believe Dubya's lies about [s]WMD[/s] [s]terrorism[/s] spreading freedom then I can only laugh at your blinkered nationalism, but I digress as that is a topic for another, err, topic.

Secondly, I thought this thread was about the European Constitution, not (yet another) rant about how everyone owes America so much for their existence and help and aid, yada yada yada. Well, I think many people in the world would prefer it if the US just kept itself to itself for a bit. Iraqis, mainly.

I don't actually disagree with many of the principles you subscribe to, but your angst and perceived injustices over the US' role in the world surfaces it's head again and again, ad nauseum.

That said, I don't agree with Kev either. There's a very good reason for having separate nationalities with different borders. I don't subscribe to the theory of opening my house up to unknown, uninvited visitors for them to benefit. Why should I? It's mine. I worked for it. I feel no guilt in protecting my own living standards, and that also extends to a national level. Speaking of the UK, many people want to come here to benefit from our institutions (freedom, health care, the usual "perks" of living in a Western democracy). But the UK wasn't always this well off. We used to be in poverty and toiling in the fields just to survive, with barbaric kings and rulers running amok. But we didn't all just run off to the other side of the fence for the greener grass. The UK got built as we know it today, but wouldn't have if we'd all just travelled elsewhere and expected someone else to provide it all for us. Which is effectively what economic migrants are doing today in all parts of the world. Maybe if they stayed put and worked on improving their own country/area/town/village, they wouldn't have to drag down the wealth/living standards of others.

Oh, and my vote on a Euro constitution would also be an emphatic NO. We have quite enough crooks, scum, and leechers (technically known as "MP"s) damaging Britain as it is. We don't need any more, and definitely need a lot less.

Sorry if it seems that I have a chip on my shoulder, sometimes it just feels like I'm defending America against the entire world. if you don't believe there is terrorism in the middle east then I don't even know what to say about you.
I haven't seen any threads about how much everybody owes the US, only threads about how much everyone hates us.

This thread has gone off topic and its my fault so we should probably get back to this EU thing which is probably more important that all this OT stuff I've been talking about. To me it seems to be creating a supercountry with all the economies of Europe being combined into one. It is beneficial to small countries like Poland who get more out than they put in and detrimental to larger countries with larger economies because they have to pay money into a system that they get nothing out of. I'm sure you know how I feel about countries being responsible for their own people and economy. It is wrong to expect one country to have responsibility over another.

The EU being what it is, the UK will get the raw end of the deal, well France and Germany will stand to profit. Every time money gets involved with the EU that is always how it happens.

No one wants the Lisbon Treaty, but the gov't wont let us have a referendum, despite many calls for one from citizens and members of parliament.

Will the governments vote on it or will the people from every country joining have to vote it with a 2/3 majority?

All the countries have to agree iirc. Only Ireland is referenduming (is that even a word?) it, the rest will just agree.

Quote from STROBE :

For starters, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not speak on behalf of the government, let alone the entire friggin' UK. The current Archbishop is renowned for being a complete left-wing bearded loony. This is the twat that recently suggested that Sharia law be applicable for Muslims in the UK. He's so off the mark of the "general opinion" in the streets and pubs of Britain that he's taken much flak even from his religious peers over his comments.

Unfortunatly we have that tosspot and his colleagues in the House of Lords. I wouldn't place Mr Willams' political opinions anywhere on the left/right scale, his political views oscillate between locations faster than Paris Hilton's lack of underwear.

Whilst there's all the example of Wierd Beard's idiocy that you gave re. the usual homophobic, mysogynistic, racist and downright lunacy called Sharia law (which in turn is rather similar to Old Testemant law), he also supported homophobic policies re. adoption, especially when there are not enough adoptors coming forward. Righty ho.

Re. illegal immigration to the US

Surely it would be better to have a amnesty so those who are already working in the country can be known - and also be able to contribute by paying taxes. I'm not advocating a "let's scrap the borders and let anyone in" policy, but letting in those with skills or desire to contribute (in addition to refugees that need to be taken in due to our duties under international law).

seeing as most people abroad call me English rather than Welsh or British already I'm not that fussed about looking a part of my identity to being part of the richest, most advanced, resource wealthy nation on Earth.

The less flags in the world to salute the better, as far as I am concerned. Nations only exist to serve those who rule them anyway, having fewer is a good thing, especially if it comes about without tanks rolling.