BBC Blog Network

User Profile

-StuartC-

Listed below are comments made by -StuartC- between Tuesday, 13th October 2009 and Wednesday, 14th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Europe and the UK election 10:09pm on 14 Oct 2009 Boilerplated wrote @ 253:

"With the all fundamental human rights enshrined with in the EU's constitutional treaties (since Rome) the chances of it happening again in Europe are very slight - unlike the 'free world' that the anti EU propagandists so often praise"

---------------------------

Maybe you could tell us a bit more about Article 52 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (to be given legal force via the Lisbon Treaty) that allows "limitations" of the basic human rights it sets out if doing so is deemed in the "general interest" of the EU.

Nice and vague, wouldn't you say? Wonder who decides if anyone has offended the EU's "general interest"? Or what constitutes such offence? It's not made clear.

Or maybe tell us why officers of the EU's embryonic 'FBI' - Europol - have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything (except only liability in traffic accidents) they get up to in the course of their duties. Here in Britain that is enshrined in Statutory Instrument 1997 No.2973 - look it up.

As I'm sure you'll know, Europol is given new powers of "implementation" of operational action in the Lisbon Treaty. Plus Article 88 is a blank cheque for further extensions of Europol's powers merely by EU majority vote. Bit of a worry for liberty lovers, eh!

Or maybe we could discuss the 'snoopers charter' EU Communications Data Directive (2006/24/EC), which requires the storage of details of every email we all send and every website we visit - without there first having to be any suspicion of criminal activity.

Of course, there's also the little matter of the EU Arrest Warrant, which allows people to be taken to face trial in another EU member country without evidence of a crime having been committed first having to be presented in a British court.

Thus doing away with a hard-won traditional legal right we have (unlike any other EU country) called Habeas Corpus, designed to prevent the authorities throwing us in the slammer on spurious suspicions and our never being seen again.

To be fair, the UK government is also eroding that fundamental right via its anti-terror legislation. But that hardly excuses the EU - the EAW is being used for much more than anti-terror action. See the Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark or Malcolm Hay cases, for example.

Seems to me from this and other evidence that the EU is far more the source of some dangerously authoritarian measures than our protector.

When such hugely illiberal 'loopholes' are combined with the EU's gaping democratic deficit, I don't like the look of an EU-style future at all.
Europe and the UK election 9:29pm on 14 Oct 2009 Boilerplated wrote @ 248:

"Err, do try and keep up, the German elections were only a month or so ago, so the 'real' opinion (of what they think of the EU) shown by the German voters - by re-electing a staunchly pro EU chancellor and government - in their election is a lot closer to the reality than an opinion carried out a few years ago... "

---------------------------

Oh please. Is this serious?

An event in one country no doubt conducted chiefly on a wide range of potent domestic political issues. Set against the 27 countries surveyed by a respected market research company on the specific subject of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU's powers.

Who was it earlier flinging accusations of clutching at straws?

In any case, you'll see if you go back and read more carefully that that election result is also potentially in synch with the results of the poll.

So you're making no headway in your attempt to discredit or dismiss it I'm afraid.

But while we're talking of 'keeping up', I should point out that my original point (@133) was in any case about pan-European opposition to the Lisbon Treaty - not EU membership.

Is it because you can't refute the validity of that poll I cited (contrary to your crowing scepticism), showing a majority across Europe oppose giving more powers to the EU, that you've now moved onto a different debate?
Klaus opting out 6:31pm on 14 Oct 2009 lacerniagigante wrote @ 277:

Except for the little detail that Vaclav Klaus was not elected by the Czechs (the Czech president is nominated by Parliament).

------------------------------

But of course neither has the current 'caretaker' Czech government been elected by anyone.

Given Klaus has the higher approval ratings (at 61 percent in latest polls, it's higher than any Czech politician) it seems quite clear who has the greater legitimacy.
Europe and the UK election 3:40pm on 14 Oct 2009 Iantownhill wrote @ 218:

"Part of the reason is that this blog is rather disproportionately full of Eurosceptics, and it is sometimes necessary for those of us who believe in the principles of the European Union (though not necessarily in favour of a Federal Europe) to work harder to redress the balance somewhat."

-------------------------------

Out of interest, where does the boundary lie as regards power transfers to the EU for someone who believes "in the principles of the European Union (though not necessarily in favour of a Federal Europe)"?

What step of integration would be a step too far?

I ask because, in my experience, people who make this claim just so happen nevertheless to support every single new treaty that comes along without defining a limit to the centralisation that is so clearly leading to an EU State - the outcome often inaccurately described as a 'federal' Europe.

Fair to say I too support the principles over which the EU claims to have a monopoly - open trade, free movement, international co-operation.

But I don't support the EU because it's clear to me that it's not remotely necessary for all political decision-making to be transferred to central EU institutions in order to achieve these principles.

Integration and centralisation are obviously not the only ways those principles can be achieved. There are ways too for countries to work together that, crucially, have far more respect for democracy.

The integrationist aspect of the EU - insatiable hunger for more powers at the expense of national democracies, removal of national vetoes, symbols of statehood etc. - is a whole different ballgame from progress towards those core principles.

Advocates of integration have worked very hard to disengenuously conflate the two. In order to secure support for more dubious EU-style political integration, they make an uncontroversial appeal for greater co-operation.

But the two are not the same. One can be achieved without the other.

When the two are rightfully separated - co-operation and integration - I believe we will get a far better quality debate on the EU issue.
Europe and the UK election 3:04pm on 14 Oct 2009 T1m0thy wrote @ 221:

"To me the fact that those of both camps who have taken the time and trouble to research the Lisbon Treaty cannot agree on an interpretation says two things. 1. It may indeed be too complex. 2. It is defintely not the subject for a referendum. If the 'experts can't agree what hope is there for the rest of us?"

---------------------

Re. point 1 - I think part of the problem is that the EU makes its treaties deliberately vague, safe in the knowledge that any dispute about the EU's rights to act under the treaty are then arbitrated by another EU body - the EU Courts of Justice.

Re. point 2 - The whole point of a debate on a controversial issue, it seems to me, is for the arguments to be put and for individuals to make up their minds and act accordingly.

Not to expect the protagonists to come to agreement.

In that sense people voting in a referendum can then act as a jury over their claims. This is especially important when the question relates, as it does with EU treaties, to changing the nature of where governing power lies. That ultimately being the possession of the people, only on loan to politicians and certainly not the possession of any band of 'experts' to do with as they please.
Europe and the UK election 2:49pm on 14 Oct 2009 ChrisArta wrote @ 220:

"@ StuartC how did Veritas go EU wide?"

-------------------------

Do you mean Libertas? They flopped. All too predictable. Declan Ganley I fear was gripped by a dose of meglomania after his initial referendum victory and underestimated the scale of that task. Bit off more than he could chew!

His problems trying to find allies in each country to sign up to a single pan-European manifesto illustrated graphically for me Europe's political diversity.

It served to confirm why the EU's mission to over-ride all that from above and 'guide' stripped-out institutions of national democracy with common policies beyond the reach of meaningful public input are doomed to cause pressure points and, potentially, instability on our continent.

It's not a very encouraging future.
Europe and the UK election 00:40am on 14 Oct 2009 Boilerplated wrote @ 210:

"If the best you can do is cite an opinion poll ... then you must be really desperate, try citing a national election were the voters elected an anti EU government or President ... Nice try but keep clutching at straws, you might find the clue yet..."

---------------------------

I hesitate to suggest that it is probably the person who looks only to previous election results to discern the views of the public on every single policy issue who is not entirely connected to reality.

Opinions change. That's how governments change. We may shortly get a much more EU-critical government here in Britain. Perhaps we'll see then how keen you are on this line about elections.

Dismissing the entire opinion polling industry in one lofty sweep because they deliver inconvenient conclusions isn't really a credible response.

But it does serve to reinforce my views of the pro-EU mindset. The EU does the same thing to referendum results.
Europe and the UK election 00:09am on 14 Oct 2009 ChrisArta wrote @ 208:

Hmmm good to see it was published eurosceptic "Open Europe"!

--------------------------------

Yes, results published by, but the poll wasn't *conducted* by them.

As I said, the poll was conducted by the TNS - a leading international polling organisation.

If you have doubts about their methodology that provided the results, or wish to accuse them of some kind of bias, may I suggest you take it up with them. Search 'TNS global market research'.
Europe and the UK election 00:01am on 14 Oct 2009 Boilerplated wrote @ 207:

"All I can assume is that you have never actually bothered to read either the first document (the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"), the second document (the "Lisbon Treaty") or possible neither, such is you mixed up state of mind."

---------------------------

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee certainly did, and they concluded that the two documents were "substantially equivalent".

They are the specialist House of Commons body set up to scrutinise EU legislation.

Should we not take their view seriously?

Nevermind the numerous European politicians who at the time claimed various 90%+ percentage similarities between the two documents.

Even Valery Giscard d'Estaing, chief architect of the original EU Constitution, proudly declared: "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

Are we supposed to ignore all these voices contradicting your view?

The idea that the two documents weren't essentially the same - the Lisbon Treaty merely the repackaged changes that the original EU Constitution wrapped up in one bundle with existing treaties - is not tenable.

The end consolidated effect will be essentially the same as the original EU Constitution. As Giscard said, all the big changes are still there - president, foreign minister, diplomatic service, loss of vetoes, loss of powers for national parliaments etc. etc.

Pretending otherwise and refusing the promised referendum was an unforgivable deceit on the part of our own government. That decision struck a fatal blow to public faith and trust in Gordon Brown right at the start of his leadership, from which I believe he has never recovered.
Europe and the UK election 11:42pm on 13 Oct 2009 Boilerplated wrote @ 178:

"national parliaments actually get MORE powers, not less!

-------------------------------------

More than national 60 vetoes removed in the Lisbon Treaty, extra powers over many new policy areas handed over, and a new 'self-amending' method of changing the treaties to increase the EU's powers in future.

And you claim national parliaments get MORE powers? Please.

Sure, in the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments do get the right in principle to ask the Commission to review a new proposal.

But (a) in that review the Commission can choose to maintain their proposal with impunity, so the provision is ultimately powerless.

And (b) the rules parliaments must comply with to even provoke a review in the first place (numbers of parliaments deciding to support a review within a specific time period) are so restrictive as to make it near impossible.

This provision, much-hyped by fans of EU-style centralisation of decision-making away from democratic fora, is a trinket compared to what's being lost.

If you think national parliaments are winners from the Lisbon Treaty, you'd better read the German Constitutional Court's judgement on the treaty - and the action they insisted the government take to allow it to coexist in German law with their Constitution.

The Court pointed out: "The status of national parliaments is considerably curtailed by the reduction of decisions requiring unanimity and the supranationalisation of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters."

Who should we believe here?

Neither is it irrational to criticise the EU Parliament getting more power. Who are MEPs accountable to, really? How many were lodged at the top of regional lists by their parties and guaranteed a seat almost regardless of how people voted?

Many owe their positions almost entirely to their party, so in truth how accountable does that make them to us?

Even if we had every UK MEP aligned against a particular EU law, how much influence is that over EU Parliament decisions anyway? Tiny! Could they block a law? No.

This is the whole trouble with the EU debate. Supporters of ever more powers for remote EU institutions just refuse to engage with the hard realities of proposals and, more broadly, where the EU is heading. Consequently debate soon degrades into political labelling and name-calling. It's all so lame.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

-StuartC-