Europe and the UK election
Europe matters hugely to a minority of voters but the majority rarely rate it as a decisive influence on how they vote. So far most of the main parties have been avoiding the issue. They do not see votes in it and, for all of them, it is potentially troublesome.
Europe was a key factor in undermining the premiership of two Conservative prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Within the party the history is not forgotten and Europe is feared as an issue that can tear the party apart. The Conservatives today are more united over Europe than in the past.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
They have become a more sceptical party about the EU. A number of their candidates either want to leave the European Union or want to return some powers to Westminster.
Their election platform grew out of their opposition to the Lisbon Treaty. They had offered a referendum on the treaty but when, last year, it was ratified they dropped the idea of a poll. It was a move that dismayed some in the party. What they have promised in their manifesto is a referendum if any future treaty transfers further powers to Brussels. They would propose legislation on this in their first Queen's Speech. They will also try and have some powers returned to Britain. They are eyeing employment and home affairs legislation.
Their difficulty is that this would involve a treaty change and after eight years of haggling over the Lisbon Treaty there is little or no appetite in Europe for reopening negotiations. The Tories say they are in no hurry to win these opt-outs. They will negotiate over the lifetime of a Parliament. They are trying to make a point that when it comes to the EU powers should be able to move in two directions: both to Brussels and back to national governments. The aim is to break what is seen as step-by-step drift towards deeper European integration.
When I spoke to the Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, he stressed that they were not seeking "confrontation with the European Union". They would be pragmatists.
Labour is not promising to change its approach to Europe. The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband , told me "a Labour government put Britain in a leadership role" in Europe. They believe they have influence within the EU's institutions which the Tories would not have. The Tories say they gave up a British rebate worth £7bn and got nothing in return beyond an offer to review the Common Agricultural Policy.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
As regards joining the euro, their longstanding position has been "if the economic circumstances" are right. There is no indication when that might be.
The Labour approach is to resist some policies and to accept others. They will continue to fight financial regulations which could harm the hedge fund market and the way it operates out of the City of London. They, like the Conservatives, oppose a European Public Prosecutor.
Some voters still feel betrayed that the Labour government did not allow the British people a say on the Lisbon Treaty. When challenged over whether the British people would back some powers being returned from Europe, Labour's argument is that it would make the British second-class citizens, with other Europeans entitled to rights that the British did not share.
The Liberal Democrats, traditionally, have been the most enthusiastic party about the European project. Many of its MPs would one day like to join the euro. Even with the currency facing its severest crisis their foreign affairs spokesman, Ed Davey, told me "there are advantages in the long term in working more closely on economics". He says that any decision to join the euro would be put to the British people. I suggested to him that it would have been a mistake to have been in the euro now. He was not sure. He did not think it was an easy calculation. There would have been some benefits and some negatives.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The Liberal Democrats would like to settle the arguments over Europe once and for all. They are suggesting a referendum where the British people would be asked whether they wanted to stay in the EU or leave. Other parties would disagree with that question. The Tories want to stay in the EU. They strongly support the single market but they believe many of the EU's powers have intruded too far into areas which should be left to the nation states.
Ed Davey is a strong supporter of the European Arrest Warrant. He says already it has helped remove very wicked people and this was achieved by "working with our European partners".
The UK Independence Party is founded on a desire to withdraw from the European Union. UKIP's Nigel Farage told me that over the years the British people have been told a "complete pack of lies". "Virtually everything (legislation) that happens in Britain has in some ways its origins in the EU." He wants a free trade agreement with Europe and not political union. They are campaigning for the British people to have their say in a referendum.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Europe carries risks for the Tories. Labour sees few votes in the subject. The Liberal Democrats will be challenged on their enthusiasm for the EU as they surge in the polls.
Just down the road important decisions will be made on immigration, policing and justice. The question is how much power should the European institutions have in these areas and which party do the voters trust to handle the negotiations?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Europe matters hugely to a minority of voters but the majority rarely rate it as a decisive influence on how they vote." True, but that's only because politicians conceal the extend of its influence! How many voters, for example, associate it with post office closures (competition directives and curbs on resultant required state aid)?
"What they have promised in their manifesto is a referendum if any future treaty transfers further powers to Brussels." Yes, but under the so-called "ratchet-clause" in the Lisbon treaty, it can be amended by unanimous agreement in the council of ministers, without the need for another treaty ever again!
This duplicity shows why the Tories are not to be trusted...
Complain about this comment
The extent to which Lisbon allows itself to be altered in the future is actually very limited. There are 2 ways to make ammendements, one is basically the same as crafting a new treaty and all that doing that would require (including referendums in Ireland) or allowing the council to change how votes are made, say from unaminimous to QMV, if all the nation states agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty#Revision_procedures
Complain about this comment
#2 sponplague
" Duplicity shows why the Conservatives are not to be trusted "!
TOO RIGHT !!! But what are the choices ?
I can understand that politicians are fearful of the consequences of leaving the EU , or taking drastic action to repatriate legal control , regulations and administrative powers to Westminster . It would be a big responsibility , taking into account the present world recession and the uncertainty of how Britain might fare on her own . Another factor is a proper concern for the effect Britain's leaving would have on the EU . Whatever The Commission and Brussels might say to the contrary , it would have a great demoralising effect , the loss of Britains financial contribution might be felt too .
New Labour have done untold damage to British interests giving away Britains rebate without any cutting of the CAP . They should never be forgiven for ratting on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty .
Perhaps the Conservatives can repatriate a lot of legislation and cut off rules and regulations , that some southern European countries simply ignore . British governments need to learn to break treaty rules as other countries do if it suits them . Let the EU throw Britain out , that would be the day !
The EU should figure more strongly in the debate before a British general election , as the administration of Britain is more and more coming from Brussels .
British people have No Conflict with European people , but simply do not want to be ruled by the EU from Brussels or the ECJ , British Common law must prevail .
I believe Britain could go it alone ; I would like Britain to leave the EU and simply be a free trade partner like Norway or Switzerland .
British politicians are gutless today . John Major got Britain into all this mess by signing the Maastrict treaty , that lost the Conservatives subscriptions and votes ; that have put them out of power for a long time . Have they the courage to make ammends ; to truly represent the wishes of British Voters , before those of the EU ?
Complain about this comment
I suspect conservative , labour and Liberals will all avoid the subject of the EU , it is a Very Hot Potato , that will be sure to burn the fingers of those who touch it .
If the UKIP had more of an agenda and looked as if they might be able to run the country , they might even be considered contenders .
If all the British Eurosceptics had the couurage to vote for the UKIP ; Britain could leave the EU and if necessary then have another general election . I suspect the UKIP could run the country better than New Labour ; besides it is the civil service that does most of it .
Complain about this comment
The colonies are gone and with them the lucrative closed markets and raw materials. The average Briton saw none of this wealth. Then many industries collapsed as they lacked competition experience in open markets. Those who could, left.
What is needed is an open discussion on how Britain itself could be politically and socially structured so that its ordinary citizens can benefit from Europe.
For decades Britain has sounded like Greece today. No election will change this.
Complain about this comment
No to a mere free trade area.
Yes to a political union with other europeans.
The populist knee jerk reaction to europe is due to to the fact that British people want to be run by British and not by johnny foreigner (and his dastardly ways). Even if the EU were to amend its democratic deficit (because Britain does not live in a virtual first past the post dictatorship) and its fiscal shortcomings (Because British politics is not corrupt- Duck houses and BAE anyone?) the great majority will still revile Europe because its percieved to be run by foreigners for foreigners. The only difference between Westminster and Brussels is nationality. But while Westminster harks back to the past of nations states at least for all its faults the EU looks foward to internationalism and Cosmopolitan progress.
Complain about this comment
The sentence that "the Conservatives are more united than ever on Europe" is not actually true. Those who are still pro-European members of the party (and there many more than one would suppose) have been under enormous pressure to remain silent. 'Do not rock the boat so close to an election' has been the mantra for the last couple of years. Do not ask the questions, do not question the removing of the Conservative MEPs from the centre-right grouping (EPP) in the European Parliament etc. Many are disquieted by this appeal to loyalty, whatever the cost to the standing of the Conservatives across Europe and even in the UK.
Complain about this comment
@4 Huaimek
"I would like Britain to leave the EU and simply be a free trade partner like Norway or Switzerland ."
You mean where you just recieve a fax copy of the directives you have to implement? No thanks, I'd rather have a say.
Complain about this comment
UKIP offers the only alterative for Britain to "Death by Europe" which has been the course the UK has been on for a very long time. As the UK is not a true democracy, UKIP is not likely to win or even come remotely close. The UK's flaws as a democracy are not merely the result of being an oligarchy with a parliamentary facade but the fact that the culture does not revolt against it. You doh't see the anger among the general population in Britain that you see for example in the US. Britain is a nation of sheep, always has been. The population passively accepts whatever the government does to it with hardly a mewl. The population doesn't take power into its own hands which is its inalienable right. There would be nothing the government could do if it did, it merely doesn't have the will. It has the mentality of subservience which is one major distinguishing characteristic of it which differentiates it from Americans. In beoming part of the EU as it is today, Brits have been lied to, deceived, tricked, and all with impunity yet they accept the relinquishing of their sovereignty over themselves to an arbitrary unaccountable anonymous outside power as entirely acceptable. Do they have no confidence that they can govern themselves? Is there any doubt in their minds that whatever benefits they get in the way of trade or otherwise from being in the EU could be equally obtained by treaty from the outside and that any laws the EU passes they feel valuable they could also pass while rejecting any that are not in their interest or avoiding any obligations being part of the EU imposes that they must comply with?
Why do Britain's Parliamentarians from all three major parties want to remain inside the EU if there is no real benefit to Britain? Because as we saw in the MP scandal, they are out for themselves and are looking to their own future as MEPs or other EU positions which would allow them to wallow at an even larger less accountable taxpayer trough than the one in Westminster.
Of all the traits of Europeans that I find repulsive, this is among the most contemptable, the existance and acceptance of their lives as subservient to others without even so much as a peep or a revolution. How sad that the French revolution merely resulted in replacing one tyranny with another when there seemed so much hope for it at the beginning.
Complain about this comment
I can't agree Norway has it better; they end up having to comply with the vast bulk of European regulations to be able to trade into Europe, but with no seat at the table when the regulations are made. How would this be an improvement?
The Conservatives' position on the EU at the moment is farcical. They want to negotiate to return powers, but that requires unanimity from other countries who've just finished drafting and ratifying treaties at great cost, and requires allies when they've just left the largest block to start a small block with eastern European far right parties. The only way they could actually achieve what they're talking about is to withdraw from the EU - if that's what they honestly believe is best for Britain then they should come out and say it, not hide behind weasel words that promise the impossible.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised this only matters to a small minority of voters.
If we had a referendum on the EU I would expect the majority of people would vote to leave. The main political parties know this which is why we won't get one.
If we did we would probably be bullied into staying in for 'economic reasons'. However, last time I checked Switzerland and Norway weren't in the EU and they actually have a higher standard of living than we do.
Complain about this comment
I find David Milliband’s interview the most ridiculous. According to Milliband you are a 1st-class citizen not when you can shape the political choices that shape your life through the ballot box, but when you agree to let someone in Brussels do it for you, no matter how you vote. The real distinction in citizenry implicit in Milliband’s worldview is between the 1st class citizens that are the insiders within the EU political machine and the rest of us 2nd-class citizens (subjects in truth) who are powerless to influence what the first group decides on our behalf.
I find William Hague’s interview the most disingenuous though. When he says “we have taken a strategic decision not to seek an immediate confrontation with the EU”, his intention is leave the impression hanging in the air that some such confrontation might occur at a later date. It is exactly the same verbal chicanery he used when promising he ‘would not let matters rest’ should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified before the election. To see what his hints at delayed confrontation are likely to amount to in practice, one only has to look at what ‘not letting matters rest’ amounted to.
The Conservatives policy is now to seek an opt-out from the Lisbon ‘charter of fundamental rights’. But this means no change in practice because the UK already has a special opt-in arrangement which achieves much the same as an ‘opt-out’ in practice. They are promising to pass a “UK Sovereignty Bill” that would require referendums on any future EU treaties, but there is no accompanying UK Constitutional Change that would prevent any future Labour or LibDem government from repealing this “Sovereignty Bill” as soon as they win a Commons majority again. Cameron’s ‘referendum lock’ is therefore broken by design - future governments who don't want to be bound by it are free take this 'lock' off. The same is true of the Conservative promise to require one-time votes in Parliament prior to the use of any of the Lisbon ‘ratchet-clauses’. Any Prime Minister who is part of an agreement in the EU Council to invoke the Lisbon ratchet-clauses has, by definition, the majority in the House of Commons at his command, which he will use to rubber-stamp the agreement he has already made with his European colleagues. Cameron’s parliamentary votes on use of the ratchet clauses are therefore a foregone conclusion, in exactly the way that parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty was a foregone conclusion. The limit of Hague’s ambition on the return of powers from Brussels (to restore some aspects of the 1992 opt-out of the Maastricht Treaty ‘social chapter’) is tiny and only significant for what it leaves out. He is in reality agreeing to accept EVERYTHING in the Treaty of Lisbon, and indeed everything in the treaties of Nice and Amsterdam too. The Conservative EU promise 'not to let matters rest' therefore amounted to precisely nothing, which is what one can expect of Hague's more recent hints of confrontation delayed.
The long-term consequence of the Tories accepting all the recent increases in EU powers will be that the body of EU secondary law produced by the Brussels institutions under these new treaties will grow and grow and grow in the years and decades to come, all the while pre-empting the national law that we can shape through our general elections. The EU institutions will never stop producing new laws, and all of them are superior to national law and require national parliaments to remove any of their own law which conflicts with Brussels law. The inevitable and automatic consequence is that a time will come (perhaps 20-30 years from now) when our votes will be as powerless to shape the general matters of politics where recent EU treaties have given the EU new law-making powers, as we are today to shape the Working Time Directive, common market regulations, or any other area where the EU has had law-making powers for 20-30 years already. In short we will become “Milliband citizens” in a vastly expanded range of policy areas, where political decisions are no longer something that our votes can shape, but become ‘rights’ placed beyond the electorate’s reach in Brussels institutions and dispensed to us like medicine which we must swallow whether we like them or not.
If you want to be a real 1st class citizen (and no Milliband subject) then don’t vote for any of the LibLabCon. All three old parties have been only too happy to go along with European integration because it breaks the link between governed and governors, and leaves them (the governors) as the only group with any effective political power, and therefore the only group worthy of the name ‘citizens’.
Complain about this comment
The EU and the Lisbon Treaty ought to be left alone.
In this modern world, it’s good to belong to a united entity, like the EU. In fact, I wonder if any “lone” country can make it nowadays. Look at what's happening in Africa; not that a United States of Africa would solve all African problems, but it would certainly give them clout and what's more - give plundering countries a second thought or two.
I disagree that any right or power can be moved in two directions; every time you move an important right or power it weakens - right down the middle.
To the Conservatives I would ask: What is wrong with being part of the EU?
Pragmatism in this day & age requires union; if you can’t see that outright, than think about dealing with the United States of America without being a state within the European Union. Are you seeing the picture?
The Foreign Secretary has a much more pragmatic approach: Labour will put Britain in a leadership role in Europe. Ah, much better. Stay in the EU and show it a thing or two about leadership, maybe even learn a thing or two about leadership.
Labour will continue to fight financial regulations which could harm the HEDGE FUND MARKET (Excuse me! Do you mean unregulated companies like Goldman-Sachs who allegedly have created and abused hedge fund markets?).
I find myself (unusually) sitting with The Liberal Democrats in the EU corner:
- enthusiastic for EU
- like to join the euro (one day)
- close ties re economy
But then suddenly, I find myself on the floor, my chair swept from under me:
The Liberal Democrats are suggesting a referendum where the British people would be asked whether they wanted to stay in the EU or leave. In this day and age no nation should even consider leaving such a meaningful and powerful union. Isolated nation states are sitting ducks for predators.
Right, on this EU issue, my bote goes to Labour.
Complain about this comment
Sshh Gavin, now you've gone and done it.The parties were all rather hoping that no-one would mention the EU until after May 6th but now you might have opened the can of worms.
This flawed idea that the EU does not matter to the electorate is hardly surprising when the major parties do their level best to keep it off the agenda for reasons that are not too difficult to work out.The reality is that the British people have not been truly consulted and there is real fear allowing them to vote upon it. If I may anticipate that some of my Pro EU friends will raise the rhetorical point that we have a Parliament to make these decisions on our behalf I would agree, we do indeed. But this election highlights why that isn't working. We are given a choice of three main parties of which only two are likely to be able to form a Government and they all do their best to avoid talking about this issue so that they can claim later that it isn't important.Of course as I am a Eurosceptic I am going to whine about this and I am sorry if this is an irritant for some but until we at least have a chance to have our say, it is a matter that will not go away. I do not read the Murdoch papers ( in fact I probably spend a lot more time reading Pro EU material as I like to know what I am up against), I do not hate Europeans, I do not insult people who are in favour of the EU, nor do I hanker after a long gone Empire.I don't go droning on about World War 2 or the French or "Brussels" so please lets not have any of that "Little Englander" nonsense. Rant over.
Complain about this comment
Well we heard here that in the TV debates in Britain this man scored high. And are interested :o).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7099159.ece
Complain about this comment
The Euro has currency exchange advantages but also ties everyone to economies that could have negative impacts on valuation and thus effect others who are in better financial situations.
Not sure of what being done under the banner of the EU could not be done simply by country to country agreements. The primary function was that of establishing an economic zone, but as it grows into social and cutural areas the concerns should rise. Group think usually ends in a compromise and those compromises tend to relegate the really good ideas to the trash bin of history.
Complain about this comment
#8
'Do not ask the questions, do not question the removing of the Conservative MEPs from the centre-right grouping (EPP) in the European Parliament etc. Many are disquieted by this appeal to loyalty, whatever the cost to the standing of the Conservatives across Europe and even in the UK.'
To be fair, there was at least one Tory MEP who questioned the party's move from the mainstream EPP to the Fruitcake Alliance -see
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
'Huaimek' Do you really think if the UK left the EU you could negotiate a free trade agreement?, if the UK left the EU it would cause Chaos in the EU and countries would want to punish the UK for messing it up. And if there is no trade agreement, every foreign company in the UK would re-locate to an EU country to avoid trade tariffs, destroying the British economy and causing mass unemployment.
Even if you did get a trade agreement (which is unlikely), you would still have to follow all the EU regulations as Switzerland or Norway do to operate in the free market, but now you would have no say in those regulations.
In Norway people are now becoming more and more in favour of joining the EU as they pay in more money per head of population that the UK does and they have no say in European laws that they have to adopt becuase of the treaties they signed with the EU. (which the uk would have to sign)
Complain about this comment
Benefactor (9): Some questions to you:
1. How valuable do you think ‘having a say’ over the minor EU single market regulations (e.g. maximum curvature of cucumbers, etc.) that EEA and EFTA members implement, is worth?
2. How much do you think self-government is worth?
3. It would appear that most Swiss and Norwegian citizens feel that self-government is worth more than ‘having in say’ in minor common market regulations, and so voted for their present arrangements. Presumably you disagree with them Can you explain why?
4. If the problem is only that (a) EFTA and EEA countries have to implement some minor EU regulations without being involved in deciding them and (b) they don’t want to be part of a political union in which they lose self-government, then why not simply give Norway, Switzerland (and the UK) voting rights in the relatively small number of EU single market regulations that affect them? Why constantly demand they can only ‘have a say’ in market regulations if they submit to an all-encompassing political union which they clearly want no part of?
Complain about this comment
The Liberal Democrats are right to ask the British public _the_ fundamental question: in or out.
The Conservatives "strongly support the single market but they believe many of the EU's powers have intruded too far into areas which should be left to the nation states." Which means they wish to transfer some of those powers back to Westminster or even reshape the EU into the trading block it once was. This is unfeasible. It would involve either declassifying British EU membership to some sort of 'privileged partnership' construction, or actually reshaping the whole of the EU. Neither option appeals to our European partners.
Many EU nations are fed up with the British on-the-fence attitude and in my experience they would prefer the LibDem approach: for Britain to make up its mind once and for all. It seems unlikely our EU partners would support Tory-style negotiations that would require overhauling fundamental treaties of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Re15; Hehehe.... see....on the right side of this page there are the links to each BBC journalist's articles along with a small photo of theirs as is the usual case in BBC like elsewhere. I think Gavin put on purpose this photo of his, it sums up all!
Complain about this comment
The Labour Party lied on a referendum for Europe thus indicating that the people do not know what is good for them. Likewise the Conservatives withdrew their offer of a referendum once the Treaty had been arbitrarily ratified. The first was a lie, the second a betrayal of Peoples trust, if we are the lawmakers CHANGE THE LAW.
Complain about this comment
#11. "The Conservatives' position on the EU at the moment is farcical. They want to negotiate to return powers, but that requires unanimity from other countries who've just finished drafting and ratifying treaties at great cost, and requires allies when they've just left the largest block to start a small block with eastern European far right parties. The only way they could actually achieve what they're talking about is to withdraw from the EU - if that's what they honestly believe is best for Britain then they should come out and say it, not hide behind weasel words that promise the impossible."
The only reason that this negotiation is impossible at the moment is that in the immediate aftermath of a treaty signing, the short-term agenda of the EU has been cleared, so nobody is in a mood to do any more negotiating. This is why the Conservatives see no value in trying to pick a fight now. The Lisbon treaty is not the last treaty that the EU will want to sign (or amend via the unanimous ratification process) and so there will come a time in the next parliament where the EU needs to negotiate with member states in order to get something done. This is when the Conservative position would start to make a difference to Labour's position, which has been to roll over in negotiations and give the EU whatever it wants with nothing in return (rebate for a promise to review the CAP, anyone?). There is no point in trying to enter negotiations at the moment, since the EU doesn't want anything from the UK at the moment. This is not a situation that will last forever.
Complain about this comment
Some of our Politicians live in a fantasy World - I refer, of course, to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband , statement "........ a Labour government put Britain in a leadership role" in Europe. The EU is so large in comparison to the UK, that I doubt that they even notice us! The Liberals, on the other hand cannot make up their minds and will seek to hold a referendum! Of that there is absolutely no chance and would not alter anything!
The sad fact is that we cannot exist without being a part of Europe - at the moment we sit on the fence - not quite in and not quite out. We have committed ourselves to being a Member so must now go the whole way ............... of suffer the consequences financially and/or economically! It may be an unpopular move, but it is the only one open to us now.
We are not, and have not been, a World Power in any sense of the word for quite sometime - so just lets get on with what we do have and not cock it up for our Children and Their Children,
Goodness, these Politicians do suffer delusions of grandiose! If only they would come down to ground - all of them!
Complain about this comment
'Confrontation with EU' (read: C ommon Market) is not necessary.
A confrontation with EUSSR superstate is needed.
Otherwise Britons always, always, always shall be slaves.
Complain about this comment
What I think is very funny is that people see the EU as a pointless organisation and think we should be removed from it because it is so unpopular in the UK.
Yeah, it is unpopular, and any mainstream party advocating withdrawal from the EU would be very successful. So successful in fact, that they would win elections - regularly. Despite this, all political parties are in favour of a continued EU membership for the United Kingdom. This automatically suggests to me that there are are reasons for our continuation of membership.
The EU is democratic and no more corrupt than the UK. It gives us a global voice, prosperity through free-markets, workers' protection, human rights and serves as a model for cosmopolitan democracy. Yes, it does have flaws but every entity does. When Britain is losing its influence on the world stage at a precipitous rate, perhaps we ought to think of joining with our European neighbours to preserve and expand the international clout we have.
Complain about this comment
#15 - Deadlylampshade
You are entirely right. The future of the UK/EU relationship is arguable the most important single issue the UK has to contend with and yet, in the context of this election, nobody wants to address it.
Why? Perhaps someone has been keeping an eye on these columns and, understanding the depth of feeling, has advised that it should not be touched with a barge pole. That is a cop out. The whole issue is going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later and any political party which succeeds at this election without confronting it will have done so dishonestly. The Tories in particular should be ashamed of their short memories. John Major was returned in 1992 on a mandate to ratify Maastricht. The debacle which followed consigned them to the margins for nearly two decades. If they cannot learn from previous mistakes, what chance that they can address new challenges?
Complain about this comment
#9 Benefactor
I may not understand the terms on which Norway and Switzerland relate to the EU .
I would like to see Britain completely free of EU interference . I have no doubt we should find trading terms as necessary , as Britain generally imports more from Europe than she exports .
#10 MarcusAuraliusII says it precisely !
#13 Freeborn John Well Said !
#15 DeadlyLampshade I agree !
Perhaps British voters should stage a Strike and not vote at all on 6th May . The worst of that could be that Britain would be stuck with Labour .
Complain about this comment
#10 MarcusAurellius
The eloquence of this contributor and his heartfelt wish that Britain and Europe rises to the level of poverty, health, infant mortality and prison population as we have in the USA is extremely touching.
He should at least praise Britain and Europe for its politicians rising to the same level of voter disrespect and disregard despite Europe´s superiority in all areas mentioned.
Complain about this comment
It is total nonsense to think we would be better off leaving The EU. Could you imagine California leaving The USA?
UKIP constantly moan about how much money goes to the EU from Britain. (A figure which is highly questionable). How about Farrage and the UKIP having the courage to also mention the massive benefits as well. There are many business' of all sizes which have invested here simply because we are members of the EU.
The Conservatives mentioned yesterday how there would be a run on Sterling if there was a hung parliament. That is one thing that would not happen if Britain was a member of the Euro zone.
Let's start talking about the benefits rather than the negatives.
Have you noticed how all the foreign owned (ie non EU) newspapers are anti-EU? Doesn't that tell you something?
The Conservatives will lose votes and probably the election through their Euro sceptic stance. The electorate isn't daft!
Complain about this comment
I have to agree that none of the three parties will raise a finger to save us from this Euro- nightmare. The Tories cant row back and their platitudes in saying they will prevent further loss of powers is i'm afraid claptrap designed to appease those Tories like me that they havent really thrown in the towel when of course they have.
Labour's view is largely similar - say somthing soothing to placate but in the final analysis ignore any democratic wishes expressed by the majority.
They all treat us as children without the intelligence to appreciate the arguments - very patronising of all.
I do not object to an economic union as such ( a single market) and I seem to remember that this was roughly the basis on which the last referendum in 75 was based. We all thought that any anti platform which had Enoch Powell and Tony Benn holding hands on the same bill must surely be a bunch of deluded loonies. Their portents were however spot on - the lie peddled at the time was that a yes vote merely re-enforced the idea of stronger economic ties with Europe ( on the surface - no bad thing) whilst in reality the yes vote only served to justify all that has gone on since. The really sad thing is that had we only bothered to scutinise the Treaty of Rome rather better at the time all would have been revealed and that the goal was and always has been political and federal union.
We wont get another chance to say no and this country is doomed as result. The idea that we actually need the EU to continue to exist is simply rubbish. Quite to the contrary - they need us ( and our money - sorry borrowed money) to service their vast unelected bureaucracy.
I dont see to much suffering in Norway or Switzerland as a result of the sound decision to stay out. Similarly I dont see the Commonwealth countries with which we used to trade in greater measure suffering too much. Indeed they must be having a right laugh as we spin further into an over-regulated abyss.
When the politicians gave up the ghost, any slowing of the juggernaut relied upon the Judiciary but its been very obvious post Factortame ( Euro lawyers will recognise these pivotal cases)that the writing was on the wall here as well and any past pretence that we could actually control our own destiny was lost. However, it is the last 13 years of Labour poodling that has really cemented our fate.
If I could choose two things to do it would be to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - which gave life to this endless travesty and to exhume Ted Heath and ritually hang him for his betrayal of this once great nation.
Complain about this comment
#14 Bluesberry
I think you are mistaken in thinking the EU is united , it is sort of , but there is a lot of straining at the leash . The EU thinks itself to be a world power , but its not . How about the trouble with Greece's massive deficit ? It looks like the Eurozone may not be able to contain that . I think Greece is likely to default and return to the Drachma .
Where does that leave the Euro and the EU . A loss of credibility in both .
I think that Britain would far more easily deal with the United States .
The EU and US are often at logaheads .
Pragmatism prevails and where does it get us ? Britain has been in the EU nearly 20 years since Maastricht ; always trying to be at the centre of Europe ; trying to show the way forward for a successful EU .
France , Germany and other origilal core countries are set on a one state Federal Europe ; that is the sticking point and I think will eventually be the undoing of the EU . By pragmatism I think you mean thinking sensibly , go with the flow , or something akin to that , flexible thinking Philosophising . If the original six countries had formed a union it might have worked ; with 27 and possibly more , it won't .
The EU is NOT a Meaningful Powerful Union .
Your vote for Labour will very likely be of little help to them .
Complain about this comment
I must be one of the 'small minority' then.
The reason the Tories are so anti-Europe and want to repatriate such things as employment law, is because it gets in their way of turning Britain into the sweatshop of Europe with very low wages and no rights. The only people who would benefit are their super-rich friends and other vested interests. Thatcher had a good go at this in the 1980s and we have only reversed a few of her most extreme measures.
We had a refendum on EU membership in 1975 amd there was a two-thirds majority of staying in. Unfortunately, the idea that somehow we can go-it-alone, is nonsense pushed by the 'Little Englanders' such as UKIP, who dream of a time past when the colonies had to buy overpriced and poor quality British products or got imprisoned for their troubles, These Little Englanders most likely spend their Sundays washing their Rover 75s and watching black and white films of how Britian singlehandedly beat the Nazi threat. That time has gone and thank goodness.
I agree with the comment from 'Benefactor'. Outside the EU we would simply get a fax telling us what to do and make ourselves look increasingly irrelevant. Within Europe we have the chance to form the destiny of a continent. So let's stop whining and threatening to take our ball back if we don't get our own way.
Complain about this comment
Clearly there is a sizeable, vocal anti-European minority and the popular press does a good job too of blaming the foreigner for all our ills, however, the vast majority (of the voting public, at least) know which side its bread is buttered as borne out by the relatively paltry number of votes cast for parties such as UKIP.
Complain about this comment
Tory position is simple- they want to move Europe as far to the right as possible and have linked up with groups who are terrifying throwbacks to the 1930s and 40s. One of their new friends is a party which holds regular memorial services for their local SS. They claim that they were heroes obeying orders- a perception shared by no-one else. If this was so, why did they spend so much time burning documents and corpses, eliminating witnesses and generally covering up? If they thought they were doing honourable soldiering, they would surely have been proud of their achievements. Another group Euro-Tories are wooing have an extremely homophobic complexion. Tories cannot see that the EU is not another country- it is us and what we, the people, make it. What they fear is that if the ordinary men and women on the street across Europe got together and acted together, the days of the Tory party would be well and truly over. Their sort of jingoistic imperialistic nonsense can only survive in small, ignorant communities. I am not in favour of losing Britain within Europe or England within the UK but what we should absolutely despise is those who think Britain can still lecture the world on how to do its business. That's the crucial difference- Labour and the Lib Dems see Europe as a movement for peaceful co-operation to our mutual economic and political advantage: the Tories see it simply as another country to be monopolised and ruled by the smug elite they believe have a right to rule, based on their 'education and background.' What drips from them like a poison is this constant belief that the world has to be ruled by the 'right sort.' Inwardly, your average Cameron type still regards the USA as an errant colony whose leaders can be patronised by the Tories who regard themselves as naturally superior- a sad joke!
Complain about this comment
There should be no referendum on the Britain's EU membership, it's just madness. The reason you have full time politicians is because you can't just dip in and out of politics, randomly voting on things based on nothing. If you ran a business like that it would collapse within days.
It's amazing how many people were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty when 99.9% of them never read the thing. How can you make an informed decision about the pros and cons of X and Y without being on the inside with all the information?
If we're gonna have referendums on such random things like foreign policy, running schools, electing police cheif etc. then we might aswell just get rid of government altogether and have proper democracy. Of cause the country would fall apart within weeks because no one would know what they're doing.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @20,
‘…submit to an all-encompassing political union which they clearly want no part of’
'Clearly'? Well, it might be ‘clearly’ to you but it is not ‘clearly’ to anybody else, it seems. In response to your questions I will use a post which I wrote some time ago. The questions at the end of it are still relevant.
‘Now, to address the other often brought-up statement that people who want to vote against the EU know what it is all about. Below are two links to research done after the first and second Irish referenda:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
The main reason for the No vote is given on page 4, second bullet point.
http://www.exportseurope.ie/index.php/latest-news/34-Copy%20of%20/83-sixty-per-cent-have-knowledge-of-lisbon-treaty-poll-
So my questions to you are:
Why do you insists that you know what the UK people think at this precise moment?
Why do you think that people who are against the EU know what it is all about?’
Complain about this comment
The contribution #25 by Anthony Walker tells the way it is.
The Delusions of Grandeur unfortunately are not restricted to the politicians.
There is no way ANY British government is going to risk EU Agricultural subsidies to the large land owners (including your Queen). All MP´s must work in the interest of the Crown.
The Crown does not include Grandma or other Subjects.
400,000 for Sandringham alone ( EU compulsory publication )
Complain about this comment
Why do pro euros like 'Alalas' always run out the same old scare
that leaving the EU would cause mass job losses, this is just
utter rubbish. Not so long ago we were told if we did not join the euro
companies would relocate across the channel on mass, strange that
most of the companies that left went to the far east wonder why?
red tape? taxes?. Facts are tariffs etc can work both ways and as one of the the largest consumer countries in europe would the EU really want to impose tariffs that could well wreck companies in there own backyard?.
I wonder how loud French and German car makers will scream if they can
not sell in one of the top 2 car buying counties in Europe.I for one would like to find out.I LIVE IN HOPE OUT OUT OUT
Complain about this comment
Personally I am not much interested in anything other than about Europe the various parties have to say in their election campaigns, except how they intend to deal with the public debt. So the lack attention being given to Europe is for me an incentive to spend 6th May (UK 'F Factor' finals) on mainland Europe, thus avoiding the possibility of participating in what is such an awful election in terms of the choices on offer. However, if I was going to bother endorsing one manifesto or another within the context of Europe:
I find the Conservative insistence that it will be engaged and pragmatic in its dealings with Brussels more than a little disingenuous. They quit the PPE, the most influential political block within the European Parliament and natural home for the kind of conservatism they claim to stand for, and have instead hooked up with a bunch of looney right wing extremists who have no influence. Angela Merkel won't even talk to Cameron! And they honestly believe they can provide the UK with effective representation in Brussels? I don't. So a dead loss there I'm afraid.
Labour have at least proven at the last furlong that they can be an effective partner in Brussels, though had Tony Blair spent less time adventuring in the Middle East and more time providing an insight to the British electorate into the benefits of European partnership, the Brits might perhaps be better equipped to understand the consequences of their euroscepticism.
I dislike and mistrust everything the LIb Dems have offered during this election campaign and generally feel they will say anything to play to the gallery. Yet no one can deny their credentials as good Europeans. I very much like their idea of putting the question to the UK "how do you feel about being kicked out of Europe because you aren't pulling your weight"? A good and fair question, especially if it is framed with a second and very pertinent question "do you think the USA still regards the UK as a special partner"? Truthful answer being that Washington is increasingly ambivalent about the importance of the UK and further, as London's importance as a world financial centre evaporates over the next few years (as will New York's) which both the Lib Dems and Labour seem hell bent on ensuring, it will have no real interest at all in maintaining anything other than a polite dialog. It will however necessarily become increasingly interested in its dealings with Brussels.
Nigel Farage is simply a national embarrassment and wants putting on trial for treason.
Complain about this comment
#12 Having lived and worked in Norway, you will find that there are import duties imposed on goods coming from The EU.
If we were to leave the EU, expect import duties from and export duties to The EU - the same as Norway.
Complain about this comment
#10
"UKIP offers the only alterative for Britain to "Death by Europe"
UKIP are a one-trick-pony party who cannot run a country. Ever. Good for protest votes at Euro elections and insulting our near-neighbours,crap for everything else.
"As the UK is not a true democracy, UKIP is not likely to win or even come remotely close"
The system allows UKIP or any other party to form the next government. The only reason they wont is because they dont have the support. Perhaps you confuse the rants of a few euro-sceptics on the internet to represent the will of the people. Of course in America, you have no tradition of minor parties making any impact whatsoever,and you are FPTP, so I guess you dont have a true democracy either.
"The UK's flaws as a democracy are not merely the result of being an oligarchy"
"Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy"- quote Wikipedia
Bush, Kennedy, Adams, Clinton,Bayh, Bennett,Casey,Dodd, Gregg, Landrieu,Murkowski,Pryor,Udall, Rockefeller, etc etc. Keep it in the family I always say ;)
"Britain is a nation of sheep, always has been. The population passively accepts whatever the government does to it with hardly a mewl."
Boudicca ,Magna Carta ,English Civil War ,Chartists ,Poll Tax Riots, Brixton riots, Miners' Strike, Luddites, Suffragettes...and thats just of the top of my head. BAAAA!
Complain about this comment
@ Hualmek: any country that wants a trade agreement with the EU has to agree to meet EU standards of all sorts. For example, China has to accept many rules, yet has no say in their making. Swiss commentators estimate that over 50% of their laws are made "for them" by the EU. That's the reality.
I find it interesting that so many contributors talk of "Brussels imposing laws", etc. There is a sizeable contingent of British Civil Servants, Police Officers, etc working within the EU; there are British MEPs (who should be answerable to their electorates); and there has been a British Commissioner of one sort or another ever since the UK entry into the EU. In other words, "Brussels" is hardly any different for "Westminster" in terms of imposing laws on UK citizens.
Complain about this comment
William Hague is, as usual, quite sensible with his 'pragmatic' approach to the EU. Like Afghanistan, it's a bog we are in up to our waste and anyone trying to lay down planks to get us out is likely to find themselves sinking into it, too. Social, economic and cultural links to Europe go back centuries so there's no reason to think that limiting the bureaucratic web slowly engulfing us from Europe will somehow curtail the mutual benefits the UK and other European countries get from each other. Being more assertive about what is in the best interests of this country, not the idealism of some United States Of Europe, will at least mean we don't end up as a fly in the web. Mind you, pragmatism's fine but the real danger is EU idealists getting pragmatic. After all, Hitler and Stalin were extremely pragmatic idealists...they had anyone who disagreed with them shot.
Complain about this comment
Alalas (19) asks “Do you really think if the UK left the EU you could negotiate a free trade agreement?”
Countries as far away as Mexico and South Korea have free trade agreements with the EU. Almost all the North African countries with a Mediterranean coastline either have a free trade agreement with the EU or are close to completing it, as is Canada. In February 2000, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair said “Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU... We could probably get access to the single market as Norway and Switzerland do...”. So there is little doubt that the UK could achieve the enviable position that Mexico has for example, with Free Trade Agreements with BOTH the USA (NAFTA) and Europe (EU/EEA) while remaining free of the undemocratic European political union.
Antony Walker (25) said “The EU is so large in comparison to the UK, that I doubt that they even notice us! ... The sad fact is that we cannot exist without being a part of Europe... We have committed ourselves to being a Member so must now go the whole way”
There has long been a heavy stain of defeatism about British pro-Europeans. Naturally if you start from the position that Britons are insignificant creatures, incapable of articulating their interests and incapable of advancing those interests without the EU, then you will naturally embark upon a circular argument that concludes we have no alternative but to become assimilated by the EU. But yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom whose predicates have no basis in reality. The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world, with an influence greater than even the GDP statistics would suggest. We have numerous advantages that no Continental country has, e.g. the English language, and a worldwide network of tried and trusted alliance, an economy that is more productive than any other large country in Europe, which grows on average faster than the eurozone. Even by the EU’s own predictions, the UK will have the largest population (70m) of any current EU member-state by 2050, and we will overtake the German economy well before 2050 to become the largest economy in Europe. The UK has very frequently in its history not followed the received wisdom on the Continent, and by doing just that has often saved itself (and sometimes saved all Europe) by charting a wiser course instead.
There are close to 200 nation-states in the world, and their number is rising. The vast majority of those 200 nations have few if any of the advantages of Britain. Yet though many of them be smaller or poorer or less well-connected countries than us, they still want self-government because they know that making their own choices, in their own perceived best interest, is more likely to lead to the improvement of their lot in life than putting their trust in people in other countries who (in your own words) ‘barely even notice’ them.
The truth is that only those in the world who can think for themselves, articulate their interests, and work towards the advancement of those interests, will prosper in the globalised world. British Pro-Europeans are not that kind of people. They have defeatism woven into their political DNA and regard Brussels as a place to bury their Ostrich heads from the future that is rapidly coming towards them. So please, throw off your defeatist attitudes, switch on your mental faculties, and start to think what type of world you want to see in the future, and this country’s ideal role within it. Because if you will not do that for yourself, then your place in the world is indeed going to be decided for you by those people who you “doubt barely notice us”. And you can be sure that if they ‘barely notice you’ they will have no clue to your preferences or interests, and will almost certainly be working to advance their own perceived best interests, which may very well be contrary to your own.
Complain about this comment
One thing easy to forget it seems is that the EU is not the only major bloc that the UK is part of. It is also in the Commonwealth of Nations, which includes India, Canada, and Australia all of which are major world economies alongside Britain, In fact the GDP of the Commonwealth is greater than that of EU, and covers nearly 20% of the world population. Pulling out of the EU does not leave Britain alone or isolated at all, it gives it the freedom to concentrate upon the Commonwealth bloc and place the UK's political allegiances with nations that share a common economic, political, linguistic, cultural and historical connection - without the devolution of British law and governance to Brussels and a number of states whom Britain significantly differs from historically and practically.
Complain about this comment
Daquan Quartermaine (21): You can safely ignore Nick Clegg’s manifesto promise of an in/out referendum on EU membership. Clegg has promised referendums before and not delivered (see link):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/15/politicalcolumnists.eu
The LibDem 2010 manifesto promises a referendum only “the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.” But the LibDems have always argued that each EU treaty does not fundamentally change the relationship between the UK and the EU! This despite it being quite obvious that the cumulative effect of the Treaty of Rome, Single European Act, Masstricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon is a very fundamental change indeed. Should there be another EU treaty in the next parliament (and Angela Amerkel is already saying one is necessary for ‘fiscal union’) then Clegg can be expected to announce said new treaty is not a fundamental change and so his manifesto promise does not apply. Indeed when a UKIP peer recently introduced a Bill in the House of Lords proposing exactly the referendum Nick Clegg says he wants, the Liberal Democrats voted against it, even though it was their official party policy!
I am afraid Nick Clegg is totally untrustworthy on the EU issue and no EU-sceptic should give him time of day. But the bigger and more immediate problem is that Cast-iron Cameron is also a fake; the change we can’t believe in. The best possible outcome is that Cameron loses this election by a margin smaller than the UKIP vote.
Complain about this comment
Philip (42) said "If we were to leave the EU, expect import duties from and export duties to The EU - the same as Norway".
That is not the case. Norway is part of the "European Economic Area" or EEA, which guarantees tariff-free access to EU members, other EEA countries (like Iceland), and EFTA members (like Switzerland).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
The are very many non-EU countries that have tariff-free access to the EU market. See the following on the EU Commission website, which shows that all Balkan countries, Turkey, Israel, and almost all North African countries have Free Trade Agreements with the EU, plus countries further afield like Mexico, South Korea and (soon) Canada.
Central European Fta
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1837
Turkish Customs Union
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/turkey/
FTA with all countries bordering Mediterranean except Libya and Syria
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/regions/euromed/
FTA with Meixco (since 2000)
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/mexico/
FTA with South Korea (signed Oct 2009)
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/korea/
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada (under negotiation)
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/canada/
So you don't need to be an EU member to have tariff-free access to the EU. The UK can have free trade with Europe without the undemocratic political union, just like all the countries listed above do.
Complain about this comment
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
All those advocating British exit from the EU would do well to look back to 1955 when we were asked to participate in its design, but refused. Five years later we suddenly realised that not only was it developing without us, but also against us. The separate EFTA grouping we had created proved no substitute to full membership.
Complain about this comment
So when Britons are going to finally have this promised referendum on UK's membership in EUSSR?
May 6th, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
#47
In fact the GDP of the Commonwealth is greater than that of EU, and covers nearly 20% of the world population
No it isnt.GDP : EU $15 trillion, Commonwealth $10 trillion and the population is almost 1/3 rd of the world, but Britains biggest trade partners are the US and countries of the EU. The Commonwealth is an impressive legacy of Britains imperial past but its the EU, the US, China and India that will be our future.
Complain about this comment
I am getting tired of seeing the pro-EU (ie anti-democracy) crowd rehashing the same propaganda about the EU over and over again. The most irritating thing is that they keep referring to the EU as Europe. Europe is not EU and EU is not Europe. Gavin, you too are requested to refer to the EU when mentioning the EU.
I'll go through a few of these arguments posted in this very blog.
7.Frezenio Tenax wrote: ... the EU looks foward to internationalism and Cosmopolitan progress.
This is a common argument amongst the pro-EU crowd, namely the elitist argument. Being for the EU is 'cosmopolitan' and 'forward looking' and being against it is usually referred to as 'backward'.
But notice the fundamental flaw in this argument? The EU, being the customs union that it is (and not a free trade market), enacts stern tariffs and barriers for outside countries to trade with countries within the EU. In fact, the whole EU (in an economic sense) is built on keeping 'non-EU competition' out. If Britain were outside the EU, it would find that trading with the rest of the world suddenly became a lot easier. In many areas, Britain would no longer need Brussels' approval. And since we all know the EU is undemocratic (no, having a phony parliament doesn't make it democratic) it would be a step forward.
So in fact, being pro-EU is the 'narrow-minded' argument, as without the EU trade with the rest of the world would be easier. And the EU is all about 'keeping the bad outside world out in order to prevent them from competing with French farmers or companies'.
9. Benefactor wrote: You mean where you just recieve a fax copy of the directives you have to implement? No thanks, I'd rather have a say.
Now that I dealt with the elitist argument, now comes the 'influence' argument. First of all, how big would this influence be? No more than 12 percent I'd say. And EU directives and regulations are always drawn up in such a way that there is some QMV majority in favor of it. So even if you are opposed to a directive, it could still pass. And part of the argument I made above applies here too. Being outside the EU would make trade with the rest of the world easier, and since Britain is a net contributor it is the EU who would suffer, not Britain. At least when outside, you wouldn't have to take into account ALL directives. And the EU increasingly deals with issues that are not just national, but local too. Many nationally elected MP's and local councillors effectively have to do what the unelected crowd in Brussels tells them.
And finally, the EU's legislative initiative is placed with a politburo-esque structure known as European Commission, and we all know those people are not elected but appointed. And parliamentary control/democratic control over the European Commission is all but impossible.
10. At 12:21pm on 22 Apr 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote: Why do Britain's Parliamentarians from all three major parties want to remain inside the EU if there is no real benefit to Britain?
The reason for that is that the EU is set up in such a way that politicians of mainstream parties profit from its setup. They are the one who get its unelected jobs with paying little tax and getting double pensions and get reimbursed for expenses not incurred in the first place. The people who designed the undemocratic EU may have been enemies of democracy, but they were not stupid. They knew that getting the support of the political elite was necessary. Thus they created tons of unelected jobs for politicians in Brussels.
14. BluesBerry wrote: The Liberal Democrats are suggesting a referendum where the British people would be asked whether they wanted to stay in the EU or leave. In this day and age no nation should even consider leaving such a meaningful and powerful union. Isolated nation states are sitting ducks for predators.
Returning to the arguments of the pro-EU crowd. We've had the elitist argument and the influence argument. Now we get the 'necessity' argument. Never mind that the EU is totally undemocratic and deliberately designed to be that way so national parliaments would be increasingly meaningless, we HAVE TO be part of it. Because of the big bad outside world. Never mind that companies throughout EU member states are increasingly burdened with EU red tape, or that more and more industry is packing up and leaving for China/India etc we HAVE TO be members.
Its a popular argument made by France. France (not Britain) has a severe case of 'post-empire' syndrome and wants to use the EU as an extention of French influence. Notice how nothing happens if France doesn't agree? Because historically, France either gets its way or throws a tantrum. And if it doesn't get its way it will just ignore those directives it doesn't like.
France wants Britain to be in the EU so Britain contributes to French farmers (France is a net recipient when it comes to the CAP) and so France can grandstand more internationally. So desperate to matter they are, and the Brussels elitists and pro-EU crowd too. Never mind democracy, they argue, we HAVE TO.
19. Alalas wrote: And if there is no trade agreement, every foreign company in the UK would re-locate to an EU country to avoid trade tariffs, destroying the British economy and causing mass unemployment.
We've had elitist, influence and necessity arguments. Now we come to the most used one. The trade argument. As if trade didn't exist before the EU did, and furthermore, as if trade wouldn't be possible without the EU. And no, the EU hasn't made trade with the rest of the world easier.
And besides, there is little the EU could do to a country outside it in order to put up illegal barriers, because there is such a thing as the WTO which has achieved far more than the EU has.
Pro-EU types want to pretend the EU is beneficial for trade (it isn't) and also was built for peace in Europe (it never was). The EU only exists for one reason (which Monnet alluded to more than once): to be able to bypass the national electorates to get what the political elite wants. That and that alone is the historic reason for its existence.
And notice how the 'without EU millions of jobs would be destroyed' argument keeps popping up? Utter nonsense and pure scaremongering. If anything, Britain would have more jobs because of companies seeking to escape EU regulatory hell. I've worked with smaller and medium sized businesses and EU regulations don't benefit them at all.
In Norway people are now becoming more and more in favour of joining the EU as they pay in more money per head of population that the UK does and they have no say in European laws that they have to adopt becuase of the treaties they signed with the EU.
They wouldn't have a say if they were in the EU either. Considering Norway's total population that say would be less than 2 percent. Hardly a convincing argument for joining. But I can give two convincing arguments for not joining. One: Norways fisheries industry would be near instantly destroyed if they joined the EU because French and Spanish fisheries fleets have their eyes on Norways waters. And two: you'd lose sovereignty over your natural resources.
Come to think of it: you'd have to pay money to cover the Greek debt/deficit. We Netherlands are already being asked to do this. So that's three arguments. The benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks and in fact, there's no benefit the EU brings to the table that couldn't also be achieved with intergovernmental cooperation.
27. Matthew-Daniel wrote: The EU is democratic and no more corrupt than the UK. It gives us a global voice, prosperity through free-markets, workers' protection, human rights and serves as a model for cosmopolitan democracy.
The following arguments for the EU have all been made: the elitist, influence, necessity and trade arguments. Its rare to see them all in just two small sentences, but Matthew-Daniel has succeeded in doing just that.
One only onders where he gets the ludicrous idea from that the EU is 'democratic'. But then again, maybe he can answer that himself because I just don't see it. And as for 'human rights', the socalled 'charter' is something all individual countries already signed so the EU tacking it to a treaty didn't actually add anything except so the EU can have more powers at the expense of national democracies.
33. Huaimek wrote: France , Germany and other origilal core countries are set on a one state Federal Europe
The political elites want this, but the peoples do not. Here in the Netherlands I know hardly anyone who is for a 'federal Europe'. Apart from some politicians, that is. Rest assured that popular opposition to 'federal Europe' is as much here in Netherlands (and much to my pleasant surprise, rapidly rising in Germany too) as in Britain. Do not let politicians tell you that those opposed are a minority, its actually the federalists who are a tiny minority. And yet, they try to ram it through and bit by bit they can because of the fundamentally undemocratic character of the EU and its setup.
37.Chris wrote: It's amazing how many people were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty when 99.9% of them never read the thing. How can you make an informed decision about the pros and cons of X and Y without being on the inside with all the information?
I would call this the 'stupid' argument. It is different from the elitist argument in the sense that the elitist argument says 'pro-EU is good, anti-EU is bad' and the 'stupid' argument says 'anyone opposed is dumb'.
I have personally spoken to about a dozen Dutch MP's here and their total ignorance on what the Lisbon Treaty was about. In fact, most didn't even know what the difference was between intergovernmental and supranational. Yet they are the ones who voted the undemocratic Lisbon treaty through anyway. And now they are acting surprised at the complete lack of powers the national parliaments have left.
Most national parliaments MP's didn't have a clue what they were voting on because they didn't read it, except for the EU propaganda about it. And since most politicians of mainstream parties have effectively been told that those opposed can forget about an unelected EU job in the future, they vote for their own interests rather than that of their electorates. But so far, on Lisbon I have been right and they were wrong. I predicted the cacophony created by having a president of Council and president of Commission (both unelected and without popular mandate). Prediction status: come true.
41. Francis power wrote: I dislike and mistrust everything the LIb Dems have offered during this election campaign and generally feel they will say anything to play to the gallery. Yet no one can deny their credentials as good Europeans.
We've had 'elitist', 'influence', 'necessity', 'trade' and 'stupid' arguments. The final one I use from the posts of other is the 'good European' argument. As in: no matter how much you disagree with it, it is 'better' to just do 'whatever the EU wants' because only that makes you a 'good European'. As if being a 'good European' is somehow a good thing. Being effectively a slave to the unelected EU oligarchy and doing what they say so they'll pat you on the head saying how good a European you are.
Germany had such a thing too about 70 years ago. If you did what the government wanted, you were a 'good German'... so by this godwin-esque argument we've exposed the utter lunacy of the 'good European' argument.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to do 'what Europe wants' if it is not beneficial to their own electorates. And furthermore, since politicians get their mandate from national electorates they have a primary responsibility to those, and should basically not care a jot what their political 'friends' in Brussels want. Gordon Brown is a very good example of a politicians who will always put 'Brussels' ahead of his own electorate. And hopes that by doing so, Merkel or Sarkozy will pat him on the head and tell him how he is such a 'good European'.
Complain about this comment
# Indy Brit The companies that would leave are the american and japanese companies that setup operations in the uk so they can sell to the EU market and avoid paying import duties, if ireland left the EU all the big american tech companies with their european headquarter in ireland would leave. Same would happen with american and japanese campanies with their EU bases in the UK.
#Freeborn John
My point is if the UK leaves the EU its not going to make any friends in europe and all it takes is 1 bitter country to block any free trade agreement with their veto. Any free trade agreement is not going to be as straight forward as everyone thinks. THe EU mainly makes trade agreements that benefits and protects its own interests.
NAFTA hasn't been so great for Mexico, manafacturing wages have plummeted since they joined and 1.3 million farm jobs have been lost since they joined due to subsidised american imports
Complain about this comment
I'm watching the debate - I'm sure y'all are, too..
well..maybe not Webalice :o) :P
Complain about this comment
If Britain wants relevance in world affairs, it must remain with the EU and resolve to remain a part of the EU and consider itself a complete member. Britain on its own is no longer relevant, it must look to strengthening the EU as an economic power as well as a military one. Stop looking to the US, because the US looks after its own interests only. A powerful EU is more beneficial to a Britain standing on a past that is no longer relevant in today's world.
Complain about this comment
By the way, did everyone here get the 'news' that Greece's deficit was actually higher than the frequently quoted 12.9 percent? I actually said it was a couple of blogs ago, and once more I am proven to be right. The latest figure is 13.6 percent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/marketforceslive/2010/apr/22/greece-deficit-eurostat-ftse
So my fellow taxpayers from Netherlands, and also those from Germany, be ready to pay even more. And no, Greece won't be the only one requiring 'loans' either.
I've always dreamed of such 'benefits', to be allowed to pay for other countries deficits too (note: sarcasm).
This is an issue (EU, Eurozone) which should be the #1 and #2 issues in the UK election campaign, but because of the everlasting denial of the politicians and helped in their coverup (coverup of how the undemocratic EU has huge control over national and local policy) by the press, it is not an issue at all.
Complain about this comment
#53 - mvr512
"I am getting tired of seeing the pro-EU (ie anti-democracy) crowd - "
You see you just can't resist it can you? You post a long and determined rebuttal - not entirely well argued but credible enough - for your EU sceptic position but proceed to shoot yourself clean through the foot in the first sentence.
The phrase "the pro-EU (ie anti-democracy) crowd" is a gratuitous and calculated insult to those with whom you disagree and, while I am happy to debate with opponents, I am damned if I will indulge in a street brawl with those who resort to abuse.
Complain about this comment
To mvr512 (57):
Increase of Greece's budget deficit related to the GDP of Greece is to be expected as decreasing government expenditure cuts down gross production. The question that you want to ask is the total amount of money needed to run the state decreasing or not, and if it is, then at what point it will start to decrease budget deficit in relation to the GDP.
In my own opinion, what we will be seeing in Greece in following years is creative destruction where the state is withdrawing from the economy as an actor and organizer of production, this withdrawal will free up resources and allow better organization of production do to individual actors taking the place of state. Of course I should note, not in all places and situation government withdrawal is a good thing, but in case where the government just is inefficient and wasteful, a withdrawal is in order.
In the case of taxpayers of other EU countries loaning money to Greece, while that brings costs, then it is only a fraction of all benefits that having lowered transaction costs and removal of currency risk in intra-trade has brought up.
By the way, you might want to see on how much power Bank of England has on you. While you complain on European taxpayers having costs due to problems in Greece, you totally forget that BoE with its quantitative easing is transferring huge sums of money from savers and holders of money to the state. You don't complain about it because value of money that disappears in time with increased inflation is something that you nor many other notice, or if you notice you just complain in general, not blame the state and the BoE on being irresponsible.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown all the way for me--but then Im from Obama Nation. And he is most Atlanticist--he says:)
But UK should feel great about a 3 way race ..unheard of ...for at least me:)
Complain about this comment
And just because G. Brown lacks the superficial good looks and charisma of other two, actually makes him more real and better intellectually, most likely. David Cameron is Bush (lite?).... less mean than Bush but mean in the "cheap" way maybe towards ..the people?
No offense, continue your discussion you UK'ers and Europeans.
Complain about this comment
I'm just wondering why nobody here has yet commented on the fact that the flagship of European federalism, Belgium, is once again proving that federalism is a doomed doctrine. Once again the government is almost certain to resign over the usual Flemish age old desire for vengeance over imagined events that occurred over a century ago, bulls**t. I would have thought that even an intellectual midget would have realised by now that the concept of a political federal EU was a non starter. Hopefully in the UK elections and the possible Belgium election there is a new political party, the Icelandic Volcanic Party, as so far in one week they have done more to resolve current problems like immigration, climate change, etc that ever McClown or the EU elite have done in donkey years.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (59) said to mvr512 "By the way, you might want to see on how much power Bank of England has on you..."
I realise you euro nationaists have difficulty following the discussion, but given that Marcel (mvr512) said he is Dutch several times in the post that you replied to, why do you think the Bank of England has so much power over him?
threnodio (58): i wish i could say 'welcome back'. But given that your post 58 is a typical reminder of the pointless disengenious guff we are so used to from you it would not be very honest of me to say that. Is that really the best response to Marcel's rather good post (53) that you are capable of?
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn John (63):
You do understand that some of us have to work and can't afford to read all day around conversations in the Internet. Regardless, BoE and the Fed are both examples on what happens when you don't have a system like Euro. The design is different. For mvr512, as a Dutch and a user of Euro, he should be grateful for the Euro system.
Complain about this comment
I have to tell you, Mr Freeborn that was quite the rude statement to Threnodio..just because you are politically opposed. Are you a zealot?
Mr Basic Good Manners
Complain about this comment
#53 mvr512
I read your long contribution with interest and of course agree with many of your conclusions concerning democracy. To be sure the most democracy possible is desired, but whether all Europeans should the reject the undemocratic direction of the EU outright, is open to question. For many of the voting population in different countries (eg. Greece) many honorable democratically MP´s have no intention of serving the voting public.
Representatives from different countries unfortunately have different allegiance to their respective voting public.
As in America the ´lobbyists´ often have more power to affect political decisions than the the voters themselves.
It appears you have forgotten this important point.
Different European voting publics have different ´Loaded dice´ against them before they go into the polling- booth depending on their history.
Your 70 year old German example is only useful if it is used to question the political structure of not only the EU but also all EU ´Democracies´.
By swallowing hook, line, and sinker official histories of why your own (say UK) democracy is better for your population than the undemocratic EU is not that simple when your MP´s swear allegiance to a Royal Authority.
The very low living standard of the UK compared to many other parts of Europe will never be able to be blamed on an undemocratic EU, only on your political system before entry.
Complain about this comment
""UKIP offers the only alterative for Britain to "Death by Europe"
UKIP are a one-trick-pony party who cannot run a country. Ever."
Likely true and all the more pitiful it makes Britain. They should hang a sign at the point of entry into the country at Heathrow saying "all ye who enter here abandon hope." Maybe they should change the name from "Heathrow" to "Euro-Deathrow."
Complain about this comment
Gheryando, I was only interested because Clegg's great grandad made quite a career; head of law department of the Senate.
Senate was, how to say, government.
Tsar in the Winter Palace, Senate, Sacred Synod (church), Admiralty and General Staff HQ - all buildings 100 metres away from each other, Empire structure.
Plain pleasant to see that talents don't disappear in St. Petersburgers with generations out entirely :o))))
Otherwise we here can't tell one from another on your side blind.
Complain about this comment
mvr512, re your post #512
"The EU...enacts stern tariffs and barriers for outside countries to trade with countries within the EU. In fact, the whole EU (in an economic sense) is built on keeping 'non-EU competition' out. If Britain were outside the EU, it would find that trading with the rest of the world suddenly became a lot easier..."
Yep, the ability of rest-of-world (ROW) to import into UK would become a lot easier overnight. The ability of UK to export to ROW would not (at least in the short-medium term). Anybody see what's wrong with this picture...:-)
"...First of all, how big would this influence be? No more than 12 percent I'd say..."
I'll assume that 12% figure came from you the UK population (~63million) divided by the EU pop'n (~500million). That 12% influence of UK-in-EU is still bigger than the influence of UK-outside-EU. Which will be weeny.
"...since Britain is a net contributor it is the EU who would suffer, not Britain..."
If UK left EU, the EU would care...not a jot. To be honest with you, they'd probably celebrate. It's kinda too big now for our presence/absence to make that much difference.
"...At least when outside, you wouldn't have to take into account ALL directives..."
Just some of them. Oops.
"...a politburo-esque structure known as European Commission..."
That's the one with one member appointed by each member state, which has to be approved en masse by the European Parliament, and which can be fired en masse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission ). Some Politburo.
"...And parliamentary control/democratic control over the European Commission is all but impossible..."
The European Parliament can hire it and fire it.
"...Never mind that companies throughout EU member states are increasingly burdened with EU red tape, or that more and more industry is packing up and leaving for China/India etc..."
Er, I think that's because you can employ a hundred skilled workers in China/India for a bag of rice, or three unskilled child workers for a cup of warm gravel. Company relocation won't leave UK slower if we leave the EU, they'll leave faster. We'll *need* that extra terminal at Heathrow to cope with the exodus.
"...Its a popular argument made by France..."
Although I am sympathetic to the view that if the French political elite think something then it's probably wrong, they do appear to be correct in this case.
"...France is a net recipient when it comes to the CAP..."
And a net contributor in total. It puts in more than it takes out.
"...there is little the EU could do to a country outside it in order to put up illegal barriers..." and "...The EU...enacts stern tariffs and barriers for outside countries to trade with countries within the EU..."
You do realise those points contradict each other?
"...And notice how the 'without EU millions of jobs would be destroyed' argument keeps popping up?..."
It keeps popping up because it's true, at least in the medium term.
"...there's no benefit the EU brings to the table that couldn't also be achieved with intergovernmental cooperation..."
There's no benefit the EU brings to the table that couldn't be achieved without world peace, the personal intervention of Harry Potter, and me winning the lottery three times running. You'd have to have separate intergovernmental cooperation with 27 separate governments in 27 separate capitals, all of whom will be singing from the same EU songsheet and will tell you exactly the same thing.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
mvr512, re: your post #57
"...in their coverup...by the [UK] press..."
So that's a coverup involving the Telegraph (daily and Sunday), Financial Times, Times (daily and Sunday), Guardian, Independent (daily and Sunday), Morning Star, Mail (daily and Sunday), Express (daily and Sunday), Mirror (daily and Sunday), People, Sun, News of the World...
Or maybe you were referring to periodicals. In which case that's a conspiracy involving the Big Issue, the Economist, the FT Magazine, the London Review of Books, the TLS, the New Statesman, the Oldie, Private Eye, the Spectator, the New Statesman...
Or maybe you were referring to broadcast media. In which case that's a conspiracy involving the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, Sky, S4C, FX, Bravo, Paramount, those channels that spend all day showing makeovers, the one that keeps repeating "Jerry Springer", the music channels, the nutty ones with documentaries about Hitler, the really weird ones with about three viewers, the Comedy Channel, the Discovery Channel, and Dave...
In short, that's a conspiracy involving everybody who's ever written for a newspaper or read one, everybody who's written for a TV show or watched one, you, me, everybody you've ever met, everybody you ever will meet, and Jeremy Clarkson.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
acorn for a brain;
They're playing your song;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI
Complain about this comment
#27 Mathew-Daniel
The EU is not democratic , Really does not have a global voice , Is not enjoying prosperity and the rest of your case for the EU Britain doesn't want and can do for itself . Being a member of the EU is very expensive , more so than justified .
I think the best hope for Britain is that the EU fall apart by itself . The Financial strife in Greece ( Italy , Spain , portugal and Ireland ), could be the beginning of the end .
Complain about this comment
#31 Philip
Perhaps you could list Britain's benefits from membership of the EU .
Frankly , most British people don't see them .
Britain generally trades at a deficit with Europe and profitably with the rest of the world .
Complain about this comment
#32 politicsisapassion
I heartily agree with all you said !!! If you exhume Ted Heath and hang him , I would happily contribute the drawing and quatering .
Complain about this comment
#35 LogicalThinking
Never mind the logical , try a little thinking .
Complain about this comment
I agree with Huaimek in that the EU should devolve back to before the Euro...what is this thingy accomplishing, higher wages? less unemployment?
Or just a possible rivalry with the dollar? Yup, that was its French Glorious Hope.
How impressive, Les Francais, what you accomplish when you put your mind together...the collapse of Greece and the alienation of member states like the UK. Germany gets the admiration and pity of billions of people for its martyr status on behalf of France...yuk.
Yes the EU should go back to the Common Market. Because otherwise its just one big piece of failure....Congrats France and Germany....you have officially ruined Europe.:)
Complain about this comment
#s69-70 viewcode
Britain generally imports more from EU countries than she exports .
So the EU would pay the tariffs .
Britains profitable trade is with the rest of the world .
You voice a good propaganda for EU membership , but your arguments don't hold water .
Complain about this comment
It's too late for the UK being a full member of the EU. You had your chance in 1939 when Hitler was trying to unite Europe, but no, you had to resist his progressive ideas, simply so you could go on selling your shabby goods to your captive colonial serfs, whilst purloining their assets and resources.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#67
There are a dozen or more parties which returned MPs to Westminster in 2005, and several independents. Our third-party gained 62 out of 650 seats. I dont believe there are any 3rd-party or independents in the House of Representatives and only 2 independents in the Senate. You have a two-party closed shop that cannot and does not represent the breadth of opinion in the US and makes the votes of 25% of your population irrelevant. And you call us "pitiful".
UKIP has 550 candidates contesting seats this time around from a standing start in 1994. They wont get in, they may not even get any MPs, but thats because they wont get enough people voting for them. In the US, a UKIP type party rising from obscurity to at least having a real role to play in the debate simply couldnt happen. Thanks, but your can keep your "true democracy".
Complain about this comment
#71 MarcusAurellius
Sorry, but I never click such links. One never knows if the settler Adolphii Fascitii virus is behind them.
My theme song is at present ´Democracy ´ by our friend Leonard Cohen.
Still, your kind thoughts are appreciated and will be returned.
Complain about this comment
62. Buzet23 wrote: I'm just wondering why nobody here has yet commented on the fact that the flagship of European federalism, Belgium, is once again proving that federalism is a doomed doctrine.
Belgium (much like Iraq and several countries in Africa) is a country but not a nation. It was artificially created between 1815 and 1830. Slightly more than half the country is dutch speaking like myself (I am from the Netherlands) and the other half speaks french. The french elite in Belgium repressed the Flanders region for the better part of a century and a half, and now the Flemish are trying to undo the last remnants of this repression. Part of the problem is that Wallonia has rigged the electoral system in its favor by having one huge constituency in the middle (Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde) in which the Walloons slightly outnumber the Flemish and thus has control over a part of the Flanders region which the Flemish do not like.
And like France in the EU, once the Walloons have an advantage in Belgium, they do not want to give it up. And this argument has been going on for a few decades now with both sides digging in and demanding the other side concede. Belgium is the best example of why top-down imposed federalism is a bad idea, especially when the people in said federation are not a nation (a nation being a separate identity as to a country).
64.Jukka Rohila wrote:
The design is different. For mvr512, as a Dutch and a user of Euro, he should be grateful for the Euro system.
I should be grateful for a currency that has clearly had a depressing effect on wages and an upwards effect on prices? And back when the exchange rate was made my country Netherlands had the most disadvantageous exchange rate? An exchange rate that effectively wiped out 10% of my personal 'wealth'. I should have used the 'grateful' argument as another separate one but probably it can be placed under 'elitist'.
Seems I am a stupid yokel who just doesn't see how 'beneficial' the EU/Euro is to me despite its depressing effect on my and the wages of everyone I know. You see, the middle classes and lower (when concerning income) have not benefitted at all, only big business and politicians profit.
And yes I know that 'my' politicians agreed to it, but the people at large here did not. And now the people are no longer enthusiastic about federalism and the politicians wonder why. Now we have to bail out Greece and probably one or two others, which will lead to higher rates on our own bonds and we should be grateful for that? No I think not. As I mentioned before, I do not personally know anyone that is enthusiastic anymore about the Eurozone, apart from a few politicians that is. I want my money back.
69.viewcode wrote: If UK left EU, the EU would care...not a jot. To be honest with you, they'd probably celebrate. It's kinda too big now for our presence/absence to make that much difference.
They might pretend not to care, but no way they want to lose UK net contribution. The French would have to cough up more money and boy do they not like that. Or they'll have to play the extortion/war guilt card with Germany again, and Germany has clearly indicated it isn't impressed by that anymore.
The European Parliament can hire it and fire it [commission].
It most certainly cannot hire it since the politburo/commission kommissars are appointed outside the socalled EP. They are allowed a one time spit/swallow nuclear option. But with the alternative being 'no commission' they will eventually always 'swallow'. Of course, occasionally the faux-parliament is allowed to grandstand so the pretense of 'democracy' can be kept up.
Who ever heard of a parliament without legislative initiative?69. At 01:32am on 23 Apr 2010, viewcode wrote:
mvr512, re your post #512
"The EU...enacts stern tariffs and barriers for outside countries to trade with countries within the EU. In fact, the whole EU (in an economic sense) is built on keeping 'non-EU competition' out. If Britain were outside the EU, it would find that trading with the rest of the world suddenly became a lot easier..."
Yep, the ability of rest-of-world (ROW) to import into UK would become a lot easier overnight. The ability of UK to export to ROW would not (at least in the short-medium term). Anybody see what's wrong with this picture...:-)
"...First of all, how big would this influence be? No more than 12 percent I'd say..."
I'll assume that 12% figure came from you the UK population (~63million) divided by the EU pop'n (~500million). That 12% influence of UK-in-EU is still bigger than the influence of UK-outside-EU. Which will be weeny.
"...since Britain is a net contributor it is the EU who would suffer, not Britain..."
If UK left EU, the EU would care...not a jot. To be honest with you, they'd probably celebrate. It's kinda too big now for our presence/absence to make that much difference.
"...At least when outside, you wouldn't have to take into account ALL directives..."
Just some of them. Oops.
"...a politburo-esque structure known as European Commission..."
That's the one with one member appointed by each member state, which has to be approved en masse by the European Parliament, and which can be fired en masse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission ). Some Politburo.
"...And parliamentary control/democratic control over the European Commission is all but impossible..."
The European Parliament can hire it and fire it.
"...Never mind that companies throughout EU member states are increasingly burdened with EU red tape, or that more and more industry is packing up and leaving for China/India etc..."
Er, I think that's because you can employ a hundred skilled workers in China/India for a bag of rice, or three unskilled child workers for a cup of warm gravel. Company relocation won't leave UK slower if we leave the EU, they'll leave faster. We'll *need* that extra terminal at Heathrow to cope with the exodus.
"...Its a popular argument made by France..."
Although I am sympathetic to the view that if the French political elite think something then it's probably wrong, they do appear to be correct in this case.
"...France is a net recipient when it comes to the CAP..."
And a net contributor in total. It puts in more than it takes out.
"...there is little the EU could do to a country outside it in order to put up illegal barriers..." and "...The EU...enacts stern tariffs and barriers for outside countries to trade with countries within the EU..."
You do realise those points contradict each other?
"...And notice how the 'without EU millions of jobs would be destroyed' argument keeps popping up?..."
It keeps popping up because it's true, at least in the medium term.
"...there's no benefit the EU brings to the table that couldn't also be achieved with intergovernmental cooperation..."
There's no benefit the EU brings to the table that couldn't be achieved without world peace, the personal intervention of Harry Potter, and me winning the lottery three times running. You'd have to have separate intergovernmental cooperation with 27 separate governments in 27 separate capitals, all of whom will be singing from the same EU songsheet and will tell you exactly the same thing.
A real parliament it is not. Nor is it democratic. Elections do not make it democratic.
And a net contributor in total. It puts in more than it takes out.
It [France] is not nearly as big a contributor as it should be. And besides, the CAP was designed to shield French farmers from African competition, and to force other countries to buy French agricultural products as those from ROW (rest of world) are made more expensive by the EU trade barriers/tariffs. I strongly suspect racist reasons behind it, the French have always looked down on Africans.
It keeps popping up because it's true, at least in the medium term.
It [job loss if exit from EU] isn't true at all. Trade existed before the EU and trade will exist if [hopefully: when] the EU is disbanded. Nothing of the kind will happen. And besides, France and Germany do not want to lose the British market.
And in the end, all the arguments can be boiled down to just one. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic and deliberately so. It was designed so politicians could increasingly bypass national parliaments. National government ministers effectively usurped legislative powers from their national parliament through the European Council which together with Commission/Politburo can overrule national parliaments when it comes to legislation.
Because 20 bank robbers outvoting 7 bank clerks is not democracy. Twenty-six of your neighbours voting that you have to give them money is not democracy. Democracy takes place there where the demos is, and that is not on the European/EU level.
Care for a few referendums on the 'federal' option?
Complain about this comment
Huaimek, re your post #77.
You said "...Britain generally imports more from EU countries than she exports. So the EU would pay the tariffs..."
Oh heck, do you genuinely think that's true...OK, talking you thru it step-by-step. This bit involves maths (for which I apologise), but you need to see where you went wrong.
The science bit
* UK imports 20 wibbles from EU at 100EURO each, and exports 10 macguffins to EU at 100EURO each.
* UK pays 2000EURO for its 20 wibbles and gets 1000EURO for its 10 macguffins.
* UK leaves EU
* EU slaps 10% tariff on macguffins
* UK imports 20 wibbles from EU at 110EURO each, and exports 10 macguffins to EU at 10EURO each.
* But now UK pays 2200EURO for its 20 wibbles and still only gets 1000EURO for its 10 macguffins.
* So UK now reduces its consumption of wibbles to 18.18 wibbles. The EU sells the remaining 1.82 wibbles to somebody else.
* And now UK imports 18.18 wibbles from EU at 110EURO each, and exports 10 macguffins to EU at 10EURO each.
Result?
* When UK was in EU, it got 20 scrumptious wibbles and sent 10 tasty macguffins.
* When UK leaves EU, it gets less wibbles but still sends the same macguffins.
* The UK ends up with less stuff, the EU still gets the same stuff, the cost of the trade deficit is still the same, and somewhere there's 0.82 of a wibble shouting "Hey! You cut my leg off to make the argument add up!".
In case that's too math-y (that's not a criticism of you, that's an observation that math-based argument is a turn-off in general), the non-science bit is below
The non-science bit
The EU does not impose tariffs on the stuff it exports, it imposes them on the stuff it imports. Your statement that "...Britain generally imports more from EU countries than she exports. So the EU would pay the tariffs..." is exactly wrong.[1]
Regards, viewcode
[1]. There is an wider argument here that trade restrictions ultimately hurt both parties. But neverthless, the UK would still end up forking over the cash, not the EU.
Complain about this comment
Huaimek, re your post #77 and my reply.
I've just quickly checked my math and I think I got it badly wrong...ouch! My bad. Please ignore my reply.
Apologies, viewcode
Complain about this comment
Huaimek, re your post #77 and my reply.
I'm looking again at the post I posted and I still think I got it wrong. So please ignore my post twice. And scrub it from your retinas too. Then jump up-and-down on it. And burn it. Poo, I hate getting the maths wrong...:-)
Major apols, viewcode
Complain about this comment
acorn for a brain, it wasn't really meant for you anyway, it was about you :-) Youtube doesn't have viruses. None that I've heard of.
Complain about this comment
mvr512, re your post#82
You wrote "...They might pretend not to care, but no way they want to lose UK net contribution..."
True: it's a non-trivial sum. But they won't commit ceremonial hari-kiri, they won't rend their clothing, they won't run screaming down the street screaming "THE END COMETH!". They'll hold some worried meetings, they'll furrow some brows, they'll hold a sombre press conference in which they'll use the phrase "regret the loss of our dear, dear British friends". And then they'll import Iceland, Croatia, etc and get on with their lives. And possibly have a little party to celebrate. There'll be cake. It'll be left to the UK to clean up the mess.
You wrote "...It most certainly cannot hire it since the politburo/commission kommissars are appointed outside the socalled EP..."
And then accepted/rejected by the European Parliament before they take up their posts.
You wrote "...They are allowed a one time spit/swallow nuclear option. But with the alternative being 'no commission' they will eventually always 'swallow'..."
Working from memory, they've spat several times now.
You wrote "...Who ever heard of a parliament without legislative initiative..."
Technically all of them, since the majority of legislative initiative lies with the executive and the legislatures mostly amend/reject legislation proposed by the executive. From memory, most legislation is initiated by the executive and less legislation is initiated by individuals on the floor of the legislature. But I will concede the point that a parliament with zero legislative initiative is unusual (tho' not unique).
You wrote "...It [job loss if exit from EU] isn't true at all. Trade existed before the EU and trade will exist if [hopefully: when] the EU is disbanded. Nothing of the kind will happen. And besides, France and Germany do not want to lose the British market..."
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think UK leaving EU will result in dislocation and companies relocating to US/EU/ROW en masse. It won't be lethal, but it'd take 5-10 years to recover to pre-leaving levels. As several posters on this board have pointed out, it might be worth the price. But it's not a cost-free exercise and I wouldn't like to be in the country when it happens.
You wrote "...Care for a few referendums on the 'federal' option?..."
Yes. What makes you think I wouldn't?
You wrote "...And in the end, all the arguments can be boiled down to just one. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic and deliberately so..."
I actually agree that the EU is deliberately a democracy of states, rather than a democracy of people. It's an emergent property of medium-sized countries trying to compete in a world dominated by continent-class countries - the demos in question is 27 heads of government, not 500 million people - and that the resultant popular democratic deficit is undesirable (to put it mildly).
And if you had restricted yourself to that argument I might have agreed with you.
But you insisted that leaving the EU would be a cost-free exercise (it won't be), that the French put less in than they take out (they don't), that the EU somehow prevents us exporting to the rest of the world (it doesn't), that the European Parliament is toothless (it isn't) and undemocratic (it isn't) and employed at least one logical contradiction in your argument. Hence the reply.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
#84 and 85 viewcode
Its OK , No hard feelings ! I was about to write , " What are you on about "?
I haven't seen Britain's over all trade figures in a year or two . I was surprised a few years ago when Britain traded profitably with the EU for the first time in about 2002? I believe about 60% of Britains trade is with the EU countries , but more imports than exports . The other approximate 40% with the rest of the world is where Britain profits .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Huaimek, re your post #88
Thank you, and thanks for the info.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
89. quietoaktree wrote:
Is this mvr512 related to you ?
I thought your prejudices were under copyright.
So, being against undemocratic EU is 'prejudice'?
In the spirit of your remark I ask you: why are you opposed to democracy?
Complain about this comment
87. viewcode wrote: I actually agree that the EU is deliberately a democracy of states, rather than a democracy of people.
Democracy involves people, and a bunch of countries voting does not constitute democracy in any way.
But you insisted ...that the French put less in than they take out
No, I pointed out the French put in less than they ought to, considering France's relative size and prosperity.
...that the European Parliament is toothless (it isn't)
It IS toothless. And it isn't even a real parliament. There is no proportional representation in any sense of the word, no legislative initiative, it doesn't control expenditure etc...etc...
...and undemocratic (it isn't)
It [EU] couldn't be more undemocratic if it tried. National parliaments is where democracy and sovereignty are, and if those powers are transferred away to a faux-parliament and a bunch of appointed politickers in some sort of politburo-lite, then that isn't an improvement in democracy in any way. How exactly does one roll back a directive that isn't good for your country? Answer: impossible because of the undemocratic construction. 100% of people and politicians of a country could be against a directive, yet still have it imposed on them, that isn't democratic. If you lived in a street with 27 houses, and the other 26 voted that you should give them money, would you honor their 'democratic' vote? Of course not, because they (the other 26) are not a demos.
Oh, and how exactly does parliamentary/democratic scrutiny on the EU politburo/commission work? Apart from that it isn't possible?
Interestingly, with haiku Herman about, clown Barroso has hardly been heard from this year. And I do miss the fragrant Margot and her feminist rants on her blog. It was always fun to read how she would explain that having a meaningless 'petition right' or whatever it was called was somehow a great advance in democracy.
As a voter I want direct influence on the laws politicians make, as in I vote for politician, politician makes law. I don't want extra steps added in the process such as 'politician appoints other politician' and 'powers are handed over to unaccountable politicians' and 'national parliament cannot block EU directives that are unbeneficial for my country'.
I short: I want my national democracy back. We do not need Greek, Portuguese, Latvian, Austrian or Irish politicians to vote on what the laws should be over here.
Complain about this comment
6 months ago I betted on euro reaching 1:1 parity with US$.
I don't think I've made a bad decision.
Complain about this comment
mvr512, re your post#92
Regarding my contention that the French put in more than they take out, you said "...No, I pointed out the French put in less than they ought to, considering France's relative size and prosperity..."
So you concede that the French do put in more than they take out?
You then wrote "...It IS toothless. And it isn't even a real parliament. There is no proportional representation in any sense of the word, no legislative initiative, it doesn't control expenditure..."
It can approve a Commission, sack a Commission, approve the EU budget (although that's not quite what you meant), is elected *entirely* under proportional representation, and can amend/reject legislation issued from the Commission.
You then wrote "...It [EU] couldn't be more undemocratic if it tried..."
We have already agreed that the EU is not popularly democratic. However, I was referring to the European Parliament. See above.
You then wrote "...Oh, and how exactly does parliamentary/democratic scrutiny on the EU politburo/commission work? Apart from that it isn't possible?..."
It can approve a Commission, sack a Commission...but I've already told you this. In more detail, it examines proposed legislation, changes it if it doesn't like it and, (if the European Council or European Commission doesn't like the changes), can reject it entirely and prevent it becoming law.
You then wrote "...I short: I want my national democracy back..."
Then go get it - there's an approaching election, I believe. I'm hardly stopping you nor would I wish to do so.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
#91 mvr512
Being one of the few you have not answered (#66) I feel discriminated against.
You still have not read it.
My contribution (#89 ?) still stands, but on the next blog.
I am sure you will agree that pragmatism is required when voters are requested to uphold their present local undemocratic system Vs. another undemocratic larger system that has given a large part of Europe a far higher living standard.
This is not all black or white which you are continually claiming.
Complain about this comment
Britain could learn from southern European countries like Italy .
Blocking EU directives is not the way , you simply turn a blind eye to enforcing them . Britain makes the mistake of enforcing all the directives , however stupid or unpopular . Italians at every level don't worry about breaking the law or deliberately ignoring laws the don't like .
Complain about this comment
Great Britain would do much better if at least one of the candidates would only offer a way out of the insidious carnage in the Middle East.And Great Britain would do a lot better as a peacemaker than to go along with the United States in this worthless venture that we're currently undertaking over there.Has moral principles really become a thing of the past? I sincerely hope not.
Complain about this comment
Jagun wrote:
"If Britain wants relevance in world affairs, it must remain with the EU and resolve to remain a part of the EU and consider itself a complete member. Britain on its own is no longer relevant, it must look to strengthening the EU as an economic power as well as a military one. Stop looking to the US, because the US looks after its own interests only."
As opposed to the EU looking "after its own interests only?"
"A powerful EU is more beneficial to a Britain standing on a past that is no longer relevant in today's world."
The EU and what it hopes to achieve IS based on the "past." It's superior, condescending and arrogant attitude, along with all the other Europhiles that support it, is based on the "past" accomplishments of countries that is now wishes to hoodwink and force into a union to satisfy a hunger and thirst for power that can not be achieved otherwise.
Complain about this comment
What everyone in the UK has to realise is that Mr Hewitt's "..important decisions.." "..just down the road.." on "..immigration, policing and justice.." are GOING TO BE MADE IN BRUSSELS, not in the UK.
NONE of those 3 crucial areas of Policy-making are now the remit of UK Government (& I note with considerable annoyance but no surprise at all that the BBC EUropean Editor FAILED entirely to make that clear BEFORE closing his Article!?).
The Lisbon Treaty removed the Right & Responsibility of an Elected UK Government to take the final decision on any Immigration, Police & Judiciary matter.
I.e. Whatever policy is in the Manifesto of any of the UK Political Parties on those 3 issues along with the others already LOST to Brussels they are NOT realistic: Brussels is now the final arbiter of what will or will not be permitted within the framework of EUropean Law/Regulation - - that was the whole purpose of the Lisbon Treaty - - a practical purpose & subjugation of the UK Constitutional powers (& every other EU Member State) the BBC significantly FAILED to point out at any stage of the debate over the last "..8 years.." of "..negotiations.." over the content & ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
It does NOT matter a jot which Political Party UK Citizens Vote for in a couple of weeks: The Powers & Authority that will decide UK Policy now lay in BRUSSELS.
Complain about this comment
H;
"Britain could learn from southern European countries like Italy ."
Brits could certainly learn a lot from them about cooking. Cooking pasta, cooking lamb, cooking the books.
Acorn Brain;
"#91 mvr512
Being one of the few you have not answered (#66) I feel discriminated against."
Why don't you go grow a mighty shade tree. That should keep you busy for about the next fifty or sixty years.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS