Tony Benn was answering questions on channel three TV. this morning ( Sunday ) and he said that if Britain goes in to the Euro we shall lose our sovereignty and it will be the end of Democracy in this country.

I absolutely agree with him, now is the time to say no to Europe and to keep our precious independance that we have had for centuries. All this talk we have heard over the past years, ever since we were invited to vote in a referendum about a free market and jobs and prosperity, has not materialised.

We are being lied to by Europhiles who are convinced that our future lies in Europe, I disagree, we cannot afford to be a member of the E.E.C, it is costing us millions of pounds per year to support other poorer countries who are members and getting very little back.

Pull out now I say, before it is too late and we find ourselves tied to a united states of Europe, which cannot compete with the rest of the World.

agreed. and if we join the euro, wait until all the more poorer eastern european countries join and we have to prop up their economies. our economy is strong enough as it is, and President Blair daren't give us a referendum for fear of losing. Its a shame there'll be a referendum of another kind in 2 years time, one which hopefully Blair will not be winning.

agreed. and if we join the euro, wait until all the more poorer eastern european countries join and we have to prop up their economies. our economy is strong enough as it is, and President Blair daren't give us a referendum for fear of losing. Its a shame there'll be a referendum of another kind in 2 years time, one which hopefully Blair will not be winning.

Let's just think again about this. We are close to the Lisbon Treaty being ratified. (We've already done it, without a referendum)

Do you realise what power that will give to the EU?

Let's just think again about this. We are close to the Lisbon Treaty being ratified. (We've already done it, without a referendum)

Do you realise what power that will give to the EU?

I can tell you that it will open our borders without our control, make our laws for us and dictate our tax, it will also take away any power we have as an independent Country and we will be swallowed up in a multicultural superstate and look where multiculturalism has got us to date so far and when Blair gives the nod to Turkey, well? your guess is as good as mine.

Actually it's substantially better, but don't let that worry you unduly.

Actually it's substantially better, but don't let that worry you unduly.

And you say this based on what premis?

Actually it's substantially better, but don't let that worry you unduly.

You obviously haven't studied the detail of it have you?

Whether "left" or "right", I find it difficult to understand why any true democrat would advocate joining the EU as it currently stands.

You obviously haven't studied the detail of it have you?

Regardless of whether your referring to the Lisbon Treaty, or The Belly's meandering question asking what will happen when Turkey joins the Multicultural European Superstate, I've been invited to guess, not study.

If I studied it I wouldn't be guessing, now would I?

However, I have successfully guessed the answers to questions on University Challenge before they were asked, in front of witnesses, so I believe my guesses are generally better than those of other people.

It's the art of not-knowing. It takes a lifetime to master, but it's worth it.

The origins of this 'European project' go back to the 1920's, and for the men behind it, notably the Frenchman- Jean Monnet, their ultimate goal right from the start was to create a 'United States Of Europe'.
Their aim was to place the people of Europe under a form of government like nothing the world had seen before, a government that was 'supranational'.
To acheive their goal they came up with two briliantly clever ideas; the first was that it could never be acheived over-night, it would have to be assembled piece-by-piece over many years without revealing its ultimate purpose.
The other idea was that all the national governments of Europe should be left in place, while being gradualy hollowed out from within, as they passed under ever greater control by the supranational power; so what could happen was a slow-motion 'coup de tau', without people realising what was taking place.

The EU is a great deception.

The origins of this 'European project' go back to the 1920's, and for the men behind it, notably the Frenchman- Jean Monnet, their ultimate goal right from the start was to create a 'United States Of Europe'.
Their aim was to place the people of Europe under a form of government like nothing the world had seen before, a government that was 'supranational'.
To acheive their goal they came up with two briliantly clever ideas; the first was that it could never be acheived over-night, it would have to be assembled piece-by-piece over many years without revealing its ultimate purpose.
The other idea was that all the national governments of Europe should be left in place, while being gradualy hollowed out from within, as they passed under ever greater control by the supranational power; so what could happen was a slow-motion 'coup de tau', without people realising what was taking place.

The EU is a great deception.

Aside from the deception element of that, which is a a fabrication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#A_European_ideal

I can't see any real problem with a united States of Europe. Indeed it has a lot going for it. It hasn't done our former colony the other side of the Atlantic much harm.

Where there is an issue with the EU is in the EU's anti-worker agenda best exemplified by examples like the rulings on Viking, Laval and its directives encouraging privatisations.

http://www.etuc.org/a/4627?var_recherche=viking

Aside from the deception element of that, which is a a fabrication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#A_European_ideal

I can't see any real problem with a united States of Europe. Indeed it has a lot going for it. It hasn't done our former colony the other side of the Atlantic much harm.

Where there is an issue with the EU is in the EU's anti-worker agenda best exemplified by examples like the rulings on Viking, Laval and its directives encouraging privatisations.

http://www.etuc.org/a/4627?var_recherche=viking

Do you think we should have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Here's our PM, doing the dirty on his country-ratifying the Lisbon treaty :shakes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00254/lisbon_8_254604a.jpg

Do you think we should have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Considering there were both right and left wing anti-Eu parties standing in the last European elections, I can't really see much need for a referendum. People have had their opportunity to speak on the issue.

The more important issue is how we go about influencing and campaigning for the EU to make it better represent our interests.

agreed. and if we join the euro, wait until all the more poorer eastern european countries join and we have to prop up their economies. our economy is strong enough as it is, and President Blair daren't give us a referendum for fear of losing. Its a shame there'll be a referendum of another kind in 2 years time, one which hopefully Blair will not be winning.



t020,yes I think Blair is badly schizophrenic,no alleged Christian would have helped plan Shock and Awe.

Regardless of whether your referring to the Lisbon Treaty, or The Belly's meandering question asking what will happen when Turkey joins the Multicultural European Superstate, I've been invited to guess, not study.

If I studied it I wouldn't be guessing, now would I?

However, I have successfully guessed the answers to questions on University Challenge before they were asked, in front of witnesses, so I believe my guesses are generally better than those of other people.

It's the art of not-knowing. It takes a lifetime to master, but it's worth it.

So you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about then? I am not asking you to guess now, I am asking you what you think the positives of joining a federal superstate are and losing control of your own Country at the same time?

You are so big headed and enlightened, so enlighten me.

Considering there were both right and left wing anti-Eu parties standing in the last European elections, I can't really see much need for a referendum. People have had their opportunity to speak on the issue.

The more important issue is how we go about influencing and campaigning for the EU to make it better represent our interests.

As i sad to plekhanov in another thread-General elections in this country are a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives, they get the largest share of the vote, and most people who vote for them are voting for them on the traditional issues that they'v always voted for them for.
But because they are both basically Europhyle, Europhyles make out that merely voting in a Labour or a Conservative government is in itself a 'yes' vote to the Lisbon treaty!!

Holding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty is 'having an opportunity to speak on it', NOT Gordon Brown and his cabinet, and David Cameron and his shadow cabinet sitting round a table saying-'most people who bother to vote, vote for us, and were all for the Lisbon treaty, so we'l just take it as read that our voters are too, so no need for a referendum'

That seems to be the logic :loopy:

As i sad to plekhanov in another thread-General elections in this country are a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives, they get the largest share of the vote, and most people who vote for them are voting for them on the traditional issues that they'v always voted for them for.
But because they are both basically Europhyle, Europhyles make out that merely voting in a Labour or a Conservative government is in itself a 'yes' vote to the Lisbon treaty!!

Holding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty is 'having an opportunity to speak on it', NOT Gordon Brown and his cabinet, and David Cameron and his shadow cabinet sitting round a table saying-'most people who bother to vote, vote for us, and were all for the Lisbon treaty, so we'l just take it as read that our voters are too, so no need for a referendum'

That seems to be the logic :loopy:

I was talking about the EU elections, not a general election.

Considering there were both right and left wing anti-Eu parties standing in the last European elections, I can't really see much need for a referendum. People have had their opportunity to speak on the issue.

The more important issue is how we go about influencing and campaigning for the EU to make it better represent our interests.

You sound just like Labour. They promised us a vote, we elected them on that basis and the reason they didn't give it to us was because they knew we would say no. We, the people have not had an opportunity to speak on the issue as you put it as we were denied a vote by the people who work for us, supposedly.

We shouldn't be thinking along the lines of influencing or getting better rights from the EU at all, if we had any sense, we would just have a free trade agreement in place just like Norway who do very well out of it indeed and make our own laws and decide for ourselves who is able to settle here on this land, its not up to unelected bureaucrats to do that for us from a land afar.

So you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about then? I am not asking you to guess now, I am asking you what you think the positives of joining a federal superstate are and losing control of your own Country at the same time?

You are so big headed and enlightened, so enlighten me.

I'm not the slightest bit interested, as it's all part of the inevitable and gradual death of the nation state, I merely wished to point out that your assertion:

"your guess is as good as mine"

is incorrect.

The EU has controlled our immigration since 1997
The Amsterdam Treaty handed complete control of our immigration to the EU. The EU increased the numbers of immigrants from 30,000 a year to 200,000 a year. That's why house prices had been screaming up. Politicians and huge corporations like immigration-with thousands of immigrants available on low pay, corporations can impose the minimum wage on millions. Politicians then lie that they can't get British workers to do dirty jobs. The truth is they won't offer a decent wage to compensate for unpleasant work, and instead use immigrants at £5-odd an hour.

Michael Howard was lying on the 24th January 2005 when he said he'd fix immigration-if he had become Prime Minister, he'd have had no control over it whatsoever.

Immigration hurts our existing immigrants first-new immigrants move into their areas, decreasing the wages and increasing the pressure on housing.

Aside from the deception element of that, which is a a fabrication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#A_European_ideal

I can't see any real problem with a united States of Europe. Indeed it has a lot going for it. It hasn't done our former colony the other side of the Atlantic much harm.

Where there is an issue with the EU is in the EU's anti-worker agenda best exemplified by examples like the rulings on Viking, Laval and its directives encouraging privatisations.

http://www.etuc.org/a/4627?var_recherche=viking

Here's what they thought of it,

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/712

"It is worth recalling that what is now known as the European Union was originally sold to the unsuspecting peoples of Europe as a “Common Market” that would not threaten the independence of the member nations. This decades-long transformation from a supposed free-trade agreement to a supranational government, a process still underway, was by design. But the architects of a new European order had to mask their subversive schemes in order to succeed. As Christopher Booker and Richard North wrote in their recent book The Great Deception, from the beginning EU founder Jean Monnet “used a front-man to preside over the negotiations — Belgian politician Paul Henri-Spaak, one of his closest allies, who ensured that all mentions of political union were suppressed, selling the treaty to the world as no more than a deal to promote trade and prosperity.” Booker and North explained that the subterfuge was backed and financed behind the scenes by the U.S. government, which had Undersecretary of State George Ball lobby the British prime minister in the early 1960s to retain sovereignty-destroying precedents in pending European Union agreements. Ball told then-British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “that the Rome treaty [of 1957] was not merely a static document but a process leading towards political unification.”

I'm not the slightest bit interested, as it's all part of the inevitable and gradual death of the nation state, I merely wished to point out that your assertion:

"your guess is as good as mine"

is incorrect.

?????? Where did I say "your guess is as good as mine?" If you are not interested in a subject which you obviously know nothing about, why do you enter it?

?????? Where did I say "your guess is as good as mine?"

Here
... has got us to date so far and when Blair gives the nod to Turkey, well? your guess is as good as mine.

If you are not interested in a subject which you obviously know nothing about, why do you enter it?
Because I felt like it.

Good grief, am I now restricted to posting only on topics I have an interest in?

By you?

Thought not.

Incidentally, do you think the Czech Republic will ratify, or will their Supreme Court decide against it?

NEW WORLD ORDER just around the corner one government,one army,one set of laws, according to some on SF thats ok, not for me we are told what to do already by some pipe smoking idiots in brussels . we can,t have curved cucumber ,we can,t sell our goods in pounds now kilos ,where will it end being told what to do by zee germans?(who started and lost two world wars its bad enough keeping their queen and her greek husband )xxx

Here's what they thought of it,

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/712

......

Why do you think I would care what the John Birch society would say? They don't represent US opinion the way you present them as doing. They represent an extreme right wing group, that opposed and oppose the civil rights movement and advocate the US leaving the UN.

They are even included here in a listing of hate groups that advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1024

Their views on the EU are not really of much interest and certainly aren't representative of US opinion the way you have presented them to be.

Why do you think I would care what the John Birch society would say? They don't represent US opinion the way you present them as doing. They represent an extreme right wing group, that opposed and oppose the civil rights movement and advocate the US leaving the UN.

They are even included here in a listing of hate groups that advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1024

Their views on the EU are not really of much interest and certainly aren't representative of US opinion the way you have presented them to be.

Why would you think I would care about what you think, youre a loon, look in the mirror if you don't believe me.

Do a bit more googling I'm sure you'll come up with something a little less right wing that says the same as the John Birch society,

And from your link to the sphincter. org list
"Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. "

Sort of pees on your theory of hate group list.

Now if you want a link to violent trouble makers look no further, try this one,
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=1
They even attack the police.

"At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups, which in turn angered the EDL members"

Why would you think I would care about what you think, youre a loon, look in the mirror if you don't believe me.

Do a bit more googling I'm sure you'll come up with something a little less right wing that says the same as the John Birch society,

And from your link to the sphincter. org list
"Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. "

Sort of pees on your theory of hate group list.

Now if you want a link to violent trouble makers look no further, try this one,
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=1
They even attack the police.


"At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups, which in turn angered the EDL members"

Retep you are deranged. Providng links to the John Birch society and trying to claim that their views are in some way representative of mainstream opinion, is rather like a Yank claiming that the views of the neo nazi BNP are representative of mainstream British opinion.:rolleyes: and I'm afraid to say if anyone's a loon then you without a shadow of doubt are it!

Retep you are deranged. Providng links to the John Birch society and trying to claim that their views are in some way representative of mainstream opinion, is rather like a Yank claiming that the views of the neo nazi BNP are representative of mainstream British opinion.:rolleyes: and I'm afraid to say if anyone's a loon then you without a shadow of doubt are it!



Looks like i've hooked another one, the loons are coming thick and fast, I'll chuck this one back it's not quite developed, still in the egg stage.

Why would you think I would care about what you think, youre a loon, look in the mirror if you don't believe me.

Do a bit more googling I'm sure you'll come up with something a little less right wing that says the same as the John Birch society,

And from your link to the sphincter. org list
"Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. "

Sort of pees on your theory of hate group list.

Now if you want a link to violent trouble makers look no further, try this one,
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=1
They even attack the police.

"At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups, which in turn angered the EDL members"

So to back up your claims that the John Birch society's views on the EU is representative of US opinion, you are asking me to use google :huh:

And to distract from being caught out misleading along with a load of insults you bring in UAF to try to distract from the issue. :rolleyes:

Priceless. :D

So to back up your claims that the John Birch society's views on the EU is representative of US opinion, you are asking me to use google :huh:

And to distract from being caught out misleading along with a load of insults you bring in UAF to try to distract from the issue. :rolleyes:

Priceless. :D

I've made no claims about the John Birch society, but you have, I just put it as a example of what the US think, I'm sure with your googling skills you can find alternatives that state the same.
The UAF need no effort they are an insult in themselves.

Can you point out where i was misleading, or are you just chucking that in to mislead.
I can see how you describe your effort as priceless you do seem absurd.

I've made no claims about the John Birch society, but you have,

In the context you put them forward as representative of US opinion.


I just put it as a example of what the US think,

It isn't however an example of what the US thinks. It is an example of what one small section of right wing loonies in the US thinks.


I'm sure with your googling skills you can find alternatives that state the same.

Why would I want to? If I can find the KKK saying the same thing it wouldn't make any difference to my point.


The UAF need no effort they are an insult in themselves.

Back to the irrelevant distraction, you can't help but bring it up when ever you are lsoing a debate can you? You think they make your beloved BNP look good. They don't. The BNP look bad themselves.

The BNP leadership blaming Zionists (read Jews) for EDL:
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL

Their representatives friends supporting terrorist groups like C-18:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/06/choose-your-friends-wisely/

Or their legal advisor referencing the Hitler society and holocaust denial websites along with his own peculiar lunacy?:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/03/where-does-lee-barnes-get-his-information-from/

All make them look pretty stupid themselves which is why their vote is in decline:
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/10/bnps-three-long-months-and-counting-of.html


Can you point out where i was misleading, or are you just chucking that in to mislead.
I can see how you describe your effort as priceless you do seem absurd.

This is the sequence of events. I said this:

I can't see any real problem with a united States of Europe. Indeed it has a lot going for it. It hasn't done our former colony the other side of the Atlantic much harm.


Which you responded to with this:

Here's what they thought of it,

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/712


"They" in context can only be taken to mean the US people.

You were therefore being misleading substituting the views of an exteme right wing organisation that thinks the US should leave the UN, with US public opinion.

In the context you put them forward as representative of US opinion.



If that is what you think you need to do some more grammar studying.



No.



Back to the irrelevant distraction, you can't help but bring it up when ever you are lsoing a debate can you because you think they make your beloved BNP look good.

They don't. The BNP look bad themselves.

The BNP leadership blaming Zionists (read Jews) for EDL:
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL

Their representatives friends supporting terrorist groups like C-18:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/06/choose-your-friends-wisely/

Or their legal advisor referencing the Hitler society and holocaust denial websites along with his own peculiar lunacy?:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/03/where-does-lee-barnes-get-his-information-from/

All make them look pretty stupid themselves which is why their vote is in decline:
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/10/bnps-three-long-months-and-counting-of.html



This is the sequence of events. I said this:



Which you responded to with this:



"They" in context can only be taken to mean the US people.

You were therefore being misleading substituting the views of an exteme right wing organisation that thinks the US should leave the UN, with US public opinion.

No need to try and cover your cr ap with numerous googles just admit you were wrong.

No need to try and cover your cr ap with numerous googles just admit you were wrong.

Denial. Is that a tactic you have learnt from Nick Griffin?

Denial. Is that a tactic you have learnt from Nick Griffin?

Here you go try a denounce this one,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl983.cfm

Unlike you I have no political party to follow, nor do I advocate violence on the streets as you and your beloved UAF do.

Here you go try a denounce this one,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl983.cfm

Unlike you I have no political party to follow, nor do I advocate violence on the streets as you and your beloved UAF do.

Despite the articles length and criticisms of the EU no where does it back up the claim you originally provided that the EU is a product of designed deception.

You are now moving the goal posts.

I have consistently said I don't support any party so you are now resorting to lieing about me, along with compounding your attack on UAF with an unsubstantiated statement. Perhaps you can provide a link to a representative of UAF advocating violence? Except you can't otherwise you will have done so before. Instead you will no doubt respond with some examples of crowd behaviour at a UAF demo, very good but it doesn't actually substantiate what you have said. Nor does it justify you sidetracking the debate because I have pointed out you are misrepresenting your sources to make an illegitimate point.

Despite the articles length and criticisms of the EU no where does it back up the claim you originally provided that the EU is a product of designed deception.

You are now moving the goal posts.

I have consistently said I don't support any party so you are now resorting to lieing about me, along with compounding your attack on UAF with an unsubstantiated statement. Perhaps you can provide a link to a representative of UAF advocating violence? Except you can't otherwise you will have done so before. Instead you will no doubt respond with some examples of crowd behaviour at a UAF demo, very good but it doesn't actually substantiate what you have said. Nor does it justify you sidetracking the debate because I have pointed out you are misrepresenting your sources to make an illegitimate point.

So now you are trying to turn it into an argument, just admit your wrong, you are the one who brought political parties into the fore with your slur

"You think they make your beloved BNP look good"

You moved the goalposts with your first answer to my post, now youre just wriggling, and i'm laughing at you, as usual, want to borrow a shovel.

Now was that a UAF thug who was being restrained on the floor by the police at the Manchester protest.

So now you are trying to turn it into an argument, just admit your wrong, you are the one who brought political parties into the fore with your slur

"You think they make your beloved BNP look good"

You moved the goalposts with your first answer to my post, now youre just wriggling, and i'm laughing at you, as usual, want to borrow a shovel.

Now was that a UAF thug who was being restrained on the floor by the police at the Manchester protest.

reptep dude, you're spluttering!

So now you are trying to turn it into an argument, just admit your wrong, you are the one who brought political parties into the fore with your slur

"You think they make your beloved BNP look good"

'They' being UAF, that you introduced. If you are going to try to sidestep an issue bringing UAF in to it, expect me to mention the BNP.


You moved the goalposts with your first answer to my post, now youre just wriggling, and i'm laughing at you, as usual, want to borrow a shovel.

:hihi:


Now was that a UAF thug who was being restrained on the floor by the police at the Manchester protest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGiL-LpYyVA

:D

'They' being UAF, that you introduced. If you are going to try to sidestep an issue bringing UAF in to it, expect me to mention the BNP.



:hihi:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGiL-LpYyVA

:D

Tying to hide the UAF thugs under a BNP blanket wont wash, here you go 35 seconds in,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8300431.stm

I'm still laughing, your attempts at googling are getting frantic.:hihi:

reptep dude, you're spluttering!

Not as much as you you cant even get my name right, must be the dodgy gear your using.

Not as much as you you cant even get my name right, must be the dodgy gear your using.
Spelling flame: last refuge of the mentally incontinent ;)

Spelling flame: last refuge of the mentally incontinent ;)

Sh-te retort: last resort from the weak in the head.;) you really must try harder.

Tying to hide the UAF thugs under a BNP blanket wont wash, here you go 35 seconds in,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8300431.stm

I'm still laughing, your attempts at googling are getting frantic.:hihi:

Looking back at their origins we know they are not interested in peaceful protest. Their origins come from trying to transform genuine protests in favour of our troops in to a fascist parade.

As the original organiser put it :

“How do people make the link between respecting our troops and a fascist parade? It’s pitiful. We had invited people from all corners of the community. Including Muslim leaders. These people call themselves patriotic and proud to be British but I wonder what they have ever really done for our country? It makes me sad that they seem to have a copyright on the Union Jack. If they want to come to Luton to have a fight they need to have a look at their sad lives.”

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1151/Anti-fascist-alliance-keeps-far-right-crusader-at-bay

Who are EDL?

Tommy Robinson: Robinson – the name is a pseudonym – is from Luton and has emerged as the leader of the EDL in recent weeks. Close to Alan Lake, Robinson, 28, claims to be a carpenter and father of two. He established the United People of Luton to counter the protest of a group of Muslim anti-war protesters at the home of soldiers from the Anglian Regiment.

Jeff Marsh: A 44-year-old convicted football hooligan from Barry, South Wales, Marsh is a Cardiff supporter and has been jailed three times for violence, including a two-year sentence for stabbing two Manchester United fans. He claims to have a degree in criminal justice and has written a book on Welsh hooliganism. He set up the English and Welsh Defence League but appears to be less influential in the current EDL. He attended the protest in Birmingham.

Chris Renton: A BNP activist from Weston-super-Mare, Renton helped set up the EDL website. When his political links to the BNP emerged the EDL publicly distanced itself from him but he remains an important player behind the scenes. He attended the recent Birmingham protest. His brother is also involved.

Leisha Brooks: From Southend, Brooks appeared to play an organising role in the Birmingham demonstration, though she did have a pair of knuckledusters confiscated by police on the day. She is friendly with underworld figures such as Dave Courtney, Carlton Leech and Mitch Pyle, son of the gangster Joey Pyle, and also knows Jason Marriner, a Chelsea Headhunter hooligan made famous by the television documentary series, MacIntyre Undercover.

Trevor Kelway: A Portsmouth-based EDL supporter, Kelway has become a spokesperson for the EDL. In interviews to the press he has pursued the line that the EDL was a peaceful, non-racist organisation. The address he uses for the media traces back to an Afro-Caribbean hairdressers’ in Birmingham.

Davy Cooling: A 26-year-old known Luton football hooligan who now lives in Daventry, Cooling originates from Northern Ireland. He is a BNP member and registered his interest in attending the BNP’s Red, White and Blue festival in August. Cooling administers the Luton EDL Facebook page.

Joel Titus: Aged 18, Titus is of mixed race and comes from Harrow, North London. He is an Arsenal supporter though attends Brentford home games. However, he boasted on his Facebook page that he took part in the recent West Ham and Millwall clashes. He has been able to draw in Arsenal and QPR hooligans to EDL activities. He runs the English Defence Youth and is paraded to the media as proof of their non-racist agenda.

Richard Price: An Aston Villa fan, Price was a leading figure in the most recent EDL protest in Birmingham. Aged 39, he claims to be subject to a football banning order and has served time in HMP Ranby. He has attended EDL protests in Birmingham and London.

http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2009/10/just-who-is-edl-leadership.html

Some more about them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6284184/The-English-Defence-League-will-the-flames-of-hatred-spread.html

They look like the sort of people any right minded person would want to protest against. Especially when they are bringing their brand of hooliganism on to the doorsteps of muslim communities, in the same way the British union of Fascists did to the Jews. The parallels so marked and the people so nasty it is little wonder some people get carried away in the enthusiasm of the protest.

The Manchester Police thanked the majority for behaving peaceably at the protests.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1165143_ten_injured_in_edl_protest_in_manchester

Even the BNP have distanced themselves from EDL in characteristic Nazi form blaming them on a Zionist\Jewish plot.
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL

Looking back at their origins we know they are not interested in peaceful protest. Their origins come from trying to transform genuine protests in favour of our troops in to a fascist parade.

As the original organiser put it :

“How do people make the link between respecting our troops and a fascist parade? It’s pitiful. We had invited people from all corners of the community. Including Muslim leaders. These people call themselves patriotic and proud to be British but I wonder what they have ever really done for our country? It makes me sad that they seem to have a copyright on the Union Jack. If they want to come to Luton to have a fight they need to have a look at their sad lives.”

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1151/Anti-fascist-alliance-keeps-far-right-crusader-at-bay

Who are EDL?



http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2009/10/just-who-is-edl-leadership.html

Some more about them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6284184/The-English-Defence-League-will-the-flames-of-hatred-spread.html

They look like the sort of people any right minded person would want to protest against. Especially when they are bringing their brand of hooliganism on to the doorsteps of muslim communities, in the same way the British union of Fascists did to the Jews. The parallels so marked and the people so nasty it is little wonder some people get carried away in the enthusiasm of the protest.

The Manchester Police thanked the majority for behaving peaceably at the protests.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1165143_ten_injured_in_edl_protest_in_manchester

Even the BNP have distanced themselves from EDL in characteristic Nazi form blaming them on a Zionist\Jewish plot.
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL



Frantically googling again I see, trying to cover the arrest of one of your UAF thugs .

Reptep can refute all this of course.... it's just that she can't be bothered.

Frantically googling again I see, trying to cover the arrest of one of your UAF thugs .

Oh its ok for THEM to be violent because THEY have 'RIGHT' on THERE side! :roll:

Frantically googling again I see, trying to cover the arrest of one of your UAF thugs .

If you recall, it is you that are the one trying to cover up for having used a far right John Birch society source to misrepresent the views of the US public.

Getting back to the question

Think Tony is wrong on this question and I have a lot of admiration for Tony on many points

The problem is that GB has probably missed the boat on the Euro. We should have gone in when the other countries changed.

Last year I went over to Ireland and the changes there have been terrific and most of the positive changes are due to EU money and the Euro has not ended democracy or any other bogeyman scares that surround any national change.

The Euro has and will always be a political decision not an economic one. Economically we are stuck with sterling, mostly because of the prevailing attitudes at the top very much like the attitudes of the people who have posted on this thread...posters to the left and right of the political spectrum.

Once again we are stuck in the past and because of the recession and the looming prospect of a Tory Govt...the question will not be raised for another 4 to 5 years.

Great shame

If you recall, it is you that are the one trying to cover up for having used a far right John Birch society source to misrepresent the views of the US public.

No you are trying to use that as a cover for you being wrong, I told you that you could use google to find other examples and even gave you a link to one, there are plenty of examples out there of what the US think of the EU.

You were trying to make out that the EU was a good thing and you gave the US as an example, A totally different kettle of fish as i would think union wasn't forced upon them in the underhand way that it is being forced on the people of the UK.

Reptep can refute all this of course.... it's just that she can't be bothered.

Watch that you don't fall off the settee, the floors a million miles down.

No you are trying to use that as a cover for you being wrong, I told you that you could use google to find other examples and even gave you a link to one, there are plenty of examples out there of what the US think of the EU.

You were trying to make out that the EU was a good thing and you gave the US as an example, A totally different kettle of fish as i would think union wasn't forced upon them in the underhand way that it is being forced on the people of the UK.

I think you will find that in America they fought a Civil War over the issue of the union in the 1870s. Perhaps you could google that.

This country, voted for EU membership in a democratic national referendum in 1972, perhaps that is another one to google.

Perhaps now you could address the real question posed in the title of this thread.

I will of course give you plenty of time to google your response:hihi:

I think you will find that in America they fought a Civil War over the issue of the union in the 1870s. Perhaps you could google that.

This country, voted for EU membership in a democratic national referendum in 1972, perhaps that is another one to google.

Perhaps now you could address the real question posed in the title of this thread.

I will of course give you plenty of time to google your response:hihi:

Fail. People in Britain had a referendum in 1973 on our membership of the EEC, not the EU.

Is YOUR google on the blink?? :hihi:

Fail. People in Britain had a referendum in 1973 on our membership of the EEC, not the EU.

Your lot camapigned in 72 and lost. The govts that signed the EU charter went into democratic national elections with that printed in their mainfesto. Your lot lost

Your fighting irrelevant battles, over issues that were resolved over 30 years ago.

The South lost the Civil War and are to my knowledge still part of the US union.

You are a political luddite. The debate has moved on

You arguments are irrelevant and on this issue so is Benn but everyone knows his views have been for the large part out of date for last 30 years

72 or 73...you lost then and you will lose gain at any ballot box on the question

Now why is that so difficult to understand

How about getting with the programme and addressing the isse in the thread

Your arguments and your website signature remind me of that Japanese soldier stranded on that Pacific island still fighting the second world war 30 years after it had finished

Move on man

I would rather be governed by the EU than any major UK political party.

Hopefully a continental, and eventually world government can become a reality.

Together we can do more.

I think you will find that in America they fought a Civil War over the issue of the union in the 1870s. Perhaps you could google that.

This country, voted for EU membership in a democratic national referendum in 1972, perhaps that is another one to google.

Perhaps now you could address the real question posed in the title of this thread.

I will of course give you plenty of time to google your response:hihi:

No need to google as i'm well aware of the Civil war, they fought for what they got, perhaps it may take another one here to get our liberty's back eventually,
and like another poster has said is your google on the blink.

I would rather be governed by the EU than any major UK political party.

Hopefully a continental, and eventually world government can become a reality.

Together we can do more.

Heartily agree and not forgetting that Europe has not been involved in a major continental war...the EEC and the EU can take some credit for that

Just look at the terrble history of Europe in the 20th century...is that what we want to return to?

Your lot camapigned in 72 and lost. The govts that signed the EU charter went into democratic national elections with that printed in their mainfesto. Your lot lost

Your fighting irrelevant battles, over issues that were resolved over 30 years ago.

The South lost the Civil War and are to my knowledge still part of the US union.

You are a political luddite. The debate has moved on

You arguments are irrelevant and on this issue so is Benn but everyone knows his views have been for the large part out of date for last 30 years

Not so. It was our entry into the EEC that was the issue 30 years ago.
Now as it happens, although i had my reservations about aspects of the EEC, on the whole i didnt have too much of a problem with it.
The EU on the other-hand, is a completely different kettle of fish; it goes too far; most people dont want a political union with Europe. On this, the debate certernly has not 'moved on'.

No need to google as i'm well aware of the Civil war, they fought for what they got, perhaps it may take another one here to get our liberty's back eventually,
and like another poster has said is your google on the blink.

Retep are you posting from inside the crocodile?

I would rather be governed by the EU than any major UK political party.

Hopefully a continental, and eventually world government can become a reality.

Together we can do more.

Tony Benn's argument was a democratic one, not whether a European or world government would be desirable or not.

There is a huge difference between a world government ruled by a few sovereign elites and one that is democratically elected and accountable.

Heartily agree and not forgetting that Europe has not been involved in a major continental war...the EEC and the EU can take some credit for that

Just look at the terrble history of Europe in the 20th century...is that what we want to return to?

The EU can NOT take credit for that! we had 35 years of the 'acceptable' EEC without a continental war.
So spare us the- 'European countries HAVE to be fully immersed in an EU under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, otherwise its WAR WAR WAR!'.

Tony Benn's argument was a democratic one, not whether a European or world government would be desirable or not.

There is a huge difference between a world government ruled by a few sovereign elites and one that is democratically elected and accountable.

Here here.

I would rather be governed by the EU than any major UK political party.

Hopefully a continental, and eventually world government can become a reality.

Together we can do more.


And there we have it, the true Europhyle agenda, naked for all to see.
Unless your just jesting, please tell me your jesting!

Tony Benn's argument was a democratic one, not whether a European or world government would be desirable or not.

There is a huge difference between a world government ruled by a few sovereign elites and one that is democratically elected and accountable.

There is, but what about a democratically elected, accountable world government? (In addition to elected heads of member states.)

Tony Benn's argument was a democratic one, not whether a European or world government would be desirable or not.

There is a huge difference between a world government ruled by a few sovereign elites and one that is democratically elected and accountable.

But the EU has a democratically elected parliament and the Council consists of the heads of state of the constituent countries. In both chambers it is accountable and the product of democratic voting.

And there we have it, the true Europhyle agenda, naked for all to see.
Unless your just jesting, please tell me your jesting!

Not at all. So much is wasted through conflicting national agendas, inefficiencies in global trade, prolonged and fruitless negotiations on global issues, duplication of efforts and a lack of standardisation of basic practices.

All of these problems would be fixed or improved by the evolution of a democratic global umbrella government along the lines of the EU. I like Europe and would like to see them, including us, have a say in world issues that we simply don't at the moment in our fragmented tiny nations.

But the EU has a democratically elected parliament and the Council consists of the heads of state of the constituent countries. In both chambers it is accountable and the product of democratic voting.

The president of the EU commission, which is the most powerful position within the EU, is appointed by bureaucrats, not democratically elected by the people. The president also appoints the commission.

At most it is a dilluted form of "democracy", since there is no direct link between the people and the directive commission. I'm very uneasy about that, since it means we have to put a lot of trust in our MEPs to fully protect our rights and represent our voice in parliament, even if the commission tries to act against our will.

Given how we even have trouble getting our national parliament to properly represent a significant portion of our country, I can only imagine that we will have a similar problem with EU governance, only on a much larger and more centralised scale.

All of these problems would be fixed or improved by the evolution of a democratic global umbrella government along the lines of the EU. I like Europe and would like to see them, including us, have a say in world issues that we simply don't at the moment in our fragmented tiny nations.

Again, the issue in my mind is not whether a democratic European state would be beneficial, but rather do we trust its current architects to act for the people of that union or their own interests?

If we're not happy with how our country is run by the political and financial elite, are we not potentially amplifying that problem by placing our undivided trust in a centralised bureaucracy elected through an even more dilluted democratic system?

As I said before, Tony Benn (who is a vehement internationalist) is specifically against the EU as a democratic process, as it is currently formed. This can be improved, but are the architects willing, since the more democratic the Union is, the less unquestionable power they potentially have.

Ads I have said earlier I feel that the globalisation of the multinational corporations has eclipsed the power of the nation state, and currently the power of "big business" makes a mockery of democracy. Only when states stand together against the multinationals will democracy continue to flourish.

This is why the EU is needed as only the superpowers can now stand up to the multi-nationals, and we have to face facts the UK is not a superpower. We are stronger and have a far greater chance of being more democratic standing firm with the other nations of Europe.

Not at all. So much is wasted through conflicting national agendas, inefficiencies in global trade, prolonged and fruitless negotiations on global issues, duplication of efforts and a lack of standardisation of basic practices.

All of these problems would be fixed or improved by the evolution of a democratic global umbrella government along the lines of the EU. I like Europe and would like to see them, including us, have a say in world issues that we simply don't at the moment in our fragmented tiny nations.

Why do practices have to be standardised? different countries of the world have different ways of doing things.
And who decides what the global standard of doing things will be? will it be put to a vote? as the different countries of the world ALREADY have different ways of doing things for their own unique reasons, how will they all agree on a global 'standard' way of doing things. :loopy:
But of course we wont all agree will we, we'l have a 'standardised' way of doing things forced upon us wont we, such is the sinister nature of Europhyle/globalists.

Ads I have said earlier I feel that the globalisation of the multinational corporations has eclipsed the power of the nation state, and currently the power of "big business" makes a mockery of democracy. Only when states stand together against the multinationals will democracy continue to flourish.

This is why the EU is needed as only the superpowers can now stand up to the multi-nationals, and we have to face facts the UK is not a superpower. We are stronger and have a far greater chance of being more democratic standing firm with the other nations of Europe.

You are either naive or deliberatley trying to mislead.
Political globalistion and multinational corparations go hand in hand.

You are either naive or deliberatley trying to mislead.
Political globalistion and multinational corparations go hand in hand.

Not quite sure what point you are making is it a reference to the East India Company and our Empire as a form of political globalisation?

If so you are using the words oddly.

Not quite sure what point you are making is it a reference to the East India Company and our Empire as a form of political globalisation?

If so you are using the words oddly.

What is a 'world government' if its not 'political globalisation'?

Perhaps i am using words 'oddly'. I dont put myself up there with intelectual greats like JFKvsNIXON and yourself :roll:

But even i know that to suggest an EU superstate leading to an eventual world government will somehow put the kibosh on multinational corparations behaving immorally is a joke. JFKvsNIXON knows this and is insulting peoples intelligence.

What is a 'world government' if its not 'political globalisation'?

Perhaps i am using words 'oddly'. I dont put myself up there with intelectual greats like JFKvsNIXON and yourself :roll:

But even i know that to suggest an EU superstate leading to an eventual world government will somehow put the kibosh on multinational corparations behaving immorally is a joke. JFKvsNIXON knows this and is insulting peoples intelligence.

Lol, I never mentioned a world government, and as far as I can see there will never be one. I do think that the EU will be in a far better position to stand up to multi-nationals though, in the same way they stood up to Microsoft in fining them €777 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

Lol, I never mentioned a world government, and as far as I can see there will never be one. I do think that the EU will be in a far better position to stand up to multi-nationals though, in the same way they stood up to Microsoft in fining them €777 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

One of your fellow Europhyles revealed the real reason you lot support the EU

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5524046&postcount=56

Whoops! :lol:

One of your fellow Europhyles revealed the real reason you lot support the EU

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5524046&postcount=56

Whoops! :lol:

Your paranoia is showing again!

One of your fellow Europhyles revealed the real reason you lot support the EU

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5524046&postcount=56

Whoops! :lol:

Whoops indeed.

I know that you seem to be struggling with this concept. I have never met the person in question, and he does not speak for me. The point that I am surprised that you can't grasp is that I do not agree with him.

The EU is a stepping stone to a world government yep yep :nod:

The EU is a stepping stone to a world government yep yep :nod:

In your opinion only. I sure that Russia's, China's, the USA's and the EU's leaders see it differently.

In your opinion only. I sure that Russia's, China's, the USA's and the EU's leaders see it differently.

'EU's leaders see it differently' lol

As for Russia, China and the USA, they are gradualy getting embroiled in their respective 'unions'.

Sinister :|

'EU's leaders see it differently' lol

As for Russia, China and the USA, they are gradualy getting embroiled in their respective 'unions'.

Sinister :|

Lol, so you percieve a plan for the EU to conquer Russia, China and the USA? Oh dear.

Lol, so you percieve a plan for the EU to conquer Russia, China and the USA? Oh dear.

What an odd thing for you to come out with :huh: i never said anything of the sort.

Oh dear.

What an odd thing for you to come out with :huh: i never said anything of the sort.

Oh dear.

Fair enough. But is it your point that the EU leaders are trying to bring about a world government, if not why would you say that the EU is "a stepping stone to a world government"?

Fair enough. But is it your point that the EU leaders are trying to bring about a world government, if not why would you say that the EU is "a stepping stone to a world government"?

All world leaders are bringing about a world government together. The EU leaders, naturaly, are taking care of Europe.

The EU can NOT take credit for that! we had 35 years of the 'acceptable' EEC without a continental war.
So spare us the- 'European countries HAVE to be fully immersed in an EU under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, otherwise its WAR WAR WAR!'.

The first 50 years of the Twentieth century were War War War as you call it. Over 30 million Europeans died in all the conflict. Look at how the concept of nationalism and nation states have ravaged Europe in the last century.

The EEC has been going longer than 35 years my friend. The EEC and greater cooperation within Europe has kept the peace, unlike the Twentieth century and yes, the EEC and EU has something to do with that. In large part it can take the credit.

I welcome greater European cooperation. I am a Sheffielder, a Yorkshireman, British and a European and proud of it. I can only see greater cooperation with democratically elected assemblies, plus local governance adding to Europes well being and security.

A world Govt is a dream but what a dream to have ...surely a better one than a vision looking back to some mythical golden age. We must learn from the past and move forward or we are condemned to repeat the past.

The first 50 years of the Twentieth century were War War War as you call it. Over 30 million Europeans died in all the conflict. Look at how the concept of nationalism and nation states have ravaged Europe in the last century.

The EEC has been going longer than 35 years my friend. The EEC and greater cooperation within Europe has kept the peace, unlike the Twentieth century and yes, the EEC and EU has something to do with that. In large part it can take the credit.

I welcome greater European cooperation. I am a Sheffielder, a Yorkshireman, British and a European and proud of it. I can only see greater cooperation with democratically elected assemblies, plus local governance adding to Europes well being and security.

A world Govt is a dream but what a dream to have ...surely a better one than a vision looking back to some mythical golden age. We must learn from the past and move forward or we are condemned to repeat the past.

I too welcome European cooperation.
Remember its not so much the EEC i had a problem with, its the EU and this Lisbon treaty that people find unpalatable.

I too welcome European cooperation.
Remember its not so much the EEC i had a problem with, its the EU and this Lisbon treaty that people find unpalatable.

The EU is only a childs second step.

You must embrace your fears on this one Aim4...the water looks cold but its fine once you are in;)

Why do I sense some people don't understand the difference between anti-EU and anti-EU-as-currently-proposed? :huh:

In a utopian world, who wouldn't support a perfectly democratic and co-operative union of states?

But this isn't a utopian world. It is a world in which bureaucrats and power hungry institutions want to centralise control to further satisfy their own interests.

We have to ask ourselves, if we are to enter into such a union, how much bargaining power will the PEOPLE of that union truly have? Will our voice be dilluted into insignificance as a small group of unelected commissioners rule by decree?

Once again, I find myself aligned with Tony Benn's views, which are grounded in one radical and fundamental concept - democracy!

Why do practices have to be standardised? different countries of the world have different ways of doing things.
And who decides what the global standard of doing things will be? will it be put to a vote? as the different countries of the world ALREADY have different ways of doing things for their own unique reasons, how will they all agree on a global 'standard' way of doing things. :loopy:
But of course we wont all agree will we, we'l have a 'standardised' way of doing things forced upon us wont we, such is the sinister nature of Europhyle/globalists.

I mean for example: qualifications that can be transferred and understood internationally, an international passport system, shoe sizes, measuring system and so on. Just making the world a more inclusive place by making sure that everyone can understand each other more easily.

At the moment, I cannot quite recall a specific example but I am sure there have been major problems where for instance one country's allocation of radio frequencies, or standard screw sizes, or air traffic control planning system or something has conflicted with another country's, and held back the internationalisation of certain areas.

Do you realise you're spelling phile wrong by the way? You're currently calling me a Euro-person rather than a Euro-liker. The former is technically correct I suppose, but I think you mean the latter.

All world leaders are bringing about a world government together. The EU leaders, naturaly, are taking care of Europe.

What do you have against the idea of a world government?

Why do I sense some people don't understand the difference between anti-EU and anti-EU-as-currently-proposed? :huh:

In a utopian world, who wouldn't support a perfectly democratic and co-operative union of states?

But this isn't a utopian world. It is a world in which bureaucrats and power hungry institutions want to centralise control to further satisfy their own interests.

We have to ask ourselves, if we are to enter into such a union, how much bargaining power will the PEOPLE of that union truly have? Will our voice be dilluted into insignificance as a small group of unelected commissioners rule by decree?

Once again, I find myself aligned with Tony Benn's views, which are grounded in one radical and fundamental concept - democracy!

I understand this. Do you think that the EU as currently proposed could ever evolve into a perfectly, or at least reasonably democratic union of states? I think it could do, and will be under more pressure to do so as its remit expands.

Having a somewhat flawed but improvable version of a European government right now is better than a distant dream of a perfect government that might never happen, in my opinion.

I mean for example: qualifications that can be transferred and understood internationally, an international passport system, shoe sizes, measuring system and so on. Just making the world a more inclusive place by making sure that everyone can understand each other more easily.

At the moment, I cannot quite recall a specific example but I am sure there have been major problems where for instance one country's allocation of radio frequencies, or standard screw sizes, or air traffic control planning system or something has conflicted with another country's, and held back the internationalisation of certain areas.

Do you realise you're spelling phile wrong by the way? You're currently calling me a Euro-person rather than a Euro-liker. The former is technically correct I suppose, but I think you mean the latter.

What do you have against the idea of a world government?

Im starting to worry about you!

Why oh why do such things as shoe sizes, measuring systems and screw sizes need to be standardized across the world??
And what about language?

This is 'what i have against a world government', the world is a diverse place and i'd like it to stay a diverse place.

Im starting to worry about you!

Why oh why do such things as shoe sizes, measuring systems and screw sizes need to be standardized across the world??
And what about language?

This is 'what i have against a world government', the world is a diverse place and i'd like it to stay a diverse place.

Do you visit other countries to appreciate their different shoe sizes? The problem as I perceive it with a lack of standardisation is that it introduces costs to international organisations for regionalisation of products and services. This may only be a minor inefficiency, but it does ultimately contribute to needless waste of global resources.

There are probably cases where it has more major implications, perhaps making similar technologies difficult to connect between two countries. Hopefully someone can think of one. I don't want to get too hung up on standardisation, I listed it as my final point in favour of a world government because it is the least important.

The world is a diverse place and I wouldn't want to change any of the things that really make it diverse. Being under a world government would not strip us of national identity any more than being in the EU makes us part of France, or being in the USA makes California part of Tennessee.

As for language, it would be nice in a way to see a globally understood language, but not at the expense of existing languages.

Do you visit other countries to appreciate their different shoe sizes? The problem as I perceive it with a lack of standardisation is that it introduces costs to international organisations for regionalisation of products and services. This may only be a minor inefficiency, but it does ultimately contribute to needless waste of global resources.

There are probably cases where it has more major implications, perhaps making similar technologies difficult to connect between two countries. Hopefully someone can think of one. I don't want to get too hung up on standardisation, I listed it as my final point in favour of a world government because it is the least important.

The world is a diverse place and I wouldn't want to change any of the things that really make it diverse. Being under a world government would not strip us of national identity any more than being in the EU makes us part of France, or being in the USA makes California part of Tennessee.

As for language, it would be nice in a way to see a globally understood language, but not at the expense of existing languages.

I visit other countries to-amongst other things of course, appreciate their currency, i would love to go to America and have dollars in my pocket, im sure visitors here like the novelty of having quintessentially British Pounds in their pockets, once upon a time i could have walked the streets of Paris with quintessentially French Franc's in my pocket-but not any more.

You paint a very rosy picture of a world government but globaly 'standardised practices' will not come about with everyones consent, as different countries have their own way of doing things for their own unique reasons, a lot of people are going to have to compromise or have change's in their practices imposed on them.