UK nominee's big day
I am looking forward to hearing Cathy Ashton's (we don't call her baroness, in Brussels, evidently) grilling tonight. UKIP's Nigel Farage is one of the MEPs who will question her on her fitness to become the European commissioner for trade.
He is always pugnacious and crisp, which explains why he gets broadcast more than some other European politicians would like. But I'm told he won't be going for the cheap gag tonight but a key, serious question: Is she big enough for a big job ?
Britain and the other 26 EU countries don't, strictly speaking, have a trade policy. They have decided to have a single EU policy, which makes this trading bloc far and away the biggest in the world. One billion euros trade with the US alone: every single day. And of course we are in challenging times, with the financial crisis and the collapse of world trade talks in the summer. Gordon Brown and the G8 say it's more important than ever to get the trade talks going. He has entrusted his former leader of the Lords with that job.
Had he made her say foreign secretary or home secretary, eyebrows would have been raised. But the commission is often seen by cynical British eyes as a dead-end sinecure for failed politicians. She is of course unelected: but so are Condoleezza Rice and Hank Paulson, not to mention many in the French cabinet. It is not that unusual. But does she have the punch, the weight, the experience to do this job?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
i Dont expect her to do well that way i can be disappointed.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I hope that the she gets the job! But with Nigel Farrage's techniques---she will have a long road to climb.
Complain about this comment
Why are only british people being considered for such an important role?
26 countries, and nationality is the primary qualification for the post?
But europe don't do merit do they.
Complain about this comment
3/trt:
In THIS European Commission (which still has another year to run, since Mandelson quit early to go back to UK politics), the Trade job is the UK's. Next year, when the reshuffle is negotiated, that may well change.
Complain about this comment
Great another career politician rather than someone with real world experience...
Complain about this comment
It says something about Gordon Brown's view of the world that he yanked Mandelson from this responsible post to deal with some backwater off Europe's northwestern shore.
Complain about this comment
the-real-truth @ #3
Your comment exposes a rather obvious flaw in your knowledge of how the EU Commission is structured, composed and populated.
There are 27 EU Member States and, lo and behold, there are 27 EU Commissioners - one EU Commissioner appointed by each EU Member State.
The fact that it is a British person being appointed to the role of EU Commissioner by Gordon Brown is because Cathy Ashton is replacing Peter Mandelson and it is simply because it iis the UK's EU Commissioner post for which the UK currently has a vacancy and a right to appoint someone.
I suppose it is within Gordon Brown's remit to appoint someone from the Planet Zog should he so wish - for all the democratic say that the British have in the matter of who is nominated as the UK EU Commissioner by the UK Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
#4 SBReboot
That explains the rules, but the rules don't really answer the question -- Why doesn't europe care whether it gets the best person for the job or not?
Complain about this comment
vagueofgodalming @ #6
If Brown had forseen the financial problems for that well known high street freezer goods store chain even further off the north-western shore of mainland Europe, I think Brown might have donated them Mandelson - we all know how good Mandelson is with financial wizardry and "hocus-pocus."
I still believe that Brown and Sarkosy have engineered Mandelson's removal for the role of UK EU Commissioner and that the UK Cabinet role is just a sop and the peerage the inducement!
Complain about this comment
It is certainly not a very democratic system, or very meritocratic. It is meant to give representation to all member states, big or small. Imagine what the British reaction would be if selection were on merit from candidates from all EU memeber states and not one British applicant were thought worthy of any of the commission posts. What price merit then?
Complain about this comment
jovialDavid @ #10
Oooops! Was the UK Prime Minister supposed to put forward people on merit?
I always thought the UK Prime Ministers were supposed to make the choice UK EU Commissioner simply through cronyism!
Complain about this comment
The only reason that Baroness Ashton has been chosen is that as a member of the Lords she does not have to resigns a seat in the Commons to take up the Brussels job. Had Gordon Brown nominated anyone else (e.g. Geoff Hoon) there would have been an embarrassing by-election and the probability of another cut in the Labour majority.
The role of Trade Commissioner is undoubtedly a big job, but one has to ask what could be achieved in this job in the next year. Mandelson’s supposed talents proved insufficient to achieve anything of substance in 3+ years because he was hamstrung by the EU agricultural protection lobby, but the prospects of success are now very much worse. The WTO Doha trade round is stalled. Susan Schwab, the US trade representative, will almost certainly be departing and the new US administration is likely to be more inclined to protectionism than the last. Pascal Lamy may be stepping down as head of the WTO. There are plenty of people saying that multilateral trade deals are too difficult to negotiate now and that it may be more pragmatic to cut a myriad of bilateral deals instead, so the entire approach to trade could be up for re-consideration. It seems unlikely that the EU Trade Commissioner would be able to achieve anything of note in the remaining year of its term. Therefore discussing this topic seems a distraction (as so often with Mark Mardell’s blog topics of late) from more significant EU issues for the year ahead, such as the plans to bypass the recent Irish referendum result and enact Lisbon anyway.
Complain about this comment
Since when did competence matter in the EU Commission??
Complain about this comment
I think you are all being very cynical and uncharitable. This is a daring new experiment and a bold appointment. The Prime Minister has demonstrated the possibility of dragging someone doing nothing in particular back from Brussels, booting them upstairs to the Lords and giving him a cabinet post. However, taking someone doing nothing in particular in the cabinet and the Lords and sending them off to Brussels is a radical departure Full marks for originality if nothing else.
Complain about this comment
After the appointment of the heavyweight Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, nothing surprises me...
Obviously Nu Labour politics demanded the recall of Lord (Blimey!) Mandelson - and this, of course, trumps any other considerations such as experience and suitability to the post.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ #12
I think you are right on several levels.
The problem is that barely a short while on from Mandelson's surprise withdrawal from post Brown's poll rating has improved, the gap between Labour and Conservative ratings has narrowed to single figures and there is every chance that Labour is going to borrow to spend itself into public popularity . . . . really old-fashioned Harold Wilson socialism. If we see Brown smoking a pipe and wearing a Gannex Mac we're doomed!
The one thing I would disagree with you about is the importance of Lisbon Treaty and the 2nd Irish Referendum (which we will no doubt discuss umpteen times between now and then!)........
I actually think that the most important thing for Europe is how the European Banks are being slowly (and will be eventually!) nationalised.
The nationalisation of banks was the first act of the Bolsheviks when they took power in October 1917.
Are we seeing the end of Free Market Capitalism in Europe and a form of European Marxist-inspired Capitalism going to take its place where the government elite profit from the work and labour of the masses and a self-sustaining form of european-wide autocracy will develop.
Or are we already there and we, the proletariat, just do not yet know it?
There are no marks for the best comments but I think it is worth a punt!
Complain about this comment
Another soccer mom makes good. Well not quite. She doesn't have Sarah Palin's legs and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts she has never shot a moose. I don't expect to see her double on Saturday Night Live either. Ho hum, it's just a case of one more useless Eurocrat going from one Eurocracy to another.
Complain about this comment
Mark, ya dahnt nah waht you're tahking abaht, guvnor'...
She is clearly well qualified for the job as she has sat in the Lords, and therefore hasn't had to worry about being elected, and piloted the Lisbon Treaty through and thus ensured we, the plebs, didn't get a vote on it..
So far, I think she has shown that she has EXACTLY the right credentials for the role...
If she hops into bed with big business, can quaff caviar, sip champagne and blag her way onto a Russian oligarch's yacht, then I think she will be 'home and dry'..
Complain about this comment
the-real-truth #8
You are confusing Europe with the EU. Europe DOES care, well at least this European does.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (16): The airwaves are currently full of Schadenfreude from old Marxists telling us that their long-time predictions of the collapse of capitalism have been vindicated. I think it is likely that we will see some Keynesian pump-priming in the short-term, e.g. bringing forward projects that would help the construction industry, such as the building of Crossrail or new nuclear stations and winning the right to host the Olympics in 2012 now seems perfect timing. Undoubtedly we will see the piling up of public debt between now and the 2010 election, but I don’t think there is any chance that we going to see the end of free market capitalism. The part-nationalisation of the banks is not driven by any belief that Marx was right but merely by the pragmatic short-term need to ensure the banks have enough capital to shoulder the burden of bad debt that will be the consequence of the property bust. In a few years time we will see a wave of bank privatisations such that the long-term consequences of the current financial turmoil will seem rather limited. Perhaps the only enduring changes will be new rules to try to moderate future property boom and busts, or at least to prevent them taking out the banking industry.
The long-term effects of ratifying Lisbon would however endure. It would mean an acceleration of the process by which the EU institutions are pre-empting the ability of the democratic institutions we elect to shape our lives. Lisbon would mean the tide of superior EU law would rise more quickly, and in more areas, much of it imposed on us by QMV against our wishes and all of it beyond the reach of our votes in all future elections. Therefore while the financial crisis will undoubtedly have a big short-term impact it would be the ratification of the Lisbon treaty that would have the greater long-term negative consequences. 20 years from now no-one will remember that Baroness Ashton served 1-year as EU trade Commissioner; some few will remember the 2009-2010 downturn, but all voters would then be hugely frustrated that our votes had become as powerless to reform the vast range of policy areas where the EU is now acquiring power as they are today in reforming existing EU policies like the CAP.
Complain about this comment
Interesting tonight programme on now on ITV 3 looking at 'referendum' being held in Luton on U.K. leaving the E.U.
Complain about this comment
Re my post above, interesting programme, representatives from both sides of the coin ran a campaign in Luton. This was followed by a vote of 3000 people - results were
1. Should the U.K. sign the Lisbon Treaty
Yes - 27%
No 63%
Undecided 10%
2. Should the U.K. leave the E.U.
Yes 54%
No 35%
Undecided 11%
Vote re LisBon treaty did not surprise me but was surprised re leaving the E.U. At the end of the day this was only a poll but it was a fairly well informed and as the programme said should be a wake up call to the Government.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone ask if the wanted to leave Bedfordshire?
I am sorry but this is really getting a bit much. I would bet that one question that was not on the poll was 'has anyone read the Lisbon Treaty?' or 'do you know the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty?'
These are people whose main cry of protest is that the EU is unrepresentative or undemocratic and yet they are invited to participate in a quasi-democratic process which requires them to understand what they are voting for or against but nobody asks that key question.
I am not one of those pompous souls who believe that government is 'too important' to be left to the people. I have consistently argued for greater accountability and democracy in the EU. But not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can 3,000 odd people in Luton be regarded as a scientific sample or a reasonable test. Face it, this was a publicity stunt plain and simple and it takes us no further forward.
Give us facts and figures by all means. Give us opinions by all means. But do not dress the latter up as the former.
Complain about this comment
The 'new' highly skilled Baroness Ashton was on the BBC news just now in her so called 'questioning' to see whether she is skilled for her job. Maybe someone there from UKIP had read another of these threads as I pointed out recently that at least the UKIP could have tried to upset the gravy train, and low and behold there was one of the previously invisible UKIP MEP's asking a question to which they already knew the answer, was she qualified. Of course she is, but only to do nothing and slither quietly onto the EU gravy train so as to qualify for an EU severance package.
I have to say her performance impressed me, it's hard to find somebody as daft as Hoon, Darling or the other Nu-Labour wizz-kids but Ashton seems to be the biscuit, now I know why McClown has ditched her.
Complain about this comment
#16 - Menedemus
No you seeing the greedy self-serving persons of dubious parentage who ran the banks being bailed out by the only organisation that can afford it - the taxpayers (with a little bit of help from HM Treasury).
Once all that is sorted out, they will be sold banks to the greedy self-serving persons of dubious parentage who ran the banks in the first place and rampant capitalism will carry on as if nothing has happened - until next time.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
quite so, have you also noticed the recent absence of our fellow French posters who told us in the last weeks how the French banking system was so great. It would seem good old Sarko is having to bail his own clowns out as well. A mate who lives in France told me today the main savings bank has just lost 800 million euros due to very recent dodgy investments. I've not verified whether it's recent or not but if so can you imagine the stupidity of these morons after the last two weeks.
Maybe the French should reactivate the offshore forts that were used to imprison people many years back, and also for once helping the rest of the EU by opening them to bankers spelt with a w and the politicians who are supporting them.
Complain about this comment
#26 - Buzet23
Well if you are talking about Caisse d'Epargne, the thing is that was not down to the credit crunch but more 'unauthorised trading'. It's CEO has gone and it is going to have to merge with Banque Populaire.
It's a laugh a minute dahn the Borse init?!?
As I said elsewhere, with BNP Parisbas funding world tennis, ING funding formula one and Man Utd a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Treasury (AIG), I reckon it's just a matter of time before we hear cries of 'Come Back Marlboro and Benson and Hedges, all is forgiven'.
What funny times we live in!
Complain about this comment
I am reposting this because it was delayed for inspection by the moderator and seems to have been allowed just as the next Mark Mardell posting was published. I hope that is OK.
52. At 11:33pm on 19 Oct 2008, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
To those who, like me, hate and despise the "EU" and cannot wait for us to leave:
You have a right not to answer this question, but if you are prepared to answer it: How are you going to vote at the next elections to the "EU" - parliament?
I think I am going to have to vote for UKIP. I am far from being totally happy with UKIP. I wish they did not have policies on nuclear power etc. I wish they had two main policies - get us out of the "EU" and reform the useless system that got us in and has kept us in.
I cannot vote for the BNP. I haven't read their manifesto but I have heard some of their voters speak. Here a horrible example: "Jews cause all the wars in the world. They own all the armaments factories." I repeat that I consider this statement to be absurd and dangerous.
I haven't got the resources, but I would think it wonderful if somebody formed a new anti-"EU" party along the lines given above. Just being anti-Lisbon is not enough for me.
So please, if you are anti-"EU" or anti-Lisbon, let me know what you intend to do.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
23. At 11:15pm on 20 Oct 2008, threnodio wrote:
... Blahdy, blady, blah. ...
But not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can 3,000 odd people in Luton be regarded as a scientific sample or a reasonable test."
Threnodio! Do you have any qualifications in statistics? Have you studied statistics?
Complain about this comment
There are 44,180,243 registered voters in the UK. 3000 people from Luton are 0.006790365548691074 per cent of these. I don't need a honours degree in calculus to figure that out. A calculator and half a brain are just fine.
Complain about this comment
Re post 23, Threnodio your point is interesting re the voters not knowing what the Lisbon treaty was about. It was the same point the pro E.U. representative made to a group of prospective Luton voters. He explained that the Political parties should be prepared to fully debate these issues so the people can understand them. One person then asked a killer question,
'ok if we have the debate and we become better informed willyou then allow us to vote on the Lisbon treaty'
The reply was there will be no need as by then you will understand the Lisbon treaty does not move power to the E.U. Understandably he lost his audience at this point who stated that he wanted the debate but even after that would not let the people decide the issue.
One of the strongest points of the no campaign during the programme was that the ordinary person had been refused a say on the E.U for too long. That it was no longer good enough to come up with the condescending remarks that they were in effect too stupid tounderstand the complexities of the Lisbon Treaty. This hit home with the audience.
As to your point whether 3000 is significantly significant, it is larger sample size than opinion polls which predicted the result of the Irish vote on Lisbon. But this goes away from what I took from the programme. There was genuine anger shown by members of the public about the lack of consultation with them over the E.U. in general and Lisbon in particular. I have said before I do not want the U.K. to leave the E.U. But unless people get their heads out of the sand and stop living in denial about the very real feelings of distrust of the E.U. that is out there, some time down the road, this unfortunate event may occur.
It is also not just the U.K. citizens that feel this, in the last 3 referendums where people have had a say, France, Holland and Ireland, the people have said no. The message is clear for those that want to listen.
Complain about this comment
Her appointment will prove to be a total failure - its another square peg in a round hole.
Brown and Co are scraping the bottom of the barrel as they are with the cabinet, just look at the mess they have got us in!
Complain about this comment
Even before she takes up the post, She is a damned better choice than here predicessor, Mandelson is a social climber like Blair, and thats the end and be all of it all.
Complain about this comment
I watched the hearing last night and I thought she kicked a**. She was calm and unflappable, answered questions well, injected humour when faced with pointed questions and seems a great deal more suited to the job than Lord Mandelson. And I should know, I worked for him.
Complain about this comment
#7 Menedemus
You are falling into the left wing trap of not seeing past "the rules" - they weren't presented to the commission on tablets of stone were they? (maybe they think they were...).
How should it be phrased then... "The EU don't choose the best person for the job, because the rules don't let them - so thats OK"
I would be perfectly happy for the EU to be stuffed full of ineffectual no-hopers, national-rejects and placemen - if it weren't for the fact that (as a taxpayer) I pick up the bill.
Complain about this comment
#27, threnodio,
yes I was talking about the Caisse d'Epargne and its so called unauthorised trading, but whether the trading was authorised or unauthorised was not really the point. Once more traders have traded rashly and it seems that they think they're a superior species as they haven't been able to get the message of the last few weeks. I still hold a belief that eventually the world markets are going to have to close for a month or two so that these fools can be removed and the markets calmed down. It would be a lot better to do that than allow the current bob sleigh ride to continue.
As for sport being state funded now, wasn't that how communist countries always did it, since sporting success takes the minds of the suppressed population off the misery are in. Somewhat familiar these days considering the state of our pension funds.
#31 jordanbasset,
Using the people I know here in my commune in Belgium as a sample I would say that they support the Lisbon treaty because it has not been read or understood. All they've heard is the pro treaty politicians praise it's implementation, and due to that they were mostly critical of the Irish rejection. However I think that were they to understand the detail that support would drop markedly as so far there has been little debate on the issue. Most I know are more concerned with the state of the economy, rising prices and energy prices than anything else. The reluctance of the various finance ministers across the EU to drop fuel prices and their taxes is not being received very well. Most say they act immediately to raise the price but take months to reflect a drop (if at all).
As I've said before, the Lisbon treaty was not designed to be read and understood, it is a work of art to which the authors should be proud. From its array of multiple cross referencing to its legal ambiguous language, to the inclusion of updates containing yet more cross referencing, it is a masterpiece of confusion.
Complain about this comment
#31 - jordanbasset
I completely agree but there is absolutely no point in fighting for transparency and democratisation and then using that as a mechanism for leaving. It is an either-or situation. Either one wants a model democracy or one wants out. It really is that simple. Unfortunately the Luton project was not on World Service TV so I will have to take you word for it.
Complain about this comment
Re post 37, hi Threnodio, my view I think is fairly simple. I do not want to leave the E.U., I do not want a federal E.U.
I want a E.U. which allows free trade and freedom of movement. I do not want a E.U. Parliament, Commisioners or any other of the paraphanalia that has grown up with the E.U. in the last 30 years. I believe Nation states could and should organise/supervise the E.U to achieve the objectives of free trade and freedom of movement through their respective Foreign offices. I believe I am in the majority (but could be wrong!) across Europe in wanting this.
The problem I see is that myself and others like me are marginalised. The extremes of the debate keep saying it is all or nothing, I do not agree.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (38):
You are essentially suggesting that all power is transferred to the Council of Ministers.
In practice you are also suggesting that all the work done by the independent EU Commission, that proposes directives and polices their implementation, would be replaced by inter-government workgroups.
I'm sorry, but this would lead into a situation where 1) council of ministers would become even more shadowy and have less oversight, and 2) there would be no input or possibility to prevent directives being made from directly elected representatives (the European parliament) and lastly 3) as inter-government workgroups would not be independent they would effectively come places of power plays where big countries dominate and tell smaller countries to either accept or cry and accept.
Please, tell me how you can implement the current EU with out EU commission and EU parliament? And no, good will doesn't exists, what only exists is money and power.
Complain about this comment
Maybe, instead of Luton, they should have held the programme slightly further north in Iceland where enthusiasm for full EU Membership (as opposed to the current EEA trading agreement) is now particularly high. Wonder why?
Complain about this comment
#38 - jordanbasset
#39 - Jukka_Rohila
Hi. I am with J_R on this one. I do not see how you can roll back the whole project to a free trade agreement. Maybe if you scrapped the whole thing and started again but personally I don't see it.
The Common Market is dead - a relic of the 20th century. I understand that you feel marginalised but the middle way will not be found by turning back the clock. If there is to be a middle way, it will be the EU being forced to take note of the mainly common sense views of the ordinary citizens and that is not possible without representation. The only element that can provide this is Parliament.
This is why I keep harping back to the transparency and democratic accountability thing. I am sure that, if people were convinced that they had a real voice that was being heard, the rampant euroscepticism - which I actually believe is far more evident in these columns that the real world - would be much less resonant.
Complain about this comment
#40 - Iantownhill
If your agricultural economy consisted of three sheep and an abominable snowman, you'd probably fancy a bit of the CAP budget as well. You can bail out an awful lot of banks with 560 billion!
Complain about this comment
she's an awful woman. there MUST be someone else.........
Complain about this comment
Re post 39, Jukka, my whole view is that the E.U should do less, but do it better. So for example there would be no Common Agricultural Policy, no social chapter, no standardisatiuon of VAT. etc.
It's sole purpose would be to allow freedom of trade and movement of people. The ECJ would still have to exist to decide on cases of where an individual, company or country complain that such freedom has been restricted.
The test would be can country A sell its goods in Country B without restriction of trade. Can a citizen freell move and work in another country within the E.U.
If country A wants to set VAT up at 15% and country B at 5% so be it. Provoided the VAT is levelled at the same amount on each product regardles of the country it comes from it is fair. This is one example only of what I am talking about.
To answer your specific questions
1. The council of ministers would have far less to deal with than the current commisioners and E.U. Parliament. Only those issues that have unanimous approval from all countries would pass.
2. There would be very few directives, those that ther are would originate from the elected representatives of Nation states.
3. As one above, it would have to be unanimous, no QMV, so small countries would not be bullied or sidelined, unlike what happens at the moment.
The money saved would be given back to the Nation states, as would the sale of most of the building and land currently owned by the E.U. Not sure any one would want to buy one E.U. Parliament building, let alone two, but you never know.
I do appreciate what I want is not likely to happen in the near future but it may expalin why I certainly do not want any further centralisation of power in the E.U.
What I would like to see is real consultation with the peoples of Europe to see what they actually want. I strongly believe such results will be more supportive of my vision than either increasing federalisation or the break up of the E.U.
Complain about this comment
nodio @ 30
... "There are 44,180,243 registered voters in the UK. 3000 people from Luton are 0.006790365548691074 per cent of these" ...
Also, and perhaps more worryingly, they're all from Luton.
Complain about this comment
the-real-truth @ #35
You are, of course, absolutely correct but boy-oh-boy, have you got me pegged wrong for falling into left wing traps though!
An Executive Arm or Higher Authority that has become the EU Commission is a concept that has gone through 5 transitional phases since 1951.
The existence of the Commission is definitively not set in stone.
If the EU Council of Ministers wanted to change the structure, scope and functionality of the EU they could do so but as various Treaties come and go the superior powers of the Council of Ministers becomes less clear cut and the electoral mandate of the incredibly unrepresentative MEPs becomes stronger as they could argue that BECAUSE they are elected to the EU Parliament they have elected mandate that is superior to the elected mandate of national parliaments. It is arguable that the Lisbon Treaty could essentially increase the power of the EU Parliament to a point where it could countermand and potentillay overule the authority of the Council of Ministers.
Therein in lies a battle of wills of the future.
However, as to the EU Commission, it is currently 1 Commissioner per EU Nation and, regardless of competency (even if tested by EU MEPs and found satisfactory) the nomination through cronyism is a perfected art of the current and past UK Prime Ministers - especially when one sees who has been the UK's EU Commissioners in the past history o fthe UK's membership of the EEC, EC and EU!
Complain about this comment
#therenodio - if the Luton vote was some kind of unrepresentative stunt then give me stunts every time.
The 2005 UK general election came close to a stunt, it was a facade -all three main parties were afraid to mention the EU and thought that the manifesto promise of a referendum would get them out of this black hole.
Pity the poor delusional man who led the Luton 'Yes' campaign - he thinks that the more we find about the EU the more in favour we will be. The politicians and eurocrats know better than that, they prefer fudge, evasion, and regulation, regulation, regulation!
As far as Baroness Ashton is concerned, I watched her in the Lords Referendum debate and was appalled by her weak defence of the indefensible - she is obviously well suited to her new job.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (44):
Lets look at this as an cost issue...
If EU would do less, meaning less EU wide directives, it would mean increase of national laws and as there would be no EU wide directives national laws would in time start to differentiate from one another.
So where is the cost? The costs of different national legislations will be paid, mainly, by SMEs (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) that would need to increase their spending on legislative overhead. So the question is, I'm developing and producing product in country A, what laws must I obey in both product design and production, and when I sell it to country B what laws they have and does that mean any chances to my product. The thing is, every time you do something between different countries, you have to consult your lawyer. This is a real cost. The even bigger costs comes from opportunity costs when uncertainty about laws in different countries will start decrease the willingness of SMEs to make international trade.
So how is it, how are you going to make sure companies aren't going to have incur more over-head and opportunity costs?
The big problem that we have in Europe concerning global competition is not big corporations but SMEs which in reality are the backbone of our economies. They are the ones that will innovate and take risks in a big to grow into big corporations. Currently European SMEs are in disposition compared to US SMEs as the companies in US have bigger home market witch has generally the same laws for over 300 million people.
I would say that the costs of having a working federal level has lower costs than having 27 countries just co-operating. If we are going to look at this issue from an cost angle, we have to look from the system level on what the economic impacts are.
Complain about this comment
#45, sagamix,
That really does sound a bit racist to me, I don't know Luton but if the survey was say Brixton or Leicester or Bradford or even Liverpool are they still not representative of general life. Maybe you should simply accept that the people of Luton (i.e. the 3000 that took part) didn't like the document that is called the Lisbon treaty. Even some of my very much pro EU friends in Belgium are beginning to question it now they've heard a few of the pro's and con's that have surfaced after the Irish vote.
To all, Concerning baroness Ashton, it seems the prince of darkness has been meeting Russian billionaires. Repercussions, try and shift attention onto the Tory Osbourne whose met the guy only twice (it seems), once with Mandy, and get Mandy out of Brussels before the brown stuff hits the fan once more. It looks more and more that this empty headed Baroness was the perfect fall person to take the post, no longer do her fellow Lords have to listen to her words and it gets Mandy away from making yet more mistakes.
Complain about this comment
#48, Jukka_Rohila,
Sorry, but that's nice in theory but does not bear examination under the current EU direction. Small and medium sized companies are not open across the borders and never will be until that fabled myth, the EU company is finally introduced. However that is highly unlikely since the main power countries don't want to lose potential revenue from being able to milk a home registered company.
The argument about standards etc is quite frankly old and passed its sell by date. Most products are manufactured the same for all with parametrisation for the local area, a country that sets so called 'higher' standards is simply trying to protect its home market, vis a vis the German system over the years. It would be far better asking why protectionist countries still have antiquated old laws on their statute books that are anti EU than trying to introduce federalism in order to dumb down.
Complain about this comment
#47 - BackintheEUssr
You can go back a lot further than that. In fact the 1992 election was fought on the back of the ratification of Maastricht. No political party was opposed then any more than in 2005. It seems to me that this is one of those questions the political establishment is simply not willing to ask.
There are two possible reasons for this.
One is that they regard the European project as done and dusted and that the only positive way forward is to trying and influence future policy from within. The other is that they won't ask the question because they are afraid of the answer. A useful comparison here might be the restoration of capital punishment. There is a good chance that if you put that to a referendum, you would see a 'yes' vote but there isn't a snowball's hope in hell of seeing through the Commons.
So for die hard anti EU thinkers, there is only one credible option - unless you can persuade a mainstream political party that it is in their interests to go anti. You have to form your own movement to take it forward and win popular support for it.
Complain about this comment
#50 - Buzet23
Hi Buzet. You have answered your own question. The antiquated old laws are still in force because the countries concerned are instinctively protectionist. The failure of the Doha Round has ensured that this will continue to be the case for some time to come.
However, I think both you and J_R are barking up the wrong tree. Not even the most ardent eurosceptic would I think argue about free trade or international quality standards. They are concerned with institutional questions. It is not protectionism that drives them. It is isolationism.
Complain about this comment
To Giraldo
At least I think it is to Giraldo.
Somebody asked about my source for my comments about food scandals in Italy.
Here it is:
http://www.orf.at/081014-30569/index.html
This article quotes La Republica of 14 October.
The claims about some Italian food producers are horrendous and apparently made by their own disgusted employees.
I apologise for not replying earlier. It does seem to me that when somebody makes claims on this site, they should be prepared to produce evidence when possible.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio!
You are not satisfied with the votes of the famous 3000 of Luton.
Supposing in some strange way you were to be allowed to decide if the whole country should have one referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and another on leaving the "EU", would you allow us that?
Complain about this comment
To: jordanbasset
Thank you for posting the information on the Luton vote. I would not have known had you not done that. : 22. At 8:30pm on 20 Oct 2008,
Like you I was not surprised at the vote on Lisbon.
I would not have been sure about the vote on leaving the "EU". It contradicts the last report I read of a poll, but that I think, was before the Irish referendum. I think that the reaction of the "EU" to that referendum has moved a lot of people into the NO camp.
"2. Should the U.K. leave the E.U.
Yes 54%
No 35%
Undecided 11%"
Wonderful!
Complain about this comment
#49 Buzet23 wrote:
"#45, sagamix,
That really does sound a bit racist to me, I don't know Luton but if the survey was say Brixton or Leicester or Bradford or even Liverpool are they still not representative of general life. "
I think you missed the point here Buzet. They are not a representative sample because they all come from the same town with it's political leanings. I don't think sagamix was racist, just making a valid point that the sample size is immaterial but it should be representative of the whole country, the full socioeconomic spread.
Complain about this comment
I am not from Luton and agree 100% with the results of the Luton poll
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7683096.stm
Complain about this comment
Frankly I found it a little embarrassing that significant chunks of the UK press portrayed Mandelson's return to a second string cabinet post as some sort of promotion from one of the most powerful jobs in Europe.
My unease failed to decrease when I read his replacement's resume. No experience with trade or Europe and only a stint in an 'equality in the workplace' NGO/quango for business experience.
Complain about this comment
Why is it whenever the people give a negative respone to the E.U. project it is dismissed. When the French and Dutch voted no to the constitution, this was dismissed as not saying no to the E.U but to the current Government, Aglo free trade etc.
When the Irish voted no it was because they did not understand the treaty.
With this latest poll, and I recognise it is only an opinion poll, it is dismisssed because they come from Luton. For the sake of sanity wake up and smell the coffee. Anti - E.U./ feelings are growing and will continue until it is at least recognised. Only then will the Politicians hopefully come around to asking the people what they want.
In the mean time myself and millions of people will respond in the only way we can. We will try and block every single attempt to increase the E.U power at the expense of the Nation states. This may appear negative, it is not. We are trying to achieve the worth while aim of a free trade Europe with out the trappings of federalism. The first aim is this far and no further, as far as federalism goes. The harder task is yet to come when we try to roll back the encroachments on the sovereignity of nation states. This is not a short term project, we recognise we are in this for a long haul. It may take 10, 20 or 50 years to achieve, but get there we must. To achieve this we must display the same drive that those who want a federal E.U. do, but at least we will have the people with us. A start has been made with blocking the constitution and the Lisbon treaty, perhaps as W.C. once said -
"This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning" (Tongue firmly in cheek!)
Complain about this comment
#56 possumMurgatroyd,
I think the point here was that it was a sample from a fairly large town, that's all. Opinion polls that cover a supposedly representative sample of the full socio-economic spread are notoriously inaccurate with a fairly large margin of error that is often exceeded. As I said before I don't know Luton but from it's location it's probably a fairly representative sample of middle England. Had the contest been staged in say Dorset or Devon then I would have agreed with you, but from the Wikipedia site it is Labour run and has the following mix of population
Population - Total 202,500
- ethnicity 68.0% White
19.3% S.Asian
7.9% Black
2.8% Mixed Race
2.0% E.Asian and Other.
I think it was therefore a pretty representative mix of population types.
#52, threnodio,
You're right of course about the inherent isolationism that drives certain Eurosceptics, but then I'm not a Eurosceptic having been one of those who voted yes in 1975. The protectionism and it's double standards have always been one of my pet hates about certain EU power countries that like to claim they're the motor of the EU. I have always liked the idea of a true common market with open borders, and having encountered the mess of EU and local laws that the EU institutions have engineered, I like you I think, get very frustrated that the 'great project' has been derailed by an EU institution that is arguably anti european integration.
Complain about this comment
People who want free trade and free movement without directives and common rules are living in a fantasy land. I want a free NHS and free public transport without having to pay any tax, but I don't think it's likely to happen.
As has been said before, the directives provide common standards, and in many cases are just codifications very similar to rules already in place in member states. To say that "£x bn is spent on laws from Brussels" implies that outside the the EU Britain would have no health and safety rules, no food safety rules, no product safety rules, etc.
But of course we would - and what's more if we wanted to sell into the EU we'd have to have rules that matched the EU's. So, we get all the directives but lose the ability to influence and vote on them. What a victory for democracy!
Complain about this comment
#62, Anthony Zacharzewski,
It's been said many times before on these blogs that few are against the need for common rules and regulations, especially if we are to have free trade and free movement. The rub is that most countries only pay lip service to the directives they've signed up to which means the EU single market is not working, Social Mobility is a quagmire into which you'll easily sink if you dare to work in multiple countries.
You're quite right in your last statement but how much influence does any one country have, especially when going against the Franco-German grouping. Far better is to actually name and shame the countries that are brought to the ECJ for non compliance to the directives they signed up to. At the moment the only data I've seen on this is a global total for ECJ fine income in the 2006 accounts. Analysis of ECJ fines and complaints by country is one of those things that the EU want to keep quiet, probably since it will embarrass France and Germany. If directives that were agreed were actually implemented in full rather than by pick and choose the parts you want, then we wouldn't be having these types of discussions very much.
Complain about this comment
#54 - SuffolkBoy2
I would go a lot further than that. I would actively encourage it. I would even favour a referendum on membership as a whole.
I may not particularly like the answer but at least we would know and all this speculation could come to an end.
Complain about this comment
There are clearly many EU experts reading this blog. So may I ask a question that is somewhat off-topic? There seem to be insinuations circulating that Mandelson's socialisings with the famous water-borne Russian constituted a conflict of interest given then current negotiations on aluminium tariffs. Is this true? Does the Commission have rules governing such behaviour?
Cardi
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the EU might want to have an enquiry on the Luton electorate choice to find out why the reason why those that voted "No" to signing the Lisbon Treaty and/or voted "Yes" to Leaving the EU.
The EU may think it was because Mr Ganley must be involved in some way and/or the Luton voters did not understand the questions properly!
If the answers given to the EU are not satisafactory then there will be an EU demand for a re-run as soon as possible on its way . . . . and the EU will no doubt keep asking for re-runs until the Luton voters get it right or they get fed up and don't vote.
Complain about this comment
Re post 64, Threndoio are you saying you would welcome a public vote on the Lisobon Treaty? In which case I firmly agree with you. If people then also want to vote on E.U. membership after that vote, again I am okay with that.
Complain about this comment
Would anyone want to trust an organisation that cannot get it's accounts signed off, year after year!
We were never asked if we wanted to have this many countries in the EU.
The Lisbon Treaty is now defunct as one country turned it down despite what looked at a bribery attempt.
Complain about this comment
#67 - jordanbasset
Yes I am saying exactly that. What I am beginning to find very tedious is being forever told what the British people want. We don't know is the simple answer - so let's ask them. Regarding Lisbon, as someone else pointed out a while back (forget who - different thread - sorry), the real answer would be an EU wide referendum. Membership would of course be for national electorates to decide.
#66 - Menedemus
Why doesn't Luton leave the EU? Works for the Channel Islands. As for keeping on with referenda until you get the answer right, you could have a new public holiday - National Referendum Day. I would have it every April 1st with the polls closing at midday.
(People would have to take a test before being allowed to vote. 'Q1. What is the plural of referndum?' - Anyone writing 'referendums' would be disqualified).
Complain about this comment
Re post 69, Threnodio, thanks for the clarity, so of course as Ireland have had such a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which you favour, you agree with me the Lisbon treaty is dead and we need to move on?
Complain about this comment
cardi1 @65 asked about conflict of interest:
"Does the Commission have rules governing such behaviour?"
Yes. And it ignores them.
Most EU Commissioners and senior officials are superannuated politicians and aparatchiks who have failed or committed some 'naughty' stuff in their own countries and are thus 'kicked upstairs'.
A list of recent UK Commissars is a good example:
Kinnock - failed politician.
Patten - failed politician (Lost his seat at Bath)
Mandelson - twice ejected from government
Whatshername - a dispensible stopgap (put their so that Hoon or some other MP would not have to resign causing a by-election which Nu Labour would loose).
Check out the French Edith Cresson: she gave her dentist a high paying job for doing zilch. Her punishment? A nice pension.
Asking the EU to reform itself is liking asking a pig to stop rolling in muck. It's in its nature to be corrupt and corrupting.
Complain about this comment
Just to be clear, less there be any doubt, I am obvious being frivolous about repeat performances of the referendum but I am entirely serious about having one. It's bad enough not playing on a level playing field with the goal posts constantly being moved but we need to know whether we are playing at Old Trafford or Wembley.
Complain about this comment
#70 - jordanbasset
It might just form the groundwork for a new formula, much as the EU Constitution did for Lisbon after the French and Dutch booted it into touch, but that's all. Several eastern European governments are now hinting that it's dead, the Czechs have said they won't ratify unless the Irish do so - yes - it's dead.
I really don't see how you can keep going back to people saying 'wrong answer, try again!' It insults the intelligence and makes a nonsense of the democracy it claims to espouse.
Personally, I would hold back on the whole project, try to get a new Bretton Woods along the Brown-Sarkozy lines - either before Bush goes or with the new president - try to start a Doha Round Mark II and let constitutional arrangements be discussed with a view to resolving it three or four years down the line. I don't really understand the urgency anyway. Maastricht has served quite well up to now and it will do for a bit longer.
Complain about this comment
#71 - MaxSceptic
Patten is an entirely different league from the others and does not belong in your list of so called failures.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @74:
He is, I accept, more agreeable and urbane - but still a failure.
His new book also shows how wrong-headed his thinking is.
Complain about this comment
its ok for the polictitians from member countries to force EU on the people but sooner or later it will cause mass riots only them will they start to listen and by that time it will be to late.............
Complain about this comment
#76 - jaws1912
Nobody forced the EU on anyone. It was formulated by a group of governments which were democratically elected. If you believe you were not properly consulted in the first place or have not been given a proper voice in it's development, that may very well be the case but it is between you and the government that represented you at the time.
Complain about this comment
Re 7: Thank you for your lecture about the EU commission. But you're not answering #3. Indeed, it does not expose a flaw of understanding, but it exposes a flaw of working: in the way the EU commission is formed. If I needed 27 best people to do a job and 5 of them happen to be British (or Swedish, or Portuguese, or Polish), why should I sacrifice 4 of them in the name of "plurality". The his EU clearly needs reform, and the Euroskeps are the first to note it... and to oppose it!
Complain about this comment
Re 30: "I don't need a honours degree in calculus to figure that out."
No, you just need to review some basic English usage rules :-)
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante @ #78
So if the very best candidates for the Commission were 27 British nominees you would be happy with the fact that the Commission was entirely British!
Yes, of course you would. Not!
Complain about this comment
The reason that the anti-democratic EU and its democracy-hating sycophants always belittle and dismiss anyone who is against it is because they know very well there is no popular support for any more political integration. But if they would admit this in the open, their plan of de facto eliminating the last remnants of parliamentary democracy and establishing rule by decree by the Brussels' unelected crowd would be shattered.
This is why no-voters always get belittled, ignored or ridiculed. This is why there are these bogus 'investigations' as to why people voted no. They are desperate to find some other explanation than simply admit that people voted no because they are fed up with the anti-democratic EU and are opposed to political integration.
There should be investigations as to why a minority keeps voting yes. I suspect that most of the yes voters have one of the following reasons:
-they are on the EU gravy train or dependant on those who are
-they don't like democracy and love the idea of transferring legislative powers to the unelected class of politicians
-they don't understand how the EU really works, because if they did they'd vote no
That's just some of the reasons why people could possibly be in favor of the anti-democratic EU.
Folks, there is a reason why most people are badly informed about the EU. And that reason, plain and simple, is that politicians do not want you to know. They don't want the people to realize that legislative powers have all but disappeared from the national realm. They are afraid you will find out you can no longer influence those who make the laws because they are not accountable to you or to the politicians you elected to do it for you.
And there's another thing. The insane obsession by the unelected Brusselian politicians to harmonize laws and stamp out diversity wherever it exists. We've seen it all before. In 1930's Germany they called it 'gleichschaltung'.
Complain about this comment
@lacerniagigante (78)
we oppose it because we know we'd all be better off without the EU (except the politicians) and it is much better to have the national governments and parliaments make laws and decisions than it is to have the anti-democratic EU do it.
At least, if the EU was dissolved, our money would stop going to corrupt Italian or Greek politicians.
There is no benefit that the EU supposedly brings that couldn't also be achieved with intergovernmental cooperation.
If the EU disappeared, 27 parliamentary democracies would reappear.
Complain about this comment
This is why no-voters always get belittled, ignored or ridiculed.
No voters get belittled because they hide their (sometimes excellent) arguments behind patriotic/nationalistic, stereotyping foreigners (nearly xenophobic), calling the people you disagree with names and with some odd reference to USSR/Nazi Germany ramblings. If you want people to take you seriously then stop doing that, it's not hard really.
Sadly enough the yes voters do the same thing (minus the patriotic/nationalistic part).
-they don't understand how the EU really works, because if they did they'd vote no
I don't think many people know how EU works to begin with (nor their own government for that matter) speaking of own government when was the last time you voted for your provincial government executive branch? The Dutch provincial government reminds me of the EU, which amuses me. :)
-they don't like democracy
If people don't like democracy they wouldn't participate in the process in the first place.
Folks, there is a reason why most people are badly informed about the EU.
People are badly informed because they don't give a damn, and they rely on their own media or other (informed) people telling them what the EU does. This is a flaw that needs to be handled, the EU needs to be a lot closer to the people.
I also like to bring back my first point, I partly agree with you but it's a shame you're hiding your arguments behind some silly rambling and I frankly don't want to be associated with that. :)
stamp out diversity wherever it exists. We've seen it all before. In 1930's Germany they called it 'gleichschaltung'.
Ha! And you told me you weren't bitter about the Germans.
Stamp out diversity? HA! If it were true we would be forced to speak only one language, to amuse you and the English I'm going to say German, and only one culture would be forced down our throats.
Except that isn't happening, and stamping out diversity didn't happen in 1930 (although to be fair I don't expect a Eurosceptic to know his history) it happened in every European country in the 19th century. Where one language, one culture was indoctrinated amongst the uneducated populace.
In the case of the Netherlands it was the culture and language seen in Holland (back then it was one province) that was indoctrinated in the rest of the country.
In some cases such as France not many people spoke the language to begin with and it wasn't until the EU came along that the some of the minor French languages such as Occitan was recognized and protected by French law (and yet the EU is suppose to stamp out the diversity, funny eh?)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS