Tony Benn answering questions on the Euro

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.

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.