MEPs reject UK opt-out
MEPs have voted overwhelmingly to scrap Britain's opt-out from the 48-hour week in three years' time.
But it doesn't mean for certain that people will be stopped from working more than an average of 48 hours a week from 2011.
What happens now? Britain certainly doesn't lose its opt-out straight away. There'll be talks between MEPs and ministers from the European Union's 27 countries aimed at finding a compromise. In theory, if the ministers refuse to budge the status quo stands and Britain keeps its opt-out.
But there will be intense pressure to negotiate a solution. The European Court of Justice has ruled that doctors' on-call time should be part of the 48-hour week if they have to sleep over at a hospital.
France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain all have their own opt-outs about on-call time and they will be eager to find a solution. That probably means a negotiated solution that, from the British government's point of view, is worse than the current position.
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~49~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is good news for the common worker who has to work set hours. People, who arent paid by the hour like managers don't really have their hours counted anyway and they can continue to work as long as they please
Complain about this comment
Yet more evidence of the Socialist slant of the EU, these dinosaurs have still not grasped that the old Socialist thinking that restricting hours means more people are employed and consequently union membership goes up, does not, and has never, worked. It will simply mean extra hours will be unrecorded and encourage 'black' working, and this will be used to justify the employment of a new generation of snoops to police this change.
In the case of doctors, were it to mean that the clipboard advisor's were made redundant and the saving used to employ more doctors I'm sure most would be very happy, but then that's highly unlikely and it'll simply be even harder to find a doctor on duty.
Complain about this comment
So the MEPs who have constituencies all over Europe feel that the UK workers should have the same rights as those in any other EU member State.
How callous of them. The canards!
And yet, even though the MEPs have voted to rescind this UK opt-out from European Union requirements, the UK Ministers can barter with the other Ministers of State of the other EU Nations and come up with a less-than-perfect compromise that is not what the MEPs have voted for?
What is value of the vote of the elected EU Parliamentary MEPs one has to ask?
The situation where the UK is neither fully committed to the EU nor willing to step away from the EU is a hopeless pretense.
The UK should either embrace the EU and adopt the ethos of laissez faire approach to abiding by rules - as laid down by the EU and it's parliamentary sanctioned directives - or walk away and be isolated from the EU Laws but have sovereign control of everything within its borders.
Unfortunately, as experience shows us the last thing that the Britain of today can do is manage its affairs within its own borders with any real benefit to the citizens of Britain so I believe the time has come to hold a referendum and have the citizens of the UK accept and embrace EU membership and have this half-in and half-out British disease terminated or irrevocably terminate being a half-hearted EU nation and withdraw from the EU.
Let the British people decide once and for all!
Complain about this comment
#1 Gheryando
I don't know who the '...common worker who has to work set hours...' is, given that you don't think managers work 'set hours'.
If you mean people who have to 'be there' like call centre workers, they would probably get paid less.
It's all specious, though. It won't change anyway.
The EU parliament cannot even organise its own building into one place.
This is well beyond them.
Complain about this comment
#3 Menedemus
"...Let the British people decide once and for all..."
Like the Irish did on the Lisbon Treaty ?
Complain about this comment
How entirely predictable. EU MEPs never believed in competition, other than who can get their snouts into the corruption trough first. Next they will be telling us that it is unfair of British companies to work in August when France goes on holiday.
They do not accept that different countries have different working traditions. If limits are imposed it should be based on clear health and safety evidence not random numerical limits that have no scientific basis at all. I have no trouble with laws that require employers to limit hours so as not to damage health of workers or others but why pick 48 hours, where is the evidence that this is better than 50 hours or 60 hours.
Complain about this comment
If anybody seriously believes that the working time directive makes the slightest difference to working hours, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every day of the working week people disappear from the work-place at the end of shift only to reappear a few minutes later, dressed slightly differently and magically morphed into agency workers, self-employed 'consultants' or simply 'figments of the imagination' being paid cash no questions in a process that leaves a hole in tax revenue and an ever expanding black economy.
The problem with the MEPs' position - normally I would tend to support them - in this particular case is that they are nowhere near as inventive as the employers who have a head start. The workers want the income and the employers want the labour. No contest.
It also hands on a plate a gift to the British government. If they dig their heels in and refuse to comply, they can for once claim to be representing the wishes of the people. Just for once, I think Strasbourg has miscalculated badly.
Complain about this comment
chill0 @ #5
The Irish were and will be deciding the future of the Lisbon Treaty as it applies to the implementation within the EU. The Irish are far more committed to their membership of the EU than the British are - allegedly
I am suggesting the British should bite the bullet and decide whether they want to be in or out of the EU. That decision is merely an internal directive to the national government to stop this "half-in and half-out" or "cherry-picking" attitude to what is good or not good for the British.
To be frank, how would the British know if the EU Work-Time Directive was disadvantageous or not. The British workers have pretty much all signed personal opt-outs anyway and we blithely go on as if the EU Directive does not exist.
From my perspective, the British opt-outs are merely political expediency and simply demonstartes the half-hearted approach the British take to the EU.
Let the people decide to have Britain leave (or stay) but let us get rid of this protracted "shall we, shan't we" never-fully-committed nor never-quite-know-what-we-want situation where we do not embrace the EU and its universal application to all EU people nor do we leave and say fairwell.
Complain about this comment
#6 - Justin150
This has more to do with common sense than anything else. There are exceptions of course but, for the most part, people will comply with the law if they think it is fair and reasonable. When they become restive is when they consider the law petty, pointless or intrusive.
If the WTD was designed to protect workers from abuse - for example if the threat of dismissal was used as a mechanism to force excessive work hours out of unwilling emloyees - the majority of people would think that fair. If, however, it is used to deny employees the freedom to enter into voluntary contractual arrangements which suit both parties, that plainly is not fair and reasonable.
Regardless of whether we are talking about Brussels, Strasbourg or Westminster, the time has come for more commonsense and less political correctness.
Complain about this comment
#7 threnodio
You mean '...Strasbourg and Brussels have miscalculated badly...'.
I believe that whenever the EU parliament is mentioned it should also be pointed out that the EU cannot decide where it sits.
It costs a lot of money for the EU parliament to keep hopping to and fro between Brussels and Strasbourg.
The Public Accounts Committee recently found an £81million loss by the Department of Transport a 'stupendous' piece of mismanagement.
How about 200million euros per year.
Complain about this comment
#6, Justin150
You wrote "Next they will be telling us that it is unfair of British companies to work in August when France goes on holiday.", you should be careful what you write here as maybe it will give the morons in the commission some ideas, after all it was the French Socialists that came up with the 35 hour week working disaster that most in France are now regretting.
It will be interesting to see what the voting pattern of the MEP's was for this, a vote like this is certainly typical of left wing fuzzy thinking and if that is the modus operandi of the EU parliament, would we really want its powers strengthened by Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
#9 threnodio
The opt-out already includes a provision which does not allow the threat of dismissal to be used.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus.
Absolutely right about Britain deciding once and for all but not over something as technical as the WTD. The camel's back-breakers at the moment are Lisbon and the CAP. In the first case, the UK has ratified but stand accused of doing so without consultation. In the second case, it would not be unfair to argue that it is French not British intransigence that obstructs a solution. A CAP agreement would make the British rebate go away and clear the air wonderfully.
I come back to the point I have been making so often. Given the stridency of some opinions expressed in these threads, there remains a question in my mind over the UK government's mandate to do anything vis-a-vis the EU. This needs to be addressed either by way of a general election with a credible EU-sceptic party in the field or by referendum. The reason the British government is so good at cherry picking is precisely because there is no mandate which leaves them free to do very much what they like. The problem lies at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
#12 - chill0
I know that thank you.
If you read what I said, it was that this is not an issue in peoples' minds because it is fair. What is an issue is a directive which forces people to do something against their will.
Complain about this comment
#8 Menedemus
Irish commitment to the EU could have to do with the net flow of money into/out of Ireland - which has changed for Ireland in recent times as, coincidentally, the Irish attitude to the EU appears to have.
I certainly disagree that the Irish "...will be deciding the future of the Lisbon Treaty as it applies to the implementation within the EU...". The Lisbon Treaty will be implemented exactly as originally intended (which is the provisions of the Constitution with more opaque wording) whatever the Irish do.
Were that not true, the treaty would have to be re-ratified in all of the nations which have already ratified it. That's not going to happen.
Complain about this comment
#14 threnodio
On re-reading your post you are right, my apologies.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus and threnodio
I don't know why you think that a referendum on the EU in the UK would resolve the issue - if the UK voted to stay in. It would certainly resolve things if we voted to leave.
We had a referendum in 1975 (I volunteered in the Get Britain Out campaign despite belonging to the Liberal Party) in which we decided to stay in. The EU has become radically different since then.
If the CAP were abolished and the democratic deficit addressed, it would change the political landscape again.
In my view, the problems with the EU are quite fundamental. The difference in social models; views of governance; foundation and application of law and many other areas vary widely.
I believe this 'cherry-picking' you deplore is the only way to deal with such a heterogeneous organisation.
We are not the selectors of fruit.
It would be an interesting exercise to compare the differences between states in the USA with those between states in the EU.
But then of course, there's the language....
Complain about this comment
#17 I meant to say 'we are not the only selectors of fruit' but that's like explaining a joke.
And that's Mark Mardell's job.
Complain about this comment
When the EU manage to balance their books accordingley, maybe then people will listen but I am affraid most people just see the MEP's as corrupt bullies take Ireland for instance.
I would like to see what would happen if they decided that the French 35 hour system wasn't enough!! Like most people all over Europe people will work as many or as few hours as they feel they need to get by on, so these MEP are all just quaffing about something which very few will take much notice of.
Complain about this comment
I don't know enough about the 48 hour rule to have an opinion on it. I do know that I do not want that sort of thing to be decided by strange people like Danny Cohn-Bendit or Sarkozy.
I want that sort of of thing decided in the UK.
I agree with others who have posted here that the UK should be in or out.
I want out.
Complain about this comment
#17 - chill0
To be honest, I do not favour a referendum if someone can come up with an alternative - and that would be a political party in the UK with sufficient credibility and gravitas to represent those who want to either withdraw or significantly renegotiate. If such a party existed, you could possibly conduct a general election with the EU as a major issue and secure a government with a mandate one way or the other. In the absence of such a political movement, it is difficult to see how any mainstream party could claim to have a mandate, hence my openness to 'plan B' - the referendum.
Broadly speaking you can divide the 27 into two groups. France, Germany, the Benelux countries, the Mediterranean countries and the Scandinavian block can broadly be said to have a significant balance of public opinion in favour of the EU. Any issues that may arise are about the future. There is no significant support for fallback. The second group - Britain, Austria, the Visegrad group and - possibly - Denmark are countries where there is evidence of eurosceptic views and even out and out hostility.
From this second group, if is probably sensible to factor out those which were part of the last two accession groups since they were perfectly well aware of what Nice entailed. That leaves a hard core of 3, possibly 4 older members where it is far from clear whether the present European project commands popular support. It seems to me that seeking to progress a project without popular support is neither democratic nor productive. This is not helped by large numbers of vocal opponents of the EU claiming that the 'will of the people' is being ignored. While I very much doubt this claim, it is difficult to rebut without credible evidence. People in the UK and elsewhere are going to continue down this route until such time as they are either proven wrong or end up getting their own way. I therefore agree with Menedemus that this has to be addressed sooner rather than later.
More controversially, I also happen to be one of those people who believe that the British Union is about to come under extreme pressure. A significant victory north of the border by the SNP at the next election could be the catalyst which leads to the end of the Union and that raises huge questions about the component nations relationships with the EU. Now more than ever, you need reliable information about the views of the British people as a whole and by region as to what they actually want.
Lisbon, therefore, was a missed opportunity. If the question had been put to electorates and a 'yes' answer returned, governments could have proceeded in the confident knowledge of some popular support. By not putting the question, they have raised doubts about public confidence in the whole project.
Complain about this comment
The same applies to Irish and Austrian neutrality.
It is not that I value Irish neutrality so highly. It is that I want the Irish to be able to decide from case to case whether they send their young men into a situation in which some of them are going to get killed.
The same applies to Austrian neutrality.
I certainly don't want the likes of Cohn-Bendit and Sarkozy deciding if and when and where any soldiers are deployed.
Complain about this comment
Chill0 @ #1
The UK could be like a cat or a dog when it comes to the EU were the EU to be a human.
When the EU is painting a mural, a devoted dog would put its paw on the bottom rung of the ladder and think, "I have no idea what you are doing but whatever you are doing, I think it is wonderful!" On the other hand a cat would sit back, lick its paws and think, "I have no idea what it is you are doing but I just know I could do it better!"
Let us both agree that we want to see Democracy in action and working.
Please do support a referendum for the British and do please vote to get the UK out of the EU - if that is your wish.
Do please emphasise to your fellow voters your issues with the EU and explain that - althought some of the EU Directives don't suit the British way of life but other Directives do - the British can do so much better outside of the EU and not have to cherry-pick.
On the other hand, if the referendum is held and the British electorate by majority vote for the UK to remain in the EU then they are fundamentally committing their UK Governament to adopting ALL EU Directives and looking for their leadership to allow Britain to become more European and dilettante like the French, Italians and Germans but not to be different by seeking opt-out clauses and, generally speaking, try that little bit harder to be constructive within Europe like a dog rather than standing on the sidelines like a cat.
Complain about this comment
Danny Cohn-Bendit!
I presume that he can only be the leader of the Greens in the "EU" parliament because he is the leader of the German group of Greens.
I presume that they still vote for a party in Germany and that he heads the party list for the Green at the "EU" elections. Which means, I presume, that if there are only enough votes for one person, they go to Cohn-Bendit.
If I am right, then this must be very off putting for many Germans. Presumably there are Germans who would like to vote Green but will not do so because of Cohn-Bendit.
I believe that in German and the UK and elsewhere, we should have the single transferable vote system.
Such a system would allow you to vote for the Greens you wanted without automatically voting for Cohn-Bendit.
It would also enable you to vote for a selection of people from various parties. So I would vote for UKIP followed by Labour people like Kate Hoey or Tories like Dan Hannan. I might even give a new NO party connected to Libertas a vote.
Are there any Germans reading this who are prepared to inform me whether I am or am not right about their system?
If they choose to abuse me, then could they please separate the facts from the abuse.
Complain about this comment
I believe that I have met people like Sarkozy before. Too many times!
I believe that he does not consider himself to be the first amongst equals but a living god surrounded by low-life.
I could not possibly want to be in an organisation of which he is president, whether for months or years.
Complain about this comment
To SuffolkBoy2 (22):
Actually what is this neutrality? Does neutrality mean on not being militarily allied?
I'm sorry, but that isn't neutrality. If a country is neutral then its not allied economically, politically or militarily with any quarter. However, if country allies itself in any of these three dimensions, its not neutral anymore.
I think that its more or less self-deception from Irish, be it the common folk or the politicians, to think that they are neutral. Ireland or any other EU country is not neutral. All EU countries are allied economically and politically together and hence no EU country is neutral.
For example the EU has a common position in economics and more and more in politics towards its neighbors and other world powers. If in example EU would set trade restrictions to another country or power, Ireland wouldn't be neutral, it would be part of EU.
In my mind this whole talk about neutrality is useless.
Now if we go to your point on sending military to foreign countries to invade and occupy, that is the business of US and its allies. EU doesn't have a defense dimension and it definitely doesn't have it with the Lisbon Treaty and it definitely doesn't have powers to wage war and invade foreign countries. That is just baseless scaring of people.
Complain about this comment
#6
Justin150,
You ask where the evidence is that working 48 hours per week is better than 60 hours. Well, 60 hours/week means 12 hous/day, wehereas 48 hours is 9.5h per day working. I do not need any eveidence to know which is better for me, thank you very much!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus and threnodio
The UK government must do what is in the best interest of the UK. I believe this 'cherry-picking' is exactly that.
The regional issue is one that the EU has exploited for many years in an attempt to undermine the nation states in the EU. It is significant that in an opinion poll last year there was a larger majority in England for Scotland to leave the UK than there was in Scotland. The Union may well break up. So be it.
I am sure you both know that the EU will just muddle along. The French approach to NATO over many years was similar. They are still there, still picking and choosing what they will do.
Complain about this comment
In post 21, threnodio wrote: "Now more than ever, you need reliable information about the views of the British people as a whole and by region as to what they actually want. Lisbon, therefore, was a missed opportunity."
A referendum about the Lisbon treaty should have been a referendum about the Lisbon treaty only.
The fact that it wouldn't and probably couldn't have been might be one of the reasons only Ireland got one.
However, I agree with you that is interesting to know what people actually want.
Complain about this comment
France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain all have their own opt-outs about on-call time and they will be eager to find a solution. That probably means a negotiated solution that, from the British government's point of view, is worse than the current position.
================================
Mr Mardell again on his blog gives only half the story: It is true that the Netherlands for instance has rules governing how many hours a person can work, however, these rules are to protect employees from excessive overtime, I work in the Netherlands and can assure all posters that my average working week is about 50 hours which is I believe par with the average UK employee.
Mr Mardell forgets to mention that "On-Call" time is only valid for certain professions, not the average Blue/White collar jobs. Does Mr Mardell really think that the Private Sector would actually follow/implement such idiotic guidelines?, does Mr Mardell think that with the current economic downturn that companies will willingly recruit additional staff to make up the shortfall if employers adhere to this EU initiative?
Perhaps if Mr Mardell and his other Public Sector colleagues actually tried working in the Private Sector they may find that they are totally out of step with reality. Oh to have a gold plated inflation busting pension paid for by the Private Sector workforce.
When will Mr Mardell stop regurgitating EU propaganda and start taking a critical view?.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
it is good news that the MEP's have rejected the uk optout on this legislation...i also, know that it is not final...
Complain about this comment
#28 - chill0
"The UK government must do what is in the best interest of the UK"
Oh that's alright then. So if they don't need a mandate, no need for elections, right? After all the government knows best. The UK government had no mandate for Afghanistan, no mandate for Iraq, no mandate for 42 days (mercifully buried), no mandate to sign Lisbon, no mandate for the draconian increased national security powers that the Home Office now wants. It has failed to deliver on most of it's electoral promises but forced through great wadges of legislation in the face of public opinion and without consent.
The present regime - to call it a government is to flatter it without cause - has been deceitful, duplicitous, dishonest and shabby. It has trampled roughshod over the rights of the electorate and brought into discredit any claim of democratic legitimacy.
So please don't tell me what the government's duty is. It doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Complain about this comment
#29 - JohaMe
"A referendum about the Lisbon treaty should have been a referendum about the Lisbon treaty only".
Absolutely right - but a 'yes' vote would have been in effect a mandate to continue along the EU project route and given the lie to the euro-sceptic argument. A 'no' vote would have opened up a debate about the whole future of the project. No vote at all means being no further forward.
Complain about this comment
#32 - threnodio
The best interests of the UK and the people of the UK are not necessarily the same thing. I do agree with you though that the current government does not represent my personal views or my moral values, that said the country is still here so they are doing better than some of our past leaders...
On the whole in out issue. I am confident that Britain will be a fully intergrated part of Europe; one day. There are a number of issues that we disagree with (CAP being high on that last), then there is the VERY different culture in the UK, a different economy and a language barrier. Just because we can't agree to follow everything MEPs say does not mean we should leave.
Complain about this comment
Why is this article headlined 'MEPs vote against UK's Long hours culture', and not
'MEPs vote to prevent hard-working people earning money for their families'
..for this is what they are doing. Or is everyone in the BBC so blinded by the light from Brussels that you must cast the most favourable interpretation on any decision.
I get paid by the shift. The more shifts I do, the more I earn. If I don't wnat to work so much, I earn less. That is my choice. Simple innit. But now, if I want to earn more, some pettifogging rule from bloody Brussels will just make it more difficult to do so. Why can't they just keep out of our lives and crawl back under the black and putrid stones where they belong.
Complain about this comment
#34 - Knight85-2
I highlighted the CAP as one of the biggest bones on contention in an earlier post and suggested that it was a good example of another country's intransigence. I suspect this will be resolved - with some hard bargaining - in the next 8 to 10 years. The French position on this is simply not sustainable in view of enlargement.
I am slightly worried about your assertion that 'The best interests of the UK and the people of the UK are not necessarily the same thing'. That is, of course, correct in the sense that situations will arise from time to time which require an immediate response. However, when the disconnect between government and the people is so great that you can no longer speak of a mandate, then you have to argue that the democratic process has failed.
I have now relocated but it is profoundly saddening to see all the good things that I believed in about the country of which I remain a citizen being destroyed by a government which I seriously believe has a a severe moral deficit. By the way, I promise you, language barriers do not end at the Channel.
Complain about this comment
#30 - A_View_From_France
Poor Mark Mardell can't win can he? You want him to be more critical and Freeborn-John will then accuse him of not being impartial.
The fact is that a total of 13 countries of the 27 have some kind of opt-out from the WTD. Mark rightly states that several of these relate to medical services and on call time but not all of them. My own view, for what it is worth, is that if a directive becomes so complex because of the different opt-outs required by different countries, it ceases to be worth the candle. Better by far to write into law the lowest common denominator upon which all can agree - in this case that nobody should be forced to work more that 50 hours if they don't want to and their jobs will not be in jeopardy if they refuse overtime - that should be good enough.
Complain about this comment
WeybridgeShot @ #35
Your assertion that the Working Time Directive is anti-overtine is false.
What the WTD does is make 48 hours the maximum working week. It does not prevent and never has meant that people cannot do overtime.
What it does mean is that certain professions where, for example extingencies of service mean that the employee cannot down tools and sya, "Right, that's my lot, I am off for the weekend; See you Monday" will start to incur overtime pay from hour 49.
For example, Police Officers having worked 48 hours cnanot simply stop midway through a traffic accident and tell the drivers/victims/witnesses to hang fire until their replacement comes along. Police officers always ahd an extingency of service clause intheir contracts that meant they (a) had no choice but to stay on duty when required and (b) got paid casual overtime (i.e. same base rate of pay) for the first hour of casual overtime. Similarly Lorry Drivers work incredibly long hours and, on particualr longhaul journey, have no option but to drive back to depot even if their hours for the week go over 48 hours - can you imagine the uproar if a lorry was stolen with a valuable load outside the driver's home address if he just packed up at 48 hours or where he had to park upp in the middle of nowhere simply because 48 hours had been reached.
The question of the WTD limiting overtime was always a red herring. It did not suit right with the UK Governememt and they used misleading statements to justify the opt-out and mislead the UK public simply becaus ethey kenwe that certain professions and types of work within certain UK Business Enterprises rely on the goodwill of employees to perform overtime and work long hours. They simply fear that the British workker might simply take 48 hours as the maximum hours needed to maximise wages under Trade Union pressure . . . and in the UK that Trade Union pressure to have their membership seek to do exactly that is the problem - that is not the intent of the WTD!
Complain about this comment
I hope the Irish voters pay attention. An opt-out apparently only temporary, to be voted away because other MEPs from other countries wish to impose their own values on our own.
Perhaps we should have left the continent to Hitler back in 1940.
Complain about this comment
Oh! How dare they? Employers should be allowed to force people to work 80, nay, 100 hours per week - and that could even make the Government happy.
The workers will probably die young, so won't get to collect their pensions. OK, one or two might live on and require long-term hospital care - but so what? That's so crap for the elderly that they'll soon die anyway.
Some people want a life of their own. They don't want to be "owned" by their employers. Geddit?
The EU has always had the view that the market should not be only for the employers' benefit, but for everyone's. But, since employers can't all be trusted to be careful of their employees, then government (national or, as in this case, EU-wide) finds the need to act.
Complain about this comment
I think the British will have a lot more things to worry about than whether British workers can work 48 hours or more or even less one day given that having a job in the next few weeks, months or years may be a more serious problem.
Given that the British workplace has moved from being in major manufacturing activities to a reliance on work generated through taxation (viz-a-viz, some towns in the UK have more than 50% of the population employed by their local authority and in government work) and that the UK Government is seriously spending itself tpwards being the next bankrupt nation - one can envisage tremendous job losses occuring in the UK in particular.
A person who is out of work is not going to give a fig about whether he has to work 48 hours or 148 hours if he can get a job that pays!
Complain about this comment
The issue of the Working Directive itself is secondary.
The primary consideration all should pay attention to is that national 'opt outs' are not worth the paper they are printed on.
The EU Project continues on its one-way path to 'ever closer union' by whatever means it can - fair or foul.
The 'opt-outs' offered to the Irish as a sweetener for a second referendum are likely to prove illusory.
After saying 'no' you are being offered the political equivalent of a date-rape drug.
Complain about this comment
i find it a disgrace that we have to fight and win cases in the UK
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To MaxSceptic (42):
The opt-outs for Irish will go into the ascension treaty of Croatia and thus will be impossible to override without the consent of Ireland.
Complain about this comment
#21 threnodio
re Europe and the component parts of the UK.
I've been surprised that there has been so little mention of the question on the euro in the latest Sunday Times/YouGov poll, which includes a "regional" breakdown (though the Welsh responses are lumped in with the Midlands.
The question "If there were a referendum tomorrow on whether Britain should join Europe's single currency, the euro, how would you vote?" was a little disingenuous, since even I would vote No to an immediate joining of the eurozone, given the current circumstances, but the Scottish difference is interesting -
Region, Yes, No
Scotland 34%, 52%
North 25%, 58%
London 24%, 56%
South 22%, 61%
Midlands 22%, 60%
More relevant was the attitude question -
"Thinking of the European Single Currency which of the following statements come closest to your view?"
1. Britain should definitely join as soon as possible
2. Join if and when the economic conditions are right
3. Stay out for at least the next 4 or 5 years
4. Rule out on principle
It seems reasonable to combine 1 & 2 as "pro euro". 3 will contain some "pro euros" who don't think we can't practically join the euro for 4 or 5 years, but I suspect most are basically euro sceptic, so I've combined them with the 4s in this table as "anti euro".
Region, Pro, Anti, DK
Scotland 49%, 46%, 6%
North 37%, 53%, 10%
London 39%, 53%, 8%
South 35%, 53%, 12%
Midlands 35%, 53%, 13%
That Scotland shows a "pro euro" majority, when the media are significantly anti, and there is no pro campaign, may indicate an increasing divergence of Scottish and English opinion on Europe and the euro.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @45,
And in what Treaty were the UK 'inalienable' opt-outs?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This highlights why the so-called 'red lines' and opt-outs that Blair told us about were completely worthless. It also shows once and for all that the UK can no longer set its own laws.
Brown has given away yet more power to Europe without the referendum we were promised in Labour's manifesto.
They also gave away our 'rebate' and got nothing in return. Labour simply cannot be trusted.
Complain about this comment
#46 - oldnat
These are interesting stats which I had not seen before. Thank you.
Of course there is no technical reason why a non-EU country should not join the Euro providing they accepted the mandate of the ECB just as Switzerland and Norway have signed free trade arrangements and Schengen. Even so, attitudes to the Euro and the EU are likely to shadow each other closely and I assume it is fair to infer a much less euro-sceptic sentiment in Scotland.
I have suspected for a while now that euro-scepticism was a particularly English thing and I hope that the potential emergence of an English nationalism movement, for which I would have some sympathy, would not morph into a 'Little England' isolationism which I would deplore.
Complain about this comment
#47 - MaxSceptic
Utrecht and - if memory serves - Nice.
Which is why the MEPs vote will not have an immediate or direct impact. The bottom line is that this has to be negotiated and the UK can flatly refuse to play ball and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Complain about this comment
#50 threnodio
When briefing the Icelanders, enlargement commissioner Ollie Rehn made it clear that the EU would not accept eurozone membership from a non-EU member. However, strong signals were given that any Icelandic application for membership of the EU and the euro could be fast-tracked.
The EU is "mentally preparing" for a possible Icelandic application.
Such EU flexibility (which must anticipate some fishing exemption) is welcome news. Scots are very aware that Heath's Government explicitly identified fishing as an "expendable" industry in the Common Market negotiations. Not to us it wasn't!
Complain about this comment
There are several issues here as well pointed out by many wise commentators.
There is the issue of working hours; pro or anti EU; use of referenda and probably more. It is difficult to put them all coherently into one argument so I will stick to working hours only.
So as far as working hours are concerned I firmly believe that there should be a restriction and 48 hours does not seem unreasonable. What I remember from good HR management it is that people should take regular breaks while working, they should take lunch breaks and they should have days off. All of these improve efficiency and is far more productive than working long hours without a break. The pressure at work is such that most people tend to work extra hours to gain advantage over other employees. This can boomerang by decreased efficiency and increased sick leave. Then there is another aspect and that is the increasing unemployment. Every opportunity should be taken to create more jobs even if it means restricting the hours of those who are employed. I think it is wrong to have right to work overtime while others are out of work. Job sharing should be encouraged too. But then this is another issue.
Having said this may I point out that I am retired thus not fully qualified to comment on other people’s working hours. I thought I should declare this. Having said that I notice that most of the comments to this particular blog relating to working hours were made between the hours of 12 noon the blog being posted only minutes earlier and 5pm; hardly an indication that the commentators are working people, or are they?
Complain about this comment
#52 - oldnat
Trichet has said the same thing but that is not stopping Montenegro and Kosovo using it, albeit unofficially. Iceland seems to be chasing this with an urgency that is almost indecent. Maybe they want an immediate hand out?
Complain about this comment
Why is that you have to work all hours to get enough pay to enjoy at least a moderate standard of living?. If you have to work one shift then think about working a second then obviously your labour is undervalued . The only ones who benefit from this system are the employers who essentially underpay their employees . The discussions about the various political parties and their policies is actually meaningless - there is very little difference between them ( a little bit of dressing around the edges is what you get ) . Tony Benn was quite correct ( I cannot call him right !) when he said that the majority of the population had been disenfranchised - the political parties do not offer the choice that any vibrant democracy needs to ensure the government is that of the majority . Sadly this means that now we have the rise of the extreme fringe parties which cash in on the voters disillusionment with the mainstream parties - because the man in the street no longer thinks that they have anything to say to him .
Complain about this comment
#54 threnodio
Rehne made the point to Iceland that they couldn't stop countries "unofficially" adopting the euro, but made the point that they then faced any risks without any support.
Iceland and the UK had the same problem - an over reliance on an inflated financial sector, in an isolated currency.
The British still seem to have a belief that sterling is a reserve currency. In reality, it is a vulnerable marginal currency.
Complain about this comment
Please do correct me if I am wrong but is it not the case that the route to adoption of the Euro has been set to take, at a minimum, two years - specifically to allow an applicant country the opportunity to (a) prove stable currency (something the Icelanders could not offer at the moment!) and (b) to ensure that other applicants do not see the adoption and acceptance of a new Eurozone member state as being unfair to those other Eurozone applicants and the existing 15 member states?
If the Icelanders can apply and adopt the Euro in 2 years, then good for them but anything less than 2 years would surely be unfair, unseemly and go against the grain of the criteria laid down by the ECB for any country to be admitted to the Eurozone?
Complain about this comment
57 Menedemus
I don't think that the EU are suggesting that Iceland could join the euro in less than 2 years, but that since Iceland is a Western European democracy and already meets many of the criteria for EU membership (as many EFTA members do) that most of the barriers have already been crossed.
Restructuring the Icelandic economy to its basic strength (and away from its disastrous adoption of "post neo classical endogenous growth theory") would be in both Iceland's and Europe's interest.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @ 54
The British still seem to have a belief that sterling is a reserve currency. In reality, it is a vulnerable marginal currency.
I don't think the majority do think the British Pound is that important a global currency and, despite your figures in #46, if the public of Britain were fed the right information (instead of the crass propaganda they are fed on a daily basis) they would start to provide different sample voting numbers as clearly, despite the government and public media rhetoric against the UK adopting the Euro currency, a good 1/3rd of the UK populace think adopting the Euro is an ideal worth pursuing.
If the anti-Euro government figures and media changed their tune, the percentage of population wishing to adopt the Euro would grow. I believe quite considerably.
Similarly, I think the anti-EU sentiment of UK Establishment is the greatest restraint on the British people being more pro-EU - fed less anti-EU propaganda, the British are as keen to be be part of the EU as any other Europeans. It is simply a case of people knowing in their hearts and minds that the future is collective continental security and not national or regional security which is no longer viable.
But hey, that's only my opinion!
Complain about this comment
58 Mendemus
The reason most people in Britain do not want the Euro is because ultimately any currency needs a political authority underpinning it that has the ability to raise taxes and borrow money
Noone has asked the question of what will happen if individual nations within the Euro zone develope debts so large they could default on them
Noone has asked the richer nations electorates if they would be willing to pump billions of Euro's into other weaker countries, if they started struggling.
For the Euro to survive might require the aggregating of all Eurozone country debt into a single 'debt mountain' funded by Eu wide taxes. The Eu Commission effectively running countries to stop them spending money they don't have, causing considerable political anger, within those countries.
All these are highly plausible
To add a country with £1trillion public sector debt, £3.5trillion private sector debt and collapsing tax revenues to the Euro at parity, isn't going to go down well in the rest of Europe is it?
Complain about this comment
#56 - oldnat
#59 - Menedemus
I think there is a little confusion here which has been exacerbated by talk in some quarters of 'fast tracking' Iceland. The wo cases are different. The Icelandic currency can be considered, at least for the present, as a basket case. This will inhibit their ability to trade internationally in any way other than using a reserve currency which will have been borrowed. Add to that that their biggest earning industry - financial services - is now dead in the water and you have a situation in which a general acceptance that their financial system has failed, the ECB is the obvious candidate to take it over and the adoption of the Euro is the obvious consequence. In such circumstances, a fast track mechanism requires only agreement as to the exchange rate at the time of entry and is feasible. Indeed it could be beneficial to everyone to lock Iceland into the system before other possible investors, for example the Russians buy themselves a western European foothold.
Britain is a totally different matter. Gordon Brown's five tests also reflect the ECB's tests so that, in effect, if one set of criteria are met, de facto so is the other. Again, this ought to make fast tracking feasible but:-
1. Brown's five tests are movable goalposts. No accident this since he has so firmly set his face against monetary union in the past that they can easily be seen as a working model of a stonewall. (A stonewall that moves? Damned clever!).
2. Despite what has been said above, the pound is a reserve currency. Large amounts of it are held around the world either in cash or as the unit of value of negotiable instruments. The LSE remains one of the three biggest stock markets in the world and everything is traded in sterling.
So the problem is to find an exchange rate which satisfies international markets while not damaging UK domestic interests and, at the same time finding a way of overcoming domestic political objections (which are mainly sentimental). I would suggest that, while desirable, it is a very tall order indeed.
By way of an aside, since the banks that are licensed to print Scottish currency are now wholly or partly controlled by HM Treasury in London, I would suddenly have become a huge fan of the Euro were I from north of the border.
By the way, Black Wednesday was not caused by sterling's entry into EMS but the fact that it entered at the wrong value relative to the DM. This mistake must not be repeated. And, I made the point in an earlier post that, should the current downward trend in sterling flatten out at approximate parity with the Euro, this would make establishing a 'natural' exchange rate much easier and, at a 1:1 ratio, a lot less disruptive to all concerned. A very good opportunity, I would think, for it to come to the centre of the agenda.
If Scotland does end up going it's own way, there is the real possibility of bureaux de change along the length of Hadrian's Wall - an absurd proposition if I ever I encountered one. Britain collectively should be looking very seriously at monetary union sooner rather than later if it can overcome the traditional and sentimental objections.
Complain about this comment
The amazing thing is our right to determine our own law has been thrown out. The EU has forced us to work the hours it says we must..
That means we our democracy where we vote and decide can be ridden roughshod whenever the EU wants to.
I wonder if anyone can spot the enormity of this and what it means for our democracy?
Complain about this comment
cobber950 @ #60
Where you get the idea that the 15 nations plus voluntary sattelite ntions that have adopted the Euro cannot set their own taxes - I do not know. Perhaps through the very propaganda against which I rail at #58.
The ECB behaves exactly as the Bank of England and sets monetary policy regarding the use of the Base Rate within the Eurozone. More often than not the Bank of England and the ECB track one another's Base Rate chnages as the Eurozone and the UK are both affected by internal and extenal pressures exerting influence on inflation.
The ECB is THE controlling influence on the balancing act between the economic pwoerhaouses and weaker economic nations of the Eurozone.
Arguably, the jelly-like stonewall Gordon Brown "Tests" for the suitability for the UK to seek to join the Eurozone (as indicated by threnodio @ #61) means that, currently the UK would deem it impossible to join the Euro. By the same token, I would be amazed if the Eurozone nations wanted to have the UK join the Eurozone for the very reasons you highlight in your comment.
I think the UK economy has already slipped to 6th place and could, indeed return to about 20th position in Global GDP League tables before too long. This does not make for the UK being exactly a shining example of being a good economy and a less than favourable candidate for adopting the Euro.
In simplistic terms the British are in the ack and could be really stcuk for getting out of it as we do not have the capability to borrow like the Americans to get ourselves out of the hole. Until we do get ourselves back onto a level footing we are as likely to be offered Euro membership as pigs might fly!
Nevertheless, I can, personally, hope that one day (hopefully sooner rather than later!) the British will be invited or have the opportunity to join the Euro extended to them.
Complain about this comment
#61 threnodio
I sit corrected over reserve currency.
You're probably right that the ECB could change its "rules" over Iceland. It may be that Rehn was using the opportunity, to exert the strength of the EU position to push the Icelanders further into actually joining the EU.
Complain about this comment
#62 - Dan6713
What this vote has done is:
1. Put the Parliament at odds with the Commission which continues to support the opt outs which were agreed with 13 different member countries (not just the UK).
2. In doing so, the MEPs have created an environment in which it is desirable for the Commission, the 27 members including the 13 dissenters and the Parliament to see if they can negotiate a compromise.
3. If a compromise cannot be made, the MEPs demands will not be satisfied and the treaties which enable the opt-outs to operate will remain in force, the WTD will not operate in the UK, the EU will not be able to dictate the number of hours you work and British law will stand until such time as Parliament chooses to change it.
"I wonder if anyone can spot the enormity of this and what it means for our democracy?" Totally insignificant
By contrast what is the effect of digging your heels in over a non-existent sovereignty issue:
1. To refuse to negotiate a practical working procedure which is all you are being asked to do.
2. Perpetuate the perception of the UK as obstructive and half-hearted EU members.
3. Strengthen the view of British hypocrisy that it's democracy is ideal but the democratically elected EU Parliament is flawed simply because you don't agree with them.
There are too many posts in this and other threads by people who make assumptions on an emotional basis without examining the facts. This vote changes nothing. It simply starts a discussion. Or do you have a problem with discussions as well?
Complain about this comment
#63 - Menedemus
I take a slightly different view.
My personal view is that if the UK were to indicate a willingness to abandon sterling and throw their lot in with the Euro this would have the effect of propelling the Euro into clear first place as the global reserve currency of choice.
It would be an offer the Eurozone could simply not refuse to the point that Britain would have a negotiating position of enormous strength. The sheer scale of global interests still priced in sterling would be such that Britain would have an immensely influential voice within the ECB, possibly as great as that of Germany.
I find it very strange that some people should think that Iceland can enter when it's currency is on the verge of collapse while Britain can't because it's currency is under pressure. It does not make sense.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (66) and Menedemus (65):
I do agree with threnodio that if Britain would apply to Eurozone it would get in even with all past bad blood of yesteryears. Not only because of direct benefits, but because UK is a major European oil producer and it converting to trade oil with Euros would be very beneficial to Eurozone.
However I think that UK nor Iceland couldn't become Eurozone members without fulfilling Eurozone requirements first including spending two years in EMS successfully. Easing up of requirements for both of these countries wouldn't be popular move: in another words they haven't deserved that. Help from ECB could instead be given to both countries if needed as it was given to Hungary.
I would also like to note that ECB is both apolitical and non-national: "Governing Council members don't represent their countries, they represent the interest of the eurozone, in a similar manner as the Commissioners, who represent the interests of the EU and not their country of origin."
In regards of taking Euro in usage, what many seem to have forgotten generally is that if a country isn't Eurozone member then if it wants to use Euro it has to buy all those Euros to be used in internal circulation from the market which is a very costly operation. Instead when a country joins Euro its currency is converted directly to Euros.
Complain about this comment
#64 - oldnat
If Iceland joins and, in doing so, recovers more quickly and Ireland is collaborating closely with ECB to secure it's stability, what does this say about Mr. Salmond's 'arc of prosperity'?
Complain about this comment
#68 threnodio
The 'arc of prosperity' was simply a way of pointing out that small countries can do well (turned out to be unfortunately timed though!).
The SNP policy is "Independence in Europe".
If your point is that in today's world. small countries benefit from being in a larger political and economic union, then we would whole-heartedly agree.
Why would we want to stick in a small group of 3 and a bit nations, when we can be joined with the whole of Europe, as well as the other UK nations?
Complain about this comment
This is a classic example of where the EU has got it so wrong (or what is so wrong with the EU). If these MEPs were to insist that nobody could be forced to work more than a set limit, I suspect few would object. They, however, see it as their business to insist that nobody should be allowed to work more than a set limit. The distinction is obviously lost on them, but is the difference between personal freedom and tyranny. You can always rely on the EU to opt for the latter over the former!
I would suggest that the UK simply treats this absurd and impudent dictat in the same way that the French would if the EU were to outlaw the two hour lunch break!
Complain about this comment
#67 - Jukka_Rohila
I agree and I do not suggest that either country would be able to bypass the 2 years. I simply think that 'decision day' is the critical point. Once a nation is committed, it is simply a matter of sorting out the details. There is no reason if the will was there why Britain should not commit straight away and Iceland would almost certainly be required to do so as a condition of accession.
Complain about this comment
Re post 65, threnodio, you are right it does start a discussion. For me the start of that discussion should be the U.K. Government making it clear they will listen to all view points on this issue, but that the final decision rests with the U.K. Government and Parliament.
Perhaps the U.K. Government could further more discussions and , oh I don't know, ask the E.U. Parliament also looks at the CAP and the farce of the E.U. Parliament having to move each month to a different location. I realise that similar to working hours in the U.K they have no say what so ever in those matters but it would atleast start a discussion, unless they are against even that.
Complain about this comment
#69 - oldnat
"Why would we want to stick in a small group of 3 and a bit nations, when we can be joined with the whole of Europe, as well as the other UK nations?"
Amen to that:-)
Complain about this comment
#72 - jordanbasset
Absolutely. Ongoing discussions about the CAP are beginning to bear fruit and even die hard partisans are beginning to argue for a single location for the Parliament.
The whole point of the EU way of working is that things are only achieved if people talk to each other and nothing is achieved if they shout at each other.
Complain about this comment
63. You missed my main point, which was the Euro was created to drive greater political integration.
Ultimately the Euro will only succeed if all the debt in the Euro zone is aggregated into a single debt(as happens in Sterling and in the 52 states that constitute the dollar zone) to do this requires a single President, a single Finance minister that has the ability to tax everyone in the Eu zone to help pay off that debt, and the power to stop individual states spending money and building up their debt again
In the US the Federal govt spends 20% of US GDP and collects over half the tax take, to redistribute throughout the US as it sees fit without recourse to state legislatures.
It is this ability that gives the Dollar its strength
A single currency that allows individual states to spend and borrow, follow economic policies that might suit them, but are disasterous for their neighbours, as is starting to happen, will ultimately fail
Complain about this comment
#67 - Jukka_Rohila
Jukka,
Further thoughts on your #67.
You are absolutely right in what you say but you should remember that the EU has a vested interest in ensuring stability and independence in Kosovo and supporting the Montenegro determination to progress outside of the Serb federation. It is very much in the EU's interest therefore to give support to a stable currency in both countries.
While of course the ECB is apolitical and international, I would think they will be bending over backwards to ensure that both countries have access to the currency on favourable terms.
Complain about this comment
cobber950 @ #75
I would not disagree that the existence of the Euro and "ever closer union" are a horse and cart but which drives which is irrelevant as the same currency and other mechanisms of "ever closer union" are indivisible.
I would diagree with you as to your views as to the success of the Euro requiring debt consolidation as a prerequisite. I see a disconnect between the two.
The 15 EU countries and satellite nations that have adopted the use of the Euro have diverse economies and different levels of governmemt borrowing/national debts. Despite this, the Euro functions perfectly well and has done so for the previous 8 years simply because the ECB does take apolitical care to leave taxation and public financing to the individual nations but controls the borrowing rates and money supply centrally within the Eurozone.
On a smaller scale this is exactly what the Bank of England does for the UK economy by no longer being politically controlled.
The UK National Debt is created and (mis)managed by the government of the day but the BofE is controlling inflation and endeavouring to prevent deflation as we discuss the topic of the Euro - just as the ECB does day-to-day.
The current global economic crisis has led to certain relaxations of investment rules (for example, as of yesterday the EU rule preventing unfair interventionist support was suspended) and this relaxation may allow the UK government to use UK tax revenue to support Jaguar/Land Rover - this is a political decision permitted in the current climate of a global crisis and irrelevant to the currency used to support the debt mechanism of either the UK or any EU nation that needs to support jobs in their country during this global recession. Such protectionist intervention is not the concern of the ECB but is an political decision of the EU to relax the rules governing the competency of the individual nations to trade without unfair government intervention.
I would therefore dispute with you that there is a prerequisite for the EU national debts to be controlled centrally and the success of the Euro to continue.
I do not believe the two, necessarily, go hand-in-hand although, ultimately, through "ever closer union" one could imagine that, regionally, the EU may want to use refined controls to micro-manage national or regional debts to bring EU Standards of Living and Costs of Living into more equality throughout Europe thus the Euro would buy the same cup of coffee for the same EUro price wherever you lived in Europe within the EU . . . . but I grant that that is some time way, way off in the future.
Complain about this comment
#77 - Menedemus
Is this not simply another example of how carefully thought out checks and balances can work better than hard and fast rules?
If the central bank has control of monetary policy and the government fiscal policy, an atmosphere of mutual cooperation is maintained without either being excessively constrained by the other. By joining the euro, one would simply be transferring monetary policy from the BOE to the ECB. Fiscal policy and - by extention - the necessary resources to run government on a day to day basis remain under national control. In the same way, the mechanism by which net contributors to the EU provide this money exclusively from indirect taxation means that governments retain control of direct tax revenue.
This seems to me a very plausible balance of power. If coincidentally the Euro has a tendency to encourage closer union, it is very much the carrot that is in play, not the stick.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Menedemus #77, that there is a disconnect between the "ever closer union" and debt consolidation. What we have to understand is that the EU is a unique organisation: it does not, nor cannot be compared with the US, nor with any other international organisation, eg WTO. Although the ECB "belongs" to the EU it is even more independent than is the Bank of England (much to M Sarkozy's chagrin).
As to Iceland, according to news reports the IMF inspection team has reported that the government is well on the way to recovery. They are said to be re-writing the rules governing their financial sector; and are dealing with banking sector creditors "amiably" and ably. They should soon be able to reduce their interest rates. Hardly a "basket case"?
Given the normal time-lapse for entry into the Euro, it seems as if Iceland could meet all requirements well ahead of the UK.
Final note on the 48hrs issue:
it's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put into those hours.
Complain about this comment
77
Like your complacency
The last 8yrs the Euro has lived in the same fantasy as the rest of the global economy, reality has now set in
Of the 15 members who joined the Euro none met all 3 reqirements set up by Mastricht ( including Germany) most barely met 2
Italy now has to pay 132 points above Germany for its debt and has to repay200Billion Euros next year
France ,Holland,Spain and others are crying out for a rate cut in the ECB,while the Germans want to maintain it for fear of inflation at home.
Will German taxpayers step in to help the Italians with their debt,if they struggle to pay it.
Will the Dutch be happy to alleviate unemployment in Spain by accepting an influx of Spanish workers to work at lower wages
The whole point about the US dollar is taxpayers in California will fund the bailout of banks in New York, Washington State will help fund carworkers in Illinois. The central states in America have been depopulated and noone batted an eyelid when that population re- appeared on the coast.
It is things like that which glue the dollar together, that glue is non existant in Europe.
Floating exchange rates between the states of Europe would allow interest rates more closely aligned with national interests
Currency fluctuations between the countries of Europe would have increased the flexibility required to solve this crisis
Complain about this comment
#80 - cobber950
"France ,Holland,Spain and others are crying out for a rate cut in the ECB,while the Germans want to maintain it for fear of inflation at home".
There is a growing consensus that lower interest rates are a major factor in securing a recovery as Fed cuts indicated again yesterday. The trend throughout the developed economies is deflationary anyway and the Germans have no choice. The ECB as stated above is apolitical.
"Will German taxpayers step in to help the Italians with their debt,if they struggle to pay it. "
No, but the ECB might have to and that will involve German taxpayers' money.
"Will the Dutch be happy to alleviate unemployment in Spain by accepting an influx of Spanish workers to work at lower wages"
They have no choice. That is the whole point of mobility of labour and freedom of movement. Whether Dutch employers will offer the jobs is another question. As to 'lower wages', is that not what national minimum wages are for?
"The whole point about the US dollar is taxpayers in California will fund the bailout of banks in New York"
And who will fund the bailout of California's highest house repossession rate in the USA?
"Washington State will help fund carworkers in Illinois"
Why? Why would anyone in their right mind want to bail out failed industries - and shouldn't that be Michigan?
"The central states in America have been depopulated and noone batted an eyelid when that population re- appeared on the coast".
Mobility of labour. Precisely the policy of the EU.
"It is things like that which glue the dollar together, that glue is non existant in Europe."
Because it is half hearted with only partial participation. If everyone was fully engaged, it would be every bit as effective.
"Floating exchange rates between the states of Europe would allow interest rates more closely aligned with national interests"
So the UK is achieving a benefit from interest rates at 3% as against the ECB rate at 2.5% - even though it has failed to limit the precipitate fall in sterling?
The Americans have already thrown a little under 800 million USD at the problem to little effect. There are all sorts of things you can throw at problems - money, glue, other substances I had better not mention but unless large amounts of it stick, it has not worked.
Even if I accepted your central thesis about the weakness of the European system - which I don't, please tell how the American system has succeeded.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio, rer post 81, I am sure you know that the U.K Government and Bof E are not that concerned they even think desirable that the sterling fall in value against our main competitiors, as it does make exports cheaper and imports more expensive. In these straightened economic times it does give hope to the U.K. manufacturing base (before people jump in, the UK still does have a large manufacturing base) and so to the people of the U.K.
That is not to say if sterling continues to drop it will not cause problems, it will. It does of course cause problems to U.K. residents visiting europe, undoubtedly we will see more people staying in the U.K. for their holidays this year. Others will have more problems, such as U.K. pensioners living abroad.
But at the moment the exchange rates are useful to the U.K. and detrimental to the eurozone. I have no doubt the eurozone countries will be wanting to try and restore some sort of balance to prevent the U.K. having the advantage of favourable exchange rates. This is of course down to the ECB, who have to make the decisions that is good for the majority of the eurozone, this may mean individual countries suffer.
Complain about this comment
cobber950 @ #80
You wrote, "France ,Holland,Spain and others are crying out for a rate cut in the ECB,while the Germans want to maintain it for fear of inflation at home."
But that is the whole point behind the Euro. The ECB is not run by the governments of the EU States nor run for the individual benefit of the EU State economies. The ECB will pragmatically decide whether to raise or lower the Base Rate and print or not print more currency as it sees fit for the quality of the Euro. It is up to the individual EU state within the Eurozone to work tegether and independently to resolve their own economic deficiencies and economic woes.
In fact, the Eurozone nations probably have to work more hard at trying to maitain godd economies than the rest of the free world.
Where you appear to see the benefit of a nation having unique control over its currency and managing its own monetary policy I see it being as much a potential problem as having one central bank control the currency and manage monetary policy for 15 nations.
I would accept that the ECB could get it wrong but they have not done so thus far and the Euro is a remarkably strong Reserve Currency given that it is only 8 years old. On the other hand, the US Dollar and UK Pound Sterling are less strong than they were and the pound, in particular is in danger of falling into levels of international value never seen before.
It is, of course, open to you to criticise the monetary and financial stability of any or all of the 15 Eurozone nations but, to be honest, I am not convinced that the USA or the UK current policy of lowering interest rates and taking on massive national debt is the correct solution to the problems of those two countries. Certainly the USA is creating a more massive debt than the UK but the USA does not know how much bad debt it has to squeeze out of its system; the UK on the other hand is throwing massive amounts of tax revenue at the UK problem but that "massive" volume of debt creation is paltry compared to the potential UK toxic indebtedness and probably, in my view, never like to be enough to resolve the underlying weakness of the UK economy.
Thus, the UK may have the supposed benefit of having complete independence of action and control over it's own currency and monetary policy but I am not convinced that, by the end of 2009, the UK economy is not going to be in such dire ack that many UK people will be wishing the UK was part of the Eurozone - just like the Icelanders are seeking to do now.
Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #82
You rightly mention that the fall in value of the pound sterling does have impact upon the export of goods but it does equally (and in the case of the UK who operates a Trade Deficit more tellingly) mean that our imports are becoming more expensive thus further adding to our national debt.
You rightly mention the social impact of more expensive foreign trips/holidays but that is an adverse impact too. As too is the higher cost of living for ex-pat Pensioners living abroad receiving UK Pensions in GBP.
The other adverse cost to the UK economy is credibility of the GBP Sterling as a Reserve Currency held by those countries that hold the pound sterling in Reserve. As the value of the pound deflates the value of those countries' Treasury value of the reserve currency is falling and the credibility of the UK to manage it monetary affairs and for the pound sterling to continue to be a reserve currency falls into question.
In fact, much of the pound sterling devaluation is due to other nations ditching the pound for more reliable reserve currencies such as the Dollar, Yen and, in particular, the Euro.
It could also be implied that other nations and economists think the British economy is so screwed that the value of the pound could continue to fall a lot more yet due to the, either inadequate or incorrect, UK government solutions delivered thus far to resolve the UK recession.
Complain about this comment
Hi Menedemus, re your post 84, looking t your points in turn -
‘You rightly mention that the fall in value of the pound sterling does have impact upon the export of goods but it does equally (and in the case of the UK who operates a Trade Deficit more tellingly) mean that our imports are becoming more expensive thus further adding to our national debt.’
Obviously did not make myself clear that was the whole point of my post. We do operate a trade deficit which is not useful for our economy, some of that is raw materials, not all of which can we source within the U.K., for those we cannot the exchange rates will be detrimental. However much more of our imports are of manufactured goods. Because of the exchange rate changes such goods from the Euro zone countries will have increased in price to the British consumer. With the current rate, for example the Citroen car some one may have bought last year is now 30% more expensive. With money tight will they buy that or go for a Honda produced in the U.K., that will be in comparison cheaper. That is just one example, when you look across the full range of manufactured goods we currently import from the Euro zone countries I think you will appreciate the exchange rate will have a benefit.
Another point of yours -
‘You rightly mention the social impact of more expensive foreign trips/holidays but that is an adverse impact too.’
Not sure what the adverse impact of that is, it may mean that people who currently take a holiday in Tuscany or Benidorm may choose Blackpool or Cornwall. This will have an adverse impact on the tourist trade of Euro zone countries but will be beneficial to the U.K. tourist trade. With money tight people are looking for value
Re adverse impact on the higher cost of living for ex-pat Pensioners living abroad receiving UK Pensions in GBP, I agree which is what I said in my post
Re your last points concerning reserve currency and the general state of the British economy the Bof E has been encouraging sterling to fall by making it clear it will not intervene to prop it up, they believe the advantages of a lower rate of exchange in these harsh economic times have more benefits than negatives. Time will tell who is right. But I would be worried if I was involved in manufacturing in a Euro zone country that relies on exports to the U.K., they will struggle at the current exchange rate.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @81 wrote:
"Even if I accepted your central thesis about the weakness of the European system - which I don't, please tell how the American system has succeeded."
America is one nation.
The EU is not.
Complain about this comment
How many people have been pressured by their directors to sign the opt-out as employees? along the lines of....
"of course, you don't have to sign this opt out, and we can't force you to work more than 48 hours. By the way, you do know we're having a redundancy review don't you? And you also know that it costs us money as a company in extra paperwork if you don't opt out? You'd have to fill in timesheets every week if you opted out, and we'd have to get those timesheets checked and signed, it's all lost money you know. But of course those things are unrelated. Feel free to refuse to sign the opt out."
A few weeks later, after refusing to sign the opt out (and being the only person to do so) you mysteriously become the first/only person made redundant, and/or you get re-employed as a consultant/contractor.
The employee opt-out was pathetically put together with no thought of how it'd work in the real world, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
People have been pressured not just to work longer than 48 hours, but also to do so for no extra pay above their standard salary/rate.
I don't like being dictated how many hours I can work by the government, but I also don't like my employer being able to force me to work insane hours for no extra money using the threat of redundancy against me if I refuse to comply.
A 48 hour week is about 7 hours a day, seven days a week (just as an average), or around 9.5 hours a day for a 5 day week. Nobody should be working longer than that unless they get quadruple pay and a huge regular bonus and a grovelling thank you from their employer every week.
If your employer wants to force you to work mad hours for no decent reward, go to interviews on the quiet, get another job, and make sure you leave your old job at the worst possible time for your old employer. Then tell everyone else who still works at your old employer to do the same as you did.
Complain about this comment
#86 MaxSceptic
"America is one nation.
The EU is not."
Neither is the UK.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
Nor Spain, Nor Belgium.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ #86
Are all americans from all the USA States really the same - so much so that they are an homogonised single nation? Really?
Are they not a hotch-potch of different ethnic groups, religions and beliefs and their State Laws can be so very different that travelling from one State to the next is not only a massive change in scenery but, quite commonly, a massive change in political, legal and social behaviours and taboos.
Actually, when I come to think of it, the differences from one US State to the next is almost like traveling from one European country to the next.
Of course, the USA Union does provide for Federal Laws and centralised Federal government which the Europeans may not like the idea of (at the moment) but in many other ways the US States and their people's individuality can equate for well with the unique individuality of the various EU nations and their peoples.
Complain about this comment
#90 Menedemus
I was surprised to find customs posts at the Oregon/California border (checking for illegal fruit importation to California).
In some ways, the US is less of a free trade area than the EU.
Complain about this comment
#90
Quite obviously the difference is that US States do not have soveriegnty and are therefore not actors in international relations...
Your description could in lesser or greater degrees be applied to any nation in the EU if you asked one person from one area of it to describe the rest of the areas in it, down to residents of one village describing the next village actually!
Is the latent threat of power politics not more what it's about?
Complain about this comment
The central issue with the Woking Time Directive is that it is a paternalistic law that should be opposed no matter where it originates from. The law should not be used to protect us from ourselves.
The Working Time Directive is unsuited to the modern working environment. On a daily basis I have to work with colleagues in the USA and elsewhere that are many time zones away. I also frequently work with colleagues in Israel and the Gulf where they do not work Monday-Friday. This inevitably means somebody somewhere working very early or late, or during somebody’s weekend to get the job done. International business demands flexibility such that many people now work from home most or all the time, and in doing so avoid an environmentally damaging commute to the office. In such an environment it is impossible to enforce the concept of Working Time anyway.
The best protection for workers is full employment, which has been achieved in the UK for most of the period when the WTD has been in force on the Continent. Full employment means that employers must compete to attract staff by providing the best working environment possible. The EU Working Time Directive is part of a different mindset, which seeks to mitigate the effects of economic failure, but is actually part of the culture of economic decline that has made the eurozone the slowest growing part of the developed world since the early 1990s. I know from experience that major multinational companies actively seek to employ as few people as possible in certain Eurozone countries that are famed for their restrictive labour laws. It would be a tragedy for British workers if the UK were ever to become viewed the same way.
I do not accept the EU Parliament has the legitimacy to legislate the hours I work. No government we have ever elected supports the Working Time Directive. There has never been a majority in the country that would support the Working Time Directive. If the EU wants to create such paternalistic law (which in this case has no cross-border dimension anyway) then it must be subordinate to national law such that we can elect a British government with the ability to unilaterally reject its application in the UK.
Complain about this comment
In my recent posts you have concentrated on the economic arguments, not the political.
Whatever you might think of the policies currently being run in Washington. The recent election of Obama in a continent wide election of 52 states to provide, gives him a mandate to follow policies he chooses.
Every person Republican or Democrat accepts absolutely hi s political authority to act.
No comission President, Council of Ministers etc will ever have that kind of authority, and the people of Europe don't want to give it to them.
This so called 'unique' institution has stripped powers from national governments while never having gained the political acceptance for the ability to use them.
Every country tha has held a referendum since Mastricht has originally lost it
The rise of the far right across Europe is largely a consequence of more and more people being disenfranchised from Eu decision making
The only way to stop this trend continuing is to transfer back powers to the governments of Europe who have retained the political authority to use them, and be held accountable for the use of them
On the issue of this blog If I want to work 60hrs a week in Aberdeen what does it matter to someone working in Antwerp
I do not seek the power to tell people in Antwerp how to work, thats up to them,leave me in peace to do likewise
Complain about this comment
The WTD was introduced to protect workers from damaging their health by working excessive hours over a sustained period of time. The 48 hour limit is an average over 17 weeks or longer if there is a workforce agreement.
Opting out is like opting out of wearing a seat belt in a car or opting out of wearing a helmet on a motor cycle.
Under the WTD the only requirement is that in any week there must be minimum rest period of 24 hours in one week, 11 hours in each period of 24 and in work rest of 20 minutes if you work more than 6 hours a day. The total rest in week must therefore be at least 92 hours. Subtract this from a weekly total of 168 hours and you get 76 hours (12.5 hours per day.)
So the WTD does allow long hours where needed provided this does not continue over a prolonged period. Unfortunately like so much else in this country we are fed a lot of disinformation by those who want to exploit workers.
The reality is that workers are pressurised to sign the opt-out and work long hours and the HSE does not have the resources to police the WTD.
This was a good day for UK workers - well done Euro MP's
Complain about this comment
Where does all this end? I am a Priest and have worked 96 hours in the last seven days. Will that be legal in the future?
How will I explain to the family requesting the last rites that I cannot attend because I am over my limit this week?
Complain about this comment
#86 - MaxSceptic
So I repeat the question, lest I was misunderstood. How has it helped?
Complain about this comment
#93 - Freeborn-John
Your point would be well made if the vote changed anything but the fact is that it does not. The opt out remains in place unless and until the relevant treaty is revised or updated. Since there is no danger of that, it's all a bit academic.
#94 - cobber950
"Whatever you might think of the policies currently being run in Washington. The recent election of Obama in a continent wide election of 52 states to provide . . ."
No, the two further states in the dollar zone do not have presidential votes, only the 50 states of the union.
"No comission President, Council of Ministers etc will ever have that kind of authority, and the people of Europe don't want to give it to them".
You have no way of knowing that until someone has the guts to ask them. Until then, it is pure speculation.
"This so called 'unique' institution has stripped powers from national governments while never having gained the political acceptance for the ability to use them."
Nobody has stripped power from anyone because they do not have the power to do so. If power has been transfered, it is because it has been gifted by your national government. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people you elected at Westminster.
#95 - david0211
"HSE does not have the resources to police the WTD."
And who's fault is that? Otherwise, I agree with every word you write.
#96 - Gary-E
Some people will always consider their calling to be something more than work. Perhaps if more people in caring professions thought that way, your workload might be lighter. I will cheerfully engage in debates between eurosceptics and enthusiasts but competition between the Grim Reaper and the Almighty is way beyond me. I do not share your faith but my respect for your position is absolute.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (98): You are very badly mistaken. The UK did once have an opt-out from the social chapter of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, but the 1993 Working Time Directive introduced some of the provisions of the social chapter in the guise of health and safety so as to bypass both the UK social chapter opt-out and any possible UK veto (health and safety being subject to qualified majority voting). The UK appealed the slight of hand of introducing this as Health and Safety, but the ECJ ruled (as usual) in favour of 'ever closer union'. Therefore no treaty changes were necessary here.
The Working Time Directive has been in force in the UK since 1998 with only a UK-specific opt-out clause (not a treaty opt-out) that allows British workers to work longer if we want to. Many of us take great delight in exercising this opt-out clause such that we can work the hours we want.
The UK therefore does not have a veto on further changes to the Working Time Directive. Nor are you correct to say this vote is academic. Health and Safety is an area where 'co-decision' applies involving both EU Parliament and Council of Ministers so the consequence of this vote will be 'conciliation', i.e. negotiations between Council of Ministers and EU Parliament to resolve the differences. Should these negotiations be concluded to the satisfaction of enough other countries (e.g. those concerned about on-call rules for medics, etc.) then the UK would be required to accept the result whether we like it or not.
As far as I am concerned the WTD and the way it was introduced are totally unacceptable, and should be resolved as part of a full-scale renegotiation of the UK-EU relationship.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @88 and 89 wrote:
"Neither is the UK." [one nation]
True enough, but for the past 300 years (until very recently) most Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen also felt themselves an integral part of an larger entity called Britain - with all the opportunities it offered, and all the duties and obligations it demanded. Even after Irish independence, nearly a hundred thousand Irishmen fought on behalf of Britain in WW2, and thousands died.
"Nor Spain, Nor Belgium"
Most Spanish constituent nationalities are content to be within a federal Spain while working for more autonomy. The terrorism of a minority of militant Basques seeking independence (also from areas of France) is an exception.
Belgium is a pointless political construct of ill-matched Walloons and Flems so it doesn't really count. I give the place 10 more years ;-) The food and architecture are nice, though.
threnodio @97,
It has helped in that all parts of the US - from Hawaii to Alaska, from 'sea to shining sea' - have felt themselves a real and integral part of a single nation and real union - a union for which millions of American have been willing to lay down their lives (and hundreds of thousands have). This makes
How many people would lay down their lives for the European Union? (Personally, I wouldn't even micturate on it if it were on fire).
Complain about this comment
oldnat @ #91
I think you will find that is Californian legislation to protect the Citrus Fruit industry of California.
I would also accept that the US is not a knight in shining armor when it comes to protectionism whilst lauding free trade. However, one can hardly call the individual EU nation states or the EU any better when it comes to protectionism - the Europeans will break the rules and creat anti-free trade rules and even generate worthless court cases to protect or sanction against other trading blocs whenever it is felt necessary.
Complain about this comment
I think the embarrassing thing about this is that we (UK) are being seen as the sweatshop of Europe, and we need to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that some form of limit on working hours is necessary. You can argue whether 48 hours is the right limit, and you can argue maybe that Member States should be allowed some flexibility, perhaps to set a limit below the maximum (as in France, though I wouldn't advocate 35 hours) However, it's unacceptable that we should be seen to accept the possibility of exploitation of employees, and, in extreme cases, danger to the public. Sorry, but excessive working hours is most definitely a health and safety issue. Maybe the difference between 48 and 49 hours is not significant, but what about 58, 68 or 78 hours? OK, so the WTD is not the answer to all of the problems and enforcement may be difficult (who's going to stop people spending extra hours at home on their laptop? – but these aren't the people that need to be protected) . However, the main point is the message that our continual refusal to accept regulation in this area sends out. Come to work in the UK where the spirit of Charles Dickens is still alive and well!
Maybe it would have been better if the UK had put its own house into order before being shamed into taking action by others.
Complain about this comment
Re post 99, Freebornjohn, I was not aware of that and it is clear from reading the other posts on this site, many others were not. It does tend to make a nonsense of supposed opt outs and I imagine some way down the line the opt outs the U.K. negotiated over Lisbon will go the same way. I hope the people of Ireland take note.
Complain about this comment
65. At 12:44pm on 18 Dec 2008, threnodio wrote:
What this vote has done is:
1. Put the Parliament at odds with the Commission which continues to support the opt outs which were agreed with 13 different member countries (not just the UK).
----------------------------------------------
No it hasnt. They are not at odds they are overuled by a greater power.
-------------------------------------------------
2. In doing so, the MEPs have created an environment in which it is desirable for the Commission, the 27 members including the 13 dissenters and the Parliament to see if they can negotiate a compromise.
------------------------------------------------------
Any compromises negotiated now are clearly NOW not worth the paper they are written on. The EU once it has its constitution wont need to negotiate it wont need to compromise because it will have NO need to.
----------------------------------------------------
3. If a compromise cannot be made, the MEPs demands will not be satisfied and the treaties which enable the opt-outs to operate will remain in force, the WTD will not operate in the UK, the EU will not be able to dictate the number of hours you work and British law will stand until such time as Parliament chooses to change it.
----------------------------------
That will change when the EU gets its constitution whitch the lisbon treaty is..
LOOK you cant really dispute the fact the EU intends to become a federal superstate and that slowly all agreements all fine print ends up being altered once they have what they want.. WHY ON earth would we give them this power in the first place and why on earth would a trade organisation by demanding it.. You can say free flow of goods blah blah all you want meanwhile the EU has its own Judiciary and now army and Police force.. Its just plain ridiculous now to deny its future strategy even the most gullible must be choking on their tea.
----------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder if anyone can spot the enormity of this and what it means for our democracy?" Totally insignificant
By contrast what is the effect of digging your heels in over a non-existent sovereignty issue:
-------------------------------------------------
Excuse me IT IS EXACTLY a soveriegnty issue Our countrys constitution being removed and the EU's constitution replacing and surpassing it..
------------------------------------------------
1. To refuse to negotiate a practical working procedure which is all you are being asked to do.
2. Perpetuate the perception of the UK as obstructive and half-hearted EU members.
---------------------------------------------------
No its not all Its about our democratic right to make our own laws and not have Brussels tell us what we can and cant do.
--------------------------------------------
3. Strengthen the view of British hypocrisy that it's democracy is ideal but the democratically elected EU Parliament is flawed simply because you don't agree with them.
-------------------------------------------------------
The EU is not a democratic party? WWhere are the opposition parties then? Its a dictatorship because there is no opposition and here you are trying to stop any opposition from us even before the EU gets its constitution HOW democratic is that? Might as well strip workers, Voters, the public of all rights.. Oh yes thats what the EU constitution does actually because only they will be able to change the laws once the federal state is fully realized.
--------------------------------------------------
There are too many posts in this and other threads by people who make assumptions on an emotional basis without examining the facts. This vote changes nothing. It simply starts a discussion. Or do you have a problem with discussions as well?
----------------------------------------------------
Your the one with the discussion problem because your trying to stop people from complaining or opposing the EU walking all over them and there democratic right to oppose..
Complain about this comment
#99 - Freeborn-John
Thank you for putting me right on the WTD. I have to confess that I thought the Utrecht arrangements were still in place. I knew that some H and S issues had circumnavigated the treaty but not the implication for the whole WTD. So I apologise if I misled anyone and thanks again for the remarks.
Nevertheless, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the UK government can defy any additional regulation even if it does fall into the QMV category although whether they would end up in the ECJ, I do not know. Certainly the way Mark reports it, this marks the begining of a negotiating process rather than a fait accompli with the Commission apparently onside with the government.
#100 - MaxSceptic
"It has helped in that all parts of the US - from Hawaii to Alaska, from 'sea to shining sea' - have felt themselves a real and integral part of a single nation and real union"
You misrepresent me. I have no argument with the cohesive effect of the US constitution. My question was asked in the context of a post about the current economic turmoil as well you know. But, for clarity, how has the nature of American democracy helped them cope with the economic downturn? It has not.
#104 - Dan6713
"The EU is not a democratic party? WWhere are the opposition parties then?"
You misrepresent me as well. What I said was that the European Parliament is a democratically elected institution. And it is.
"Your the one with the discussion problem because your trying to stop people from complaining or opposing the EU walking all over them and there democratic right to oppose."
I have no problem with people expressing opposing view and I would not dream of try to "stop people complaining". What I will not do is shut up simply to make those who disagree with me happy.
Complain about this comment
Jordanbasset (103): There is a general problem with opt-outs in that it only takes one government to surrender an opt-out for it to be permanently lost. The Blair government decided for example to surrender the UK social chapter opt-out such that a future Conservative government would have to secure the agreement of 26 other governments to restore it. This is part of the wider one-way ratchet problem where decisions taken by a government at EU level are binding not just on that government for its lifetime, but in perpetuity on the state.
Ireland has an opt-out from the Lisbon treaty 'Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' which would be crucial to safeguarding their common law system from 'approximation of rules on criminal matters'. However Ireland's opt-out is largely a cosmetic device to aid ratification. Should Lisbon come into force the Irish opt-out would be reviewed by the Irish government after 3 years, which is almost certain to mean the opt-out would be surrendered by the euro-fanatics in Dublin.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio
"The EU is not a democratic party? WWhere are the opposition parties then?"
You misrepresent me as well. What I said was that the European Parliament is a democratically elected institution. And it is.
-----------------------------------------------
No it isnt.. Did the people say yes to the EU? Or are you going to use the 1975 Propaganda campaign as proof the EU has any legitimacy? Its actually been forced on us and MEP elections are allowing us to vote for an MEP who pretends to be democratic when in fact you can only vote in an MEP as a member of a single party therefore guaranteeing the EU is in power forever Thats a long mile from democracy Its deceptive and pretends to be but its not.. Its the same as saying you can have any labour MP as long as its a labour MP The EU has no opposition no legitimate reason for being..
-------------------------------------------------
"Your the one with the discussion problem because your trying to stop people from complaining or opposing the EU walking all over them and there democratic right to oppose."
I have no problem with people expressing opposing view and I would not dream of try to "stop people complaining". What I will not do is shut up simply to make those who disagree with me happy.
--------------------------------------------------
No please continue Im very happy to finally be able to debate this as so often any dissent from the EU dream is shut down.
Complain about this comment
#107 Dan6713
"Did the people say yes to the EU?"
If you are from England, then you should know that your constitutional law declares that Parliament is sovereign, not the people.
Once the English modernise their outmoded, undemocratic constitution, then they can criticise other systems.
Complain about this comment
#107 - Dan6713
"No it isnt.. Did the people say yes to the EU? Or are you going to use the 1975 Propaganda campaign as proof the EU has any legitimacy?"
Again you are determined to misrepresent me. Where did I write that the UK was given a referendum about EU membership? I did not.
What I said and repeat is that the European Parliament is a democratically elected institution. Again I repeat that it is.
Out of interest, were you given a referendum about whether or not you wanted the form of local government you have wherever you may live? No, thought not - but you still have council elections don't you.
I have repeated ad nauseum in these threads that if your government has failed to consult you about a matter of constitutional importance, your beef is with Westminster, not the EU.
#108 - oldnat
You know better than that Nat. The Engish do not have and never have had a formal constitution. Perhaps that is why we are having this endless debate. Where am sure we would agree is that recent threads have been laden with complaints from people who are so blinkered by their in-built prejudice against the EU that they flatly refuse to accept the truth that is staring them in the face. The EU as an institution has never denied or sought to deny any of it's people the right to vote on any issue their national governments choose to put before them. National governments frequently have and most recently appear - with the exception of Ireland - conspired to do so. That is a matter between national governments and their electorates and nothing to do with an EU plot.
This is not an opinion - it is fact.
Complain about this comment
At 4:23pm on 19 Dec 2008, oldnat wrote:
#107 Dan6713
"Did the people say yes to the EU?"
If you are from England, then you should know that your constitutional law declares that Parliament is sovereign, not the people.
-----------------------------------------------------
Actually NOT in this case Parliament is NOT allowed to take away our constitution or replace it.. The country is like a shop the government are allowed to run.. However they are not allowed to sell or give away the shop Only the owners can do that and thats why a referendum was essential but then you have to ask would a referendum been truthful? NO It would be deceptive and some would fall for it but not enough for them to win..
--------------------------------------------------------
Once the English modernise their outmoded, undemocratic constitution, then they can criticise other systems.
------------------------------------------------------
Our democracy allows the voter to choose from a number of parties who show the voters there manifestos.. The voters then decide on that Basis.. In new labours Manifesto they promised a referendum on the EU Constitution then renamed the constitution a treaty so they wouldnt have to They knew they would lose if they did.
As for criticising the democratic process of the EU their is nothing to criticise the EU is a dictatorship as there are no parties it competes with The EU has establised itself as being in power forever. On that basis it will be able to change anyway it wants without accountability..
The EU wants to introduce road tolls to its new EU regions thats why it tried to build satnavs to compete with Americas..
The UK government is helping the EU to help itself to our country using any method it can.. The EU already takes 60 billion from us yearly and soon VAT will rise to 21% Plus new road tolls and Council tax will end up in their big fat troughs.. Meanwhile the new ID cards that will give your personal details wherever its needed IE supermarkets banks petrol stations will all be readily available from Brussels central where a new supercomputer SIS Mark 2 will access all our information already being linked by computer here. Schengen has been operating here now for a while even though it wasnt supposed to through Blairs SOCA agency where EU police can be appointed as any UK law enforcement officer in any combination or all and ALL euro officers are duty bound to report all information to Brussels therefore bypassing British so called law..
Anyway ITS the EU THAT is subverting democracy and it should disband itself..
Complain about this comment
Threnodio: (105): As I understand it, the 'talks' that Mark Mardell refers to is the conciliation process used in areas of co-decision. This is essentially a bureaucratic process that tries to reconcile the differing positions of the Council of Ministers and EU Parliament and as such it is a bit hard to predict what the outcome might be. Hopefully the measure will fail. It is also worth noting that should the Lisbon treaty ever come into force it would be even harder for the UK to block unwanted restrictions to the hours we choose to work.
The UK cannot defy EU regulations imposed under qualified majority votes when it is outvoted. We would open ourselves up fines, suspension of voting rights and ultimately expulsion from the EU. (This is fundamental to the loss of de-facto sovereignty for any country that remains in the EU). It would indeed be a great improvement in the democratic legitimacy (and popularity) of the EU if its legislation (on matters other than the common market) were only binding on those governments that actually voted for it.
Complain about this comment
At 4:59pm on 19 Dec 2008, threnodio wrote:
#107 - Dan6713
"No it isnt.. Did the people say yes to the EU? Or are you going to use the 1975 Propaganda campaign as proof the EU has any legitimacy?"
Again you are determined to misrepresent me. Where did I write that the UK was given a referendum about EU membership? I did not.
-----------------------------------------------------
And where did I say you did? I said what I thought you might say
-------------------------------------------------
What I said and repeat is that the European Parliament is a democratically elected institution. Again I repeat that it is.
-------------------------------------------------
A democraticly elected insitution? So who elected them to represent the people? NO ONE They decided they would be in charge and then gave people the right to vote for an MEP.. An MEP is a representaive of the EU So we have been given the right to vote in a member of the organisation who decided to control us? BUT not the right to vote for an MEP of a different party AND thats where the deception begins isnt it because most people miss this point..
Here in the UK every five years we elect a government from all the parties that present a manifesto.. This is called democracy.. If the government serving the people now does things the people dont like the people will vote in a government that promises to change things That is OUR democracy..
The EU has no opposion parties and we are forced to vote for one of its own MEPs Thats the same as Labour changing the law to get rid of all opposition parties and only allowing the British public to vote in a labour MP Any labour MP you want as long as its a labour MP
tHIS IS WHERE you say and MEP is elected and therfore democratic and is the lie sold to gullible millions who believe it Only its not democracy its about voting in the same party forever..
---------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, were you given a referendum about whether or not you wanted the form of local government you have wherever you may live? No, thought not - but you still have council elections don't you.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes but the council only run the amenities we need like schools etc.. The councils are not governments they do not run the country or county There power is limited this comparison is at best another deception
-------------------------------------------------
I have repeated ad nauseum in these threads that if your government has failed to consult you about a matter of constitutional importance, your beef is with Westminster, not the EU.
---------------------------------------------------
My beef is with an organization trying to take our democracy freedom and lands.. AND with a treachorous Government aiding them.
--------------------------------------------
#108 - oldnat
You know better than that Nat. The Engish do not have and never have had a formal constitution. Perhaps that is why we are having this endless debate.
-------------------------------------------------
More word games? This in the end is what the EU is all about deception after deception.. Yes the UK constitution is more an idea with some documents going back to the magna carta etc BUT we all know our constitution is the ownership by the people Trying to use this tactic is very telling.
----------------------------------------------
Where am sure we would agree is that recent threads have been laden with complaints from people who are so blinkered by their in-built prejudice against the EU that they flatly refuse to accept the truth that is staring them in the face.
--------------------------------------------------------
your truth?
------------------------------------------------
The EU as an institution has never denied or sought to deny any of it's people
----------------------------------------------
Its people?
------------------------------------------------
the right to vote on any issue their national governments choose to put before them.
--------------------------------------
Err how does that work then? So lets say we have our regional assemblies and we have a complaint they may talk to the COR who may bring it up as a TALKING SHOP Only NO power there at all.. It doesnt deny them the right to vote on any issue it just decides whether they can or not. How democratic is that?
------------------------------------------------
National governments frequently have and most recently appear - with the exception of Ireland - conspired to do so. That is a matter between national governments and their electorates and nothing to do with an EU plot.
--------------------------------------------------
No government is allowed to change the constitution and New Labour are breaking the law by doing this.. What New labour are doing is in fact treason. Charges may be bought against them one day for selling us out without the promised referendum which by the way is a legal requirement no matter how much they corrupt the system One day they will feel the long arm of the law. Brown Blair and Mandelson may think there will be new statues built in brussels in their honour but somehow I think things will all come unstuck
This is not an opinion - it is fact.
Complain about this comment
#112 - Dan6713
At last, something we can agree on.
You were sold down the river by Nu-Labour. That having been said, under the UK system, sufficient numbers voted for them to ensure an indecently large majority so you (collectively) do have to shoulder some of the blame.
When I wrote about conspiracy, I was saying much the same thing as you. That 26 governments conspired not to put the question to their respective peoples by tinkering with the constitution and renaming it a treaty. If you think that is shabby, then I am with you all the way. But the EU did not do that. Your governments did.
For the record, I have often said in these threads that there is a need for an honest debate ending with a proper consultation process about the future of the EU and Britain's fute role in it, if any. I am not, as you seem to think, seeking to deny you a voice. Far from it. I welcome it. However, I will continue to argue from the European standpoint because I happen to believe it works. Having lived most of the first fifty years of my life in Britain and the rest more recently in continental Europe, I have seen both sides of the coin and I find many of the fears of the more strident eurosceptics groundless.
I don't see much point in our continuing this one on one discussion because there are clearly things on which we will never agree but one point I feel I must make is that you write - "No government is allowed to change the constitution and New Labour are breaking the law by doing this." This is not true. Firstly you cannot formally change something which does not exist and secondly, governments do it all the time - informally of course - by making changes in the law which affect the way in which you are governed. But they do need the consent of parliament and if that is too easily obtained because of complacent and compliant MPs and over zealous whips, again you must take that up with Westminster.
Complain about this comment
Further info re the Prius (use this as it does seem to be the standard bearer of the hybrids concerning life time energy useage.
Despite requests from the British Government and British media have requested Toyota release detailed figures for the energy use and CO2 emissions resulting from the building and disposal of the Prius. The UK Government Car Service run 130 Priuses, and Toyota has not supplied the detailed data that they requested, to support claims that the lifetime energy usage of the Prius, including the increased environmental cost of manufacture and disposal of the nickel-metal hydride battery, are outweighed by lower lifetime fuel consumption. Toyota states that lifetime CO2 saving is 43 percent but will not give any data to support that figure, seems to be plucked out of thin air.
Auto express magazine magazine performed independent fuel efficiency tests, on public roads, on a number of hatchbacks, and in August 2007 published their list of the ten most efficient. The Prius achieved 10th place in the list, returning 41.5 miles per imperial gallon (6.81 L/100 km/34.6 mpg-US). A Citroën C4 Coupé 1.6 HDi got 1st place with 49.6 miles per imperial gallon (5.70 L/100 km/41.3 mpg-US
The Prius is not bad car re CO2 emmisions, but it and other hybrids are not the saviour of mankind and people should not be fooled by smoke and mirrors that it is much better, if at all, than any other traditional modern fuel efficient car.
Complain about this comment
Sorry post 114 meant for the other thread
Complain about this comment
Coming back to the WTD rather than the Euro. What really gets my back up is the concept that Europe should be passing laws about this at all. It is fine for individual countries to pass laws suitable to their traditions about when and for how long people should work but why should Europe impose a "one size fits all" rule - the answer is of course "social europe". The concept that different countries have different traditions is to be stamped out in case some countries have a competitive advantage because they like working harder, or even worse elect right wing governments (if you are Austrian we will simply refuse to accept any right wing govt you elect until you change your mind and elect a proper socialist govt).
What pro-Europeans so often fail to understand is that this, and particularly the legal slight of hand to bring WTD under health and safety rules actually brings the EU concept into disrepute - and I am someone who things the EU has been a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Re post 113, you are right of course, there is nothing to stop the Government of the day giving away sovereign powers to another institution. It is an unwritten rule (not enforcable in any way) that such changes should not be made without the express consent of the people (hence referendums in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, over tranfer of power from Parliament to another institution.
The Government could even, if it wished, and had a majority, change the law to say elections would only be held every 10 years or suspend them altogether.
It is felt, however, if it did act in such a cavalier way the people would rise up and prevent it. You could argue that is what happened, on a smaller and different scale, with the poll tax. You do suggest (I think) in this and other posts that if Governments across europe fail to properly consult the people over the direction of europe there will be repercussions in the future. (sorry if I have misinterpretted your view point or put it too strongly)
I hope those in power realise this before it is too late to retrieve the situation. By this I do not mean any violent insurrection, rather a continueing groundswell of dislike for the E.U., leading nations to leave.
Complain about this comment
#109 threnodio
"The Engish do not have and never have had a formal constitution."
The word you should have added in is "codified" not "formal". However, changing my wording does not alter that the UK does have a body of constitutional law (a mixture of precedent, convention and statute), and that the UK chooses to apply English as opposed to Scots constitutional law to the powers of the UK Parliament.
#110 Dan6713
I suggest you go and read Blackwell, Dicey and Bagehot.
Even the modern works of Hart and Dworkin which suggest that the British constitution instead rests on the ideal of government under law, really deal with the principles through which judges should interpret the language of statute law.
The UK Parliament is limited only by it's practical ability to pass legislation. There are no limits in English constitutional law as to what it can do.
It can pass an act of attainder requiring the BBC to identify Dan6713, declare that you have committed a crime, find you guilty, and pass sentence on you.
Enjoy your "democracy"
Complain about this comment
What New Labour is doing is answerable to the people
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/Eurorealist/MagnaCarta/treason.html
However, I will continue to argue from the European standpoint because I happen to believe it works.
--------------------------------------------------
I believe its a gravy train full of corruption and a dictatorship in waiting.. The whole thing could have been set up with proper democracy complete with opposition parties and laws for different countries But really a trade organisation and even that is on thin ground as most goods are now bought in globally.. China for example.
----------------------------------------------
Having lived most of the first fifty years of my life in Britain and the rest more recently in continental Europe, I have seen both sides of the coin and I find many of the fears of the more strident eurosceptics groundless.
-------------------------------------------------
No waht you see is what they want you to see but this organisation has deliberatley been put together in a way that gives itself all the power forever and takes away democracy.. You can go sing nice sings and salute blue flags meanwhile us workers will foot the bill..
-----------------------------------------
I don't see much point in our continuing this one on one discussion because there are clearly things on which we will never agree but one point I feel I must make is that you write - "No government is allowed to change the constitution and New Labour are breaking the law by doing this." This is not true. Firstly you cannot formally change something which does not exist and secondly, governments do it all the time - informally of course - by making changes in the law which affect the way in which you are governed. But they do need the consent of parliament and if that is too easily obtained because of complacent and compliant MPs and over zealous whips, again you must take that up with Westminster.
------------------------------------------------
It is against the law but it depends on whether the people get a chance to implement it Lets hope for all our sakes they do..
Complain about this comment
At 6:23pm on 19 Dec 2008, jordanbasset wrote:
Re post 113, you are right of course, there is nothing to stop the Government of the day giving away sovereign powers to another institution. It is an unwritten rule (not enforcable in any way) that such changes should not be made without the express consent of the people (hence referendums in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, over tranfer of power from Parliament to another institution.
------------------------------------------------
No it is a written rule but not one that is recognized by New Labour and even by our Judiciary However that doesnt stop it from being rule and it just means more criminals to be bought to justice later
-------------------------------------------------
The Government could even, if it wished, and had a majority, change the law to say elections would only be held every 10 years or suspend them altogether.
It is felt, however, if it did act in such a cavalier way the people would rise up and prevent it. You could argue that is what happened, on a smaller and different scale, with the poll tax. You do suggest (I think) in this and other posts that if Governments across europe fail to properly consult the people over the direction of europe there will be repercussions in the future. (sorry if I have misinterpretted your view point or put it too strongly)
---------------------------------------------------
Thats why were getting ID cards and laws to prevent demonstrations.. New anti terrorist laws that really will work against the people for example they wanted 90 days prison sentence on anyone they wanted to. Think of how the euro police could use this with there already magical warrant cards.. Imagine for example you protest and ID'd Next thing the euro police take you to the EU where you disapear for 90 days enough time for beatings to heal or anything else they want to subject you to..
Imagine when jobs are short being made to go where the jobs are for example poland. Imagine Brussels becoming a city of elites and working class regions etc..
Look the list is endless and open to abuse all written in by the EU elite.. If there not plans to use it then why do it?
Anyone who trusts the EU lies and deceptions witnessed so far needs there head examined
I hope those in power realise this before it is too late to retrieve the situation. By this I do not mean any violent insurrection, rather a continueing groundswell of dislike for the E.U., leading nations to leave.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Why is Brown looking like a war leader?
Brown is looking relaxed and happy because things are going his way He has ruined the economy taxed us all HEAVILY and lowered VAT 2.5% having a meaningless effect but lumbering us with huge future debt and the perfect excuse to make the leap to 21% VAT acceptable when the EU takes its constitution.. His EU masters are gushing.
Brown is a hero of the EU well on course to join the euro and revelling in the fact no one has spotted what he's up to.
Complain about this comment
Bush knew about the bad loans in 2001 He even warned about them. But then he had an idea He let in millions of immigrants and force fannie mae and freddie mac to lend them money knowing full well they wouldn't get repaid then a steady stream of bankers bought those debts making huge bonuses also knowing these were poor investments but they made millions.. When everyone was on board and the time was right the federal reserve called time in a very vocal fashion and started the credit crunch..
This meant Bush and Brown could take ownership of most of the banks In the UKs case what we own so does the EU If you control the money supply you control capitilism In effect Bush and Brown control the money. NOW give our democracy laws and freedoms to a dictatorship they control and give them ownership of the money supply and what have you got left??
What is truly amazing is they do this in full view and like ants no one sees the bigger picture..
Complain about this comment
#117 - jordanbasset
#118 - oldnat
jordanbasset - you are right but it is worth adding that the supremacy of Parliament is considered by all the authorities I know of to be inviolable. That poses a problem with referenda because if you make the outcome binding, you are turning on it's head the whole principle of parliamentary sovereignty. To give you a silly example, if you were to conduct a referendum today on the return of capital punishment, I suggest there is more than a passing chance you would get a 'yes' vote. If you were to put the same question to Parliament, you would have no chance. So what is the point? There is no pressing demand for that debate to be reopened but what of our oft discussed Lisbon referendum?
Either Parliament would have to pass an enabling act by which it agreed in advance to be bound by the outcome of a referendum - in other words 'suspend' sovereignty for a unique instance or the public would have to accept that Parliament might overturn or ignore the outcome.
As I understand it (oldnat please help?), this would not be an issue with Scotland having a modern constitution.
oldnat - I agree with what you say but I think you are being picky. Because there is no codified constitution, there is no formal document. I really do not think I was incorrect to use the word.
Complain about this comment
To give you a silly example, if you were to conduct a referendum today on the return of capital punishment, I suggest there is more than a passing chance you would get a 'yes' vote. If you were to put the same question to Parliament, you would have no chance. So what is the point? There is no pressing demand for that debate to be reopened but what of our oft discussed Lisbon referendum?
-----------------------------------------------------
The point is about common sense interpretation and not tailored Parliaments soverignty is in doing whats right for the country and not actually getting rid of the country..
For example Im in charge of my body But I dont cut my throat so a medical student can disect it. The reason I dont is common sense.
Our government do not get put in charge of our country in order to finish it This kind of logic is wrong and is not the intended use of Parliaments powers however our constitution does have the means to deal with those who would destroy the country and disect it into regions of the EU.
Whether this will ever happen though is up to the British people at the next election or get this government thrown out before they do any more damage.
Complain about this comment
#123 threnodio
Of course I'm being picky! I come from a nation which invented religious sects on the basis of minimal differences!
At one point we had
Auld Licht Burghers
Auld Licht Anti-Burghers
New Licht Burghers
New Licht Anti-Burghers
(and no jokes about "I'll have an Auld Licht Burgher with chips"!) :-)
Even in modern Scotland, you would be hard pressed to identify real differences in social policy between the SNP, Labour, Lib-Dem, and Tory, but we love to indulge in internecine political warfare!
To your substantive point, however.
English constitutional law would not allow any Parliament to bind any successor Parliament in any way. There might, obviously, be a problem in international law with breaching treaties, and the UK would have to suffer any retaliatory action by other countries.
However, retaliatory action by others would also be a consequence for any other European country should the "people" (who are sovereign in Scotland, as in all other European countries - Finland's Parliamentary Sovereignty is constrained to national emergencies, as opposed to England's which is open-ended) decide to breach a treaty.
The critical difference between English (UK) constitutional law and everywhere else in Europe, is that the "English" Parliament is totally unconstrained by the people (except in electing them - by the rules that Parliament determines).
Complain about this comment
#124 Dan6713
"Parliaments soverignty is in doing whats right for the country and not actually getting rid of the country"
I hope you see the irony for any Scot in your posting that comment!
Complain about this comment
#125 - oldnat
"English constitutional law would not allow any Parliament to bind any successor Parliament in any way. There might, obviously, be a problem in international law with breaching treaties, and the UK would have to suffer any retaliatory action by other countries".
You are absolutely right of course but this does tend to play into the hands of some eurosceptics who argue that this is precisely what Parliament is doing every time every time it adopts some aspects of European law. My argument would be that there is nothing in this practice which prevents a future parliament from repealing the legislation in question even though it may lead to the ECJ, suspension on, in an extreme instance, expulsion.
A treaty, as you say, is clearly a different matter and of course that is what Lisbon is. Paradoxically, one of it's provisions creates a mechanism to facilitate withdrawal without a confrontation should it become necessary or desirable. Governments do routinely enter into international commitments without either consulting the people or including a specific manifesto promise. Occasionally, ministers have done so without prior reference to parliament (US extradition, Blunkett).
Is it your case that the UK is not in fact surrendering or transferring sovereignty because it has the power to 'claw it back' or do you think we are in uncharted waters (given that no government has ever made a claw back attempt)? Do you foresee an independent Scotland negotiating an entirely new and separate membership of the EU or do you anticipate negotiating with the rump UK for some kind of joint membership?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat -
- and what are your thoughts about Scotland and the Euro if the rump UK decided it wanted nothing to do with it?
Complain about this comment
#100. MaxSceptic
"oldnat @88 and 89 wrote:
"Neither is the UK." [one nation]
True enough, but for the past 300 years (until very recently) most Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen also felt themselves an integral part of an larger entity called Britain"
Not so. Certainly for at least three generations post Union (and echoing on ever afterwards), Scots still saw themselves as Scottish.
They largely sent money they made out in the empire back home to Scotland (- see investments by MacLeods of Skye on the west coast villages, regeneration of many Scottish land estates as well as funding large city monuments etc.)
This Scottishness was recognised by the other nationalities you mention (in obsevational writings of the time.)
The English in particular saw the Scots as 'not playing for the British side'. So much so in fact that some British trading companies limited the (disproportionate as it was) number of Scots employees, or prohibited them, from reaching high office for fear that these companies would become too Scottish.
So it's a nice cosy notion you have, but I'm afraid it's invented.
Complain about this comment
#127&128 threnodio
I don't intend to "play into the hands of some eurosceptics". It seems absolutely clear that any sovereign body can abrogate any treaty (of union or otherwise) that it wishes (and is willing to suffer any consequences).
The only difference between England/UK and other states/nations is the concept of sovereignty lying with Parliament rather than "the people".
Even if a nation or state (it becomes very complex!) were to adopt a constitution that embedded the EU within that constitution, it would be open to the sovereign body to alter that constitution, should it so wish (and accept the consequences).
You will understand that I am primarily concerned with the role that my own nation (Scotland) has within my wider European identity. It all gets potentially very messy, since international law recognises the UK as the entity, although Scotland and England (perhaps uniquely in Europe?) only merged as a result of a treaty (and the two bodies of constitutional law within the new entity are different!)
In practice, of course, international law is fairly weak, and the realities of change are a matter of self-interested state politics.
As a committed European Unionist and Scottish Nationalist since 1960 (how time flies!), I've always regretted the British clinging to their imperialist past, and only half-heartedly engaging with Europe.
Given the choice (and this will be affected by the attitude of Spain more than any other EU state) I'd go for Scottish membership of the EU and the eurozone even if the English stayed out of the euro (I'd rather they didn't). Ireland hasn't suffered from a land border with the sterling area.
If the latter circumstance were to happen, there's a great future for Berwick! The traditional Scottish burgh (north of the Tweed) rejoins Scotland, but they use European structures of joint planning to build a mall spanning the river - whichever way euro/sterling rates go, they profit.
Complain about this comment
#130
This is not meant superciliously.
A l l h a i l o l d n a t .
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
"Parliaments soverignty is in doing whats right for the country and not actually getting rid of the country"
I hope you see the irony for any Scot in your posting that comment!
----------------------------------------------------
Some Scots want independence but the majority are now looking for independence to get away from Gordon Browns determination to force the UK into brussels ownership. Many Scots were happy with the union But no longer trust Brown and if I were the scottish I'D BE getting out as quickly as possible.
Complain about this comment
Re post 123, Threnodio, hi, I believe referendums are only necesary if our elected Government proposes giving away any power/sovereignity we have temporarily 'lent' them. Such power/sovereignity is held in trust for the U.K. people by our elected politicians, but they should not give it away without asking our thoughts.
I appreciate such a referendum is not binding on a Government but think it highly unlikely that a Government would not follow the wishes of the people when they have been expressed. For example following the scottish referendum, the Government could have said we are taking no notice of this, but if they had disaster would have followed. .
Re capital punishment or any similar subject, this does not involve a transfer of sovereignity and it is properly within the power and remit of the Government to make laws on this subject and no referendum is required or even desirable. That is the purpose of a representational democracy, not to give away powers temporarily vested in their care.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio wrote
"English constitutional law would not allow any Parliament to bind any successor Parliament in any way. There might, obviously, be a problem in international law with breaching treaties, and the UK would have to suffer any retaliatory action by other countries".
-------------------------------------------------
I think there is a good case for us suing the EU..
--------------------------------------------------
You are absolutely right of course but this does tend to play into the hands of some eurosceptics
------------------------------------------------------
Euroskeptics yes thats a dirty word isnt it Those against europe are like racists hating europeans.. Of course this is another EU deception By naming EU supporters PRO europe and those against as euroskeptics you clearly define the good and bad guys.. WHAT A CROCK....
I love europe Im not a a euro skeptic Europe is a wonderful place BUT I hate the EU dictatorship because it wants to remove my democracy and country There is a cavernous difference in that reality and one that wordplay often negates protest to anoraks disbeliever and naysayers and elevates those for europe into nice guys looking to a better future for all... WHAT A LOVELY piece of Propaganda...
------------------------------------------------
who argue that this is precisely what Parliament is doing every time every time it adopts some aspects of European law. My argument would be that there is nothing in this practice which prevents a future parliament from repealing the legislation in question even though it may lead to the ECJ, suspension on, in an extreme instance, expulsion.
---------------------------------------------------
My argument would be that by the time this happens the EU will be so well integrated and so expensive to leave it would be almost impossible so go ahead give us all false hope so that we dont rock the boat thinking the tories will change everything Problem is they wont be able to by the time Gordon has finished us off and some scottish nationilists particularly those victims of Margaret Thatcher would like nothing more than to see england finished.
Still if you think Scotland will whiz through all the pitfalls in the EU and sit at the top table then you have another thing coming.. When englands gone then Scotland will be a very small little region all on its own against those in the EU who will of course be taxing the scottish as well as the english and those in power will not have the scottish in their hearts ONLY their own troughs...
--------------------------------------------------
A treaty, as you say, is clearly a different matter and of course that is what Lisbon is.
--------------------------------------------------
The Lisbon treaty is a document not many can understand and this is deliberate even EU commissioners have said its the constitution and all who have read it say the same except of course new labour and a few others like yourself
---------------------------------------------------
Paradoxically, one of it's provisions creates a mechanism to facilitate withdrawal without a confrontation should it become necessary or desirable.
----------------------------------------------
Not without billions and much untanglement
----------------------------------------------
Governments do routinely enter into international commitments without either consulting the people or including a specific manifesto promise. Occasionally, ministers have done so without prior reference to parliament (US extradition, Blunkett).
---------------------------------------------------
Your using a small example to justify a change that removes our country and democracy
------------------------------------------------------
Is it your case that the UK is not in fact surrendering or transferring sovereignty because it has the power to 'claw it back' or do you think we are in uncharted waters (given that no government has ever made a claw back attempt)? Do you foresee an independent Scotland negotiating an entirely new and separate membership of the EU or do you anticipate negotiating with the rump UK for some kind of joint membership?
------------------------------------------------------
If this goes through Alex Salmond who I think is a great politician will try to stay independent however against the might of the EU there will be no chance economicalyy they will be beaten in five minutes flat and will be subject to EU law...
You position as a so called scottish nationilist is overshadowed by your love of the EU you love the EU because its given you opportunities and chances you would never have had and seen the european people and cultures and thats great but dont be conned and help them sell us all out because you can see the bright lights those bright lights of the EU were built on the BILLIONS taken from our working classes who should have had the money spent on them Not hospitals where people go to die from diseases or pensioners give up their homes to pay medical bills where families have to pay high death duties and soldiers get little equipment your EU was built on the blood of the money it stole..
Complain about this comment
#130 - oldnat
Thank you. This is pretty much the answer I expected but I am grateful for the clarity.
#133 - jordanbasset
I think we agree. We are saying that you can conduct a referendum without compromising parliamentary sovereignty because the political consequences of defying the will of the people are simply too serious.
We have taken an interesting if somewhat roundabout route to reach this point but I think we can now agree.
1. The UK as a whole will have to proceed with Lisbon because of time constraints (unless, of course if fails and assuming as now looks likely that a referendum is not going to be offered).
2. Post Lisbon, it would be better for all concerned if the UK were to address it's own constitutional issues before negotiating further European commitments and, in particular, nothing further should happen until we have established the issue of Scottish independence and under-representation of the English.
3. Whichever route the British choose, they can be reassured that future governments do have the ability to repeal enabling legislation and it is not a permanent and binding obligation.
I will not even pose the obvious question.
#134 - Dan6713
"You position as a so called scottish nationilist is overshadowed by your love of the EU"
I am an Englishman living in eastern Europe. Do please check the posts before laying into me.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio you said
#133 - jordanbasset
I think we agree. We are saying that you can conduct a referendum without compromising parliamentary sovereignty because the political consequences of defying the will of the people are simply too serious.
-----------------------------------------------
You speak with some authority and yet is a ridiculous assertion.. The will of the people has been systematicly abused trampled on and somewht entirely and completly ignored Look at the IRAq WAR Millions protested yet zilcho and now with the EU constitution knowing the public would vote they did it anyway IRELAND NO FRANCE NO THE Netherlands NO did it make the slightest bit of difference? NO
-----------------------------------------------------
We have taken an interesting if somewhat roundabout route to reach this point but I think we can now agree.
1. The UK as a whole will have to proceed with Lisbon because of time constraints (unless, of course if fails and assuming as now looks likely that a referendum is not going to be offered).
---------------------------------------------
Cant stop the dictatorship from taking over so it must go ahead great news.
-------------------------------------------
2. Post Lisbon, it would be better for all concerned if the UK were to address it's own constitutional issues before negotiating further European commitments and, in particular,
---------------------------------------------------
The EU was rejected by France and the netherlands THE UK was promised a referendum so the EU in its wisdome changed the name from a constitution to a treaty EVEN THE AUTHORS acknowledge its a constitution but you wont. Its not the english who need to change their commitments its BRUSSELS
--------------------------------------------------
nothing further should happen until we have established the issue of Scottish independence and under-representation of the English.
--------------------------------------------------
Scotland will not be independent EVER Because theY will be forced to being a region of the EU You dont seriously believe scotland can operate independent of the EU and navigate around its rules to suit itself? THE EU is a federal superstate in the making and unfortunately one without democracy as its in power forever and has no opposing parties.
---------------------------------------------------
3. Whichever route the British choose, they can be reassured that future governments do have the ability to repeal enabling legislation and it is not a permanent and binding obligation.
-----------------------------------------------
Well number 1 by the time labour are kicked out it will be to late
number 2 Labour will soon introduce the euro making it impossible to leave.
--------------------------------------------------------
I am an Englishman living in eastern Europe. Do please check the posts before laying into me.
------------------------------------------------
I am not laying into you I am debating this real nightmare However many times you refuse to even recognise my posts probably because you cant deny the EU is a dictatorship taking away our democracy and freedoms and you want to keep the pretence of the invisible elephant in our midst.. There are many millions who like to feel assurred everything is well and our politicians although sometimes not trusted are to be trusted on matters of the country and its security That is what your arguments seek to hide making sure the british people dont understand the potential consequences and what it really means to them..
Complain about this comment
#136 - Dan6713
Oh come of it!
You are "debating this real nightmare", but I "seek to hide making sure the british people dont understand the potential consequences and what it really means to them"?
Or to put it another way, anyone who agrees with you is conducting an honest debate but anyone who disagrees with you is concealing the truth and deliberately misleading the people?
And you, of course, are a shining example of democracy in action.
I will engage with bigotry but not hypocrisy. Coversation over.
Complain about this comment
136 - Dan6713
Oh come of it!
You are "debating this real nightmare", but I "seek to hide making sure the british people dont understand the potential consequences and what it really means to them"?
Or to put it another way, anyone who agrees with you is conducting an honest debate but anyone who disagrees with you is concealing the truth and deliberately misleading the people?
And you, of course, are a shining example of democracy in action.
--------------------------------------------------------
The EU has always been a smoke and mirrors deception.. In the course of our discussion I hope many will see where the deceptions lie. I never at any point have said any one who disagrees with me is concealing the truth However those who support the EU whether through blind faith nice jobs or the great idea of a united borderless europe ALL understand the nagging truth that wont go away and the truth that the general public must never be told although many are wisening up now.
-------------------------------------------------
I will engage with bigotry but not hypocrisy. Coversation over.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry you feel that way I was enjoying the opportunity to show the EU in its full glory..
Its a shame it ended in insults I am neither a bigot or a hypocrite but then that is the last refuge of someone who loses the argument and gets upset.
NOTE I am not calling you either of those names.
Complain about this comment
I would prefer if we would drive into Human Future rather then Green Future.
All of those measures are driven by anti-human ideology of ecologism that sees humans as problem and wants to stop progress and improvement of human life.
Complain about this comment
#138 - Dan6713
Your comments certainly read to me as though you were making the distinction I inferred. If I have misunderstood you, I apologise. I have wish to offend or insult anyone. Merely, like you, to express my view.
In the circumstances, you deserve the courtesy of a reply.
I have a problem with your description of
". . .those who support the EU whether through blind faith nice jobs or the great idea of a united borderless europe . . .". There is in fact a very rational and logical argument to had which does not involve any of these criteria. I think to describe EU supporters as having 'blind faith' underestimates the intelligence of their case. One could equally argue that all forms of religion are blind faith. Actually religious thinkers make very good intellectual cases even though I don't agree with them. Blind faith is no use to anyone. I am sure you will be the first to admit that you are lumbered with Gordon, Allistair, Mandy and Co. because of the 'blind faith' of those who have 'always voted Labour'. What is needed is clarity of thought and rational argument.
Nice jobs - well that is an interesting one. If you are talking about the thousands of eurocrats on 'nice little earners' for not a lot of work, there are a good many EU supporters including me who would whole heartedly agree with you. However, nice jobs can also mean the work in cross border services, not to mention manufacturing of products which are exported to Britain's largest trading partner by far whose jobs depend partly or entirely on EU custom. I cannot imagine that Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, Panasonic, Sony . . . the list goes on and on, would have even considered Britain as their main manufacturing base if it had not been for unfettered access to the European market.
Borderless? Well yes it is undeniably useful that, in order to come back to Britain I have to cross 5 European borders and the only one that is not open is the UK. However, that is your decision and I have some sympathy with the security argument, even though in practice it's a damned nuisance. You should remember that it is not actually an EU traty that enables this. The Schengen agreement is open to almost all European nations. Both Norway and Switzerland for example are Schengen countries.
Freedom of residence and mobility of labour are slightly different but I have paid into the Welfare State for most of my adult life and I will claim my pension soon as is my right. However, the British tax payer does not have to pick up the tab for my healthcare, breath my exhaust fumes, empty my bins and it will not have to care for me if I go gaga or become bed ridden. Europe is not a place in the sun or a torrent of bright lights. It's a place to live, work and do business. That has nothing to do with smoke and mirrors. It is a reality which is not so different from back in blighty.
What is different is the attitude to public drunkenness and disorder, brawling, the ability to walk the streets in relative safety, not being watched 24/7, not having your phone tapped, your email trawled over and the reasonable certainty that, if you do right by others, you will be left to get on with your life in peace. This seems to me neither sinister nor threatening. I say this because there is a certain fondness amongst our opponents to hold Britain up as some kind of Utopian paradise which everyone should emulate. In fact it is degenerating into a control freak society where individual personal liberty seems to count for very little any more. If that is what you want, little be it for me to gainsay you but I find it eccentric that other countries which still enjoy most of these freedoms stand accused of sapping traditional British liberties and democracy.
Europe is not Mars. We are not little green people with horrible ambitions. We are your neighbours, ordinary people with ordinary lives. And - like it or not - you do need Europe a whole lot more than Europe needs you. By the way, the Brits are widely liked and respected in most of Europe. Older Europeans recognise and appreciate that their project would not be possible had it not been for British steadfastness last century, the former communist states acknowledge Britain's influence in binging them in from the cold and are grateful. Most Europeans would be genuinely distressed to see the UK go it's own way. But the EU has brought prosperity and security to many who would not otherwise have had it.
Complain about this comment
At 8:06pm on 20 Dec 2008, threnodio wrote:
#138 - Dan6713
I have a problem with your description of
". . .those who support the EU whether through blind faith nice jobs or the great idea of a united borderless europe . . .". There is in fact a very rational and logical argument to had which does not involve any of these criteria. I think to describe EU supporters as having 'blind faith' underestimates the intelligence of their case. One could equally argue that all forms of religion are blind faith. Actually religious thinkers make very good intellectual cases even though I don't agree with them. Blind faith is no use to anyone.
-------------------------------------------------
Thats why its important to educate the masses about the true meaning of the EU dictatorship and the loss of the country and democracy..
-----------------------------------------------------
I am sure you will be the first to admit that you are lumbered with Gordon, Allistair, Mandy and Co. because of the 'blind faith' of those who have 'always voted Labour'. What is needed is clarity of thought and rational argument.
------------------------------------------------------
Many didnt want to vote another tory government in and after all Labour promised a referendum on the EU and the economy seemed to be going Browns way So the voters thought they could relax
---------------------------------------------------
Nice jobs - well that is an interesting one. If you are talking about the thousands of eurocrats on 'nice little earners' for not a lot of work, there are a good many EU supporters including me who would whole heartedly agree with you.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes and we pay for it
-----------------------------------------------
However, nice jobs can also mean the work in cross border services, not to mention manufacturing of products which are exported to Britain's largest trading partner by far whose jobs depend partly or entirely on EU custom. I cannot imagine that Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, Panasonic, Sony . . . the list goes on and on, would have even considered Britain as their main manufacturing base if it had not been for unfettered access to the European market.
-------------------------------------------------
The EU has destroyed our farming and fishing industries and has its eye on north sea oil for the small amount we get from them is far outweighed by what we lose to our people.. This year we will pay the EU 60 BILLION and that is set to rise next year.. The invasion of EU workers has meant the loss of many jobs including my own My company replaced me with Polish workers after 20 years of loyal hard service with never a day off and continual pressure to drive my wages down before leaving me jobless I couldnt claim because my partner worked and my house had to go on the market Not a good time for that really.. Im a hidden statistic I dont show up as unemployed nor as losing my job to the polish something the government strongly denies ever happens while bosses rushed in to get cheap labour at the expense of working classes who foolishly supported them..
-------------------------------------------------------
Borderless? Well yes it is undeniably useful that, in order to come back to Britain I have to cross 5 European borders and the only one that is not open is the UK. However, that is your decision and I have some sympathy with the security argument, even though in practice it's a damned nuisance. You should remember that it is not actually an EU traty that enables this.
-------------------------------------------------------
People from all over the world fly to europe and get a european countries passport then on to the UK where our immigration officials have to let them in unable to tell whether their passports are real or not.. This country has had the biggest migration in the history of the world of about 12 million people.. Ethnic cities are now growing and when they run out of space then thats when the fun will start.. Many came here from Pakistan a muslim country leaving a dangerous culture conflict that may erupt However doesnt that play in the governments hands of having terror on the agenda as the introduce draconion new laws to control a percieved threat.. Today a nuclear bomb in one our cities is not out of the question let alone a chemical or virus attack. Thats what your open EU borders have done for us.
--------------------------------------------------
The Schengen agreement is open to almost all European nations. Both Norway and Switzerland for example are Schengen countries.
--------------------------------------------------
Schengen is a massive data highway and it has to be big Schengen will link up to computers that hold every single detail on all EU citizens and lead to the new SIS Mark 2 supercomputer coming online in 2009. There has been debate in parliament but fears and concerns are ridden roughshod over.
--------------------------------------------
Freedom of residence and mobility of labour are slightly different but I have paid into the Welfare State for most of my adult life and I will claim my pension soon as is my right. However, the British tax payer does not have to pick up the tab for my healthcare, breath my exhaust fumes, empty my bins and it will not have to care for me if I go gaga or become bed ridden. Europe is not a place in the sun or a torrent of bright lights. It's a place to live, work and do business. That has nothing to do with smoke and mirrors. It is a reality which is not so different from back in blighty.
-----------------------------------------------------
On the outside the EU appears friendly and calm a workplace an ideal.. What gives it away is the fact it wants to remove democracy because it wants our constitutions if it cant get them then it will take them and its no good blaming Brown Him Blair and Mandelson are just working for their EU masters to betray us all You have to go to the heart of the problem and that is the architects of the EU itself those who built it financed it and planned it who sit in its coridors of power controlling it.. MEPs have no power no authority there are paid well to keep quiet and talk empty words in the EU parliament In the background MEPs are given pointess work open to persuasion and corruption. The council is no more than a talking shop and those who end up as commissioners arrive knowing they got the jobs before they are shortlisted. In short from beginning to end its one big corrupt little dictatorship where money and power is king..
-------------------------------------------------
What is different is the attitude to public drunkenness and disorder, brawling,
---------------------------------------------------
We have always had drunks and brawling what has changed is the lack of respect for older generations and drugs that are freely available because of open borders and foreign drug smuggling gangs prostitution and guns..
More drink and take drugs now than ever and that is because youngsters used to go out in the pubs and clubs meet a girl and settle down then buy a house NOW they cant and not because houses are not available although they are not because about 12 million immigrants have to live somewhere. The reason is the youngsters are a lost generation the schools through lefty thinking and zero authority with punishments a farce cat teach them discipline or control and the jobs available are minimum wage.. So many kids end up jobless or low paid and living at home those who cant get jobs often end up dealing drugs. Our government have let down our kids and encouraged broken britian
----------------------------------------------------
the ability to walk the streets in relative safety, not being watched 24/7, not having your phone tapped, your email trawled over
----------------------------------------------------
Yes all part of the UKs surveillance society made so by the governments desire to control us in prepearation for the EU takeover coming.
-------------------------------------------------
and the reasonable certainty that, if you do right by others, you will be left to get on with your life in peace.
----------------------------------------------
There is undoubtably a new code of conduct which is based on a persons wealth or position in society that gets respect.. Human qualities command none.
-------------------------------------------------------
This seems to me neither sinister nor threatening. I say this because there is a certain fondness amongst our opponents to hold Britain up as some kind of Utopian paradise which everyone should emulate. In fact it is degenerating into a control freak society where individual personal liberty seems to count for very little any more. If that is what you want, little be it for me to gainsay you but I find it eccentric that other countries which still enjoy most of these freedoms stand accused of sapping traditional British liberties and democracy.
------------------------------------------------
This is the reason we need to throw out new labour and the EU so they can never again undermine our people
-------------------------------------------------
Europe is not Mars. We are not little green people with horrible ambitions. We are your neighbours, ordinary people with ordinary lives. And - like it or not - you do need Europe a whole lot more than Europe needs you. By the way, the Brits are widely liked and respected in most of Europe.
----------------------------------------------------
You see here you go again Making those who protest against the EU as racist against europeans
I LOVE EUROPE There does that make it clear?
I HATE THE EU Dictatorship that wants to destroy our control remove democracy and own everything..
Euroskeptic A putdown term to make those who protest against the EU TO be racist against eurpopeans
Pro europe A term used to glorify those who really are europe racists and want to destroy all countries by turning them into regions and making them loyal to their flag..
Talk about turning reality on its head.
---------------------------------------------------
Older Europeans recognise and appreciate that their project would not be possible had it not been for British steadfastness last century, the former communist states acknowledge Britain's influence in binging them in from the cold and are grateful.
-------------------------------------------------------
I work with a bulgarian and believe me they are there for the money Many believe the EU is after their country and feel the EU has pinched much The EU is not as appreciated as you might think..
----------------------------------------------------
Europeans would be genuinely distressed to see the UK go it's own way. But the EU has brought prosperity and security to many who would not otherwise have had it.
-----------------------------------------------------
Agian thats the lie isnt it.. When Poland Bulgaria enetered etc Blair stated his intent to redistribute the wealth of the richer countries to the poorer ones IE Ours No our economy is falling along with the Pound it will soon be right for Brown to introduce the euro.. You just know its in the pipeline a few monthes from now a reading will be taken and the work done that will give us the euro and making sure this country can never leave europe..
We are finished along with all the countries in the EU who will find out the cost of allowing their constitutions to be replaced.
Complain about this comment
Belgium's Government collapses (again).
The Flemish and Walloon Governments seem to have been getting on fine without the Federal Government for most of the last two years. Continuing with this "failed state" doesn't seem to make much sense.
I wonder how the EU will deal with the dissolution of a current member.
Complain about this comment
#141 - Dan6713
Having read your personal story, I understand your anger and I sympathise. However, you write "my own My company replaced me with Polish workers after 20 years of loyal hard service." They can't do that - unless you let them. Either they found some other excuse to make you redundant or they quite simply broke the law. Have you spoken to your Trade Union, ACAS, taken legal advice or are you just accepting it? I cannot give you advice without breaking house rules but if you Google my the name I use here, you will be able to trace me.
"Schengen is a massive data highway". I think you are thinking about something else. Schengen is simply a treaty about open borders.
By the way, I am not making anyone out to be racist. So many people write in these columns in a manner which suggests that Europeans are from another planet. I am simply saying we are not.
Complain about this comment
#142 - oldnat
They probably won't have to. Tell a Walloon that he is about to make France bigger and he quickly remembers he's Belgian. But if Europe keeps splitting up into its component parts, Hungary's going to end up as a super power.
For matters Belgian, best to rely on Buzet23 for comment if he is reading.
Complain about this comment
144 threnodio
"Hungary's going to end up as a super power."
That would no doubt delight Prince Arpad!
Complain about this comment
At 11:49pm on 20 Dec 2008, threnodio wrote:
#141 - Dan6713
Having read your personal story, I understand your anger and I sympathise. However, you write "my own My company replaced me with Polish workers after 20 years of loyal hard service." They can't do that - unless you let them. Either they found some other excuse to make you redundant or they quite simply broke the law. Have you spoken to your Trade Union, ACAS, taken legal advice or are you just accepting it? I cannot give you advice without breaking house rules but if you Google my the name I use here, you will be able to trace me.
---------------------------------------------------
I like most was under a contract.. They put managers on my case to push me harder and harder They called me in to the office to tell me the work wasnt good enough they put me under a great deal of pressure before finally telling me that they were putting my contract up for tender. They bullied harrassed and made me feel awful until I left When I did I was replaced with Polish labour.
HOWEVER AND I WISH to make this absolutely clear I have been opposed to the EU nightmare for a number of years.. My interest came about by finding out certain things from those high up in power about WHY our town was about to be surrounded by a msiive building project that would concrete the south.. I was told it was for key workers and low income families and then watched as migrants slowly started piling in... All as predicted by what I had been told..
wE HAVE BEEN Lied to and cheated Towns and villages that were once beautiful rural areas have been transformed into something else. This government is living its socialist wet dream but more on the russian model of an elite in control lording it over the rest of us
-------------------------------------------------------
"Schengen is a massive data highway". I think you are thinking about something else. Schengen is simply a treaty about open borders.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes and a descriptive term The Schengen highway.. Dont try to appear to teach me making you the master and me the pupil it wont work
------------------------------------------------
By the way, I am not making anyone out to be racist. So many people write in these columns in a manner which suggests that Europeans are from another planet. I am simply saying we are not.
--------------------------------------------------
Even your description is weird There is no such thing as a european except if you accept yourself as an EU citizen AND we are not yet there yet so your use of the word european is confusing and theft of a collective term for someone from europe and NOT a citizen of the EU however I expect we will see more of this type of reality changing propaganda
Complain about this comment
The EU should be stopped and investigations done regarding its operations Then perhaps an international team that could put together a model for a post EU style government consisting of democratic parties a minimum of three One who will be voted into power while the others sit in opposition. Whether this is viable or not would be up to an international panel to decide.. If it is then proposals put forward and a plan to hold referendums in all countries.. ALL countries should have a clear pathway out if they wish valid for the first 20 years of membership..
Until the EU dictatorship made by politicians and the financial world and purpose built for them is disbanded our constitutions Countries and freedoms are about to be stolen..
Complain about this comment
#142, oldnat, & #144, threnodio,
Re the current Belgian situation, this is the fourth time LeTerme has tendered his resignation and I was reading a local paper Yesterday. The King has still to accept it but my take is that this is finally the end for the PM, the paper I read said "Bye, Bye Leterme" and since this was an attempt to control and influence a court decision it smacks of corruption so his reputation is in tatters. Many would like the previous PM to return as he is well respected in both sides of the divide, but whether he wants to is another matter.
Oldnat, you said "The Flemish and Walloon Governments seem to have been getting on fine without the Federal Government for most of the last two years. Continuing with this "failed state" doesn't seem to make much sense.", sorry but you have to be joking, much has/is been/being blocked and it's been simply what is vital that has been passed. The future crisis is that the budget for 2009 has not been passed so no government is very bad, especially with the financial crisis. The reason that there has been the illusion of a stable government is that the politicians didn't want the expense of an extra round of costly elections before the mandatory one's in 2009. For a commune the elections cost a lot, as a friend of mine who is the councillor in charge of the finances of my commune told me some months back and coupled with the reduction in state funding due to the political impasse it was best to muddle through until 2009.
Threnodio, you mentioned the EU states splitting up into ever smaller component parts, it has long been my theory that this is what the EU elite would like to happen since it is a lot easier to control a small area than a large country. A federal EU of small regions would be much easier for their super state ambitions and there have been many examples of EU proposals and legislation that by-pass the country level and talk only of regions or EU level. For a well known example look at national elections where only nationals can vote since EU law only covers municipal and EU elections.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
Threnodio, you mentioned the EU states splitting up into ever smaller component parts, it has long been my theory that this is what the EU elite would like to happen
---------------------------------------------------
Thats why England has been split into nine regions scotlands regional assembly Wales regional assmbly and northern irelands making the UK into 12 regional assemblies this map was drawn up in the sixties Not by Prescott who lied.. The regional assemblies already have their own constitutions making them completlely loyal and answerable to the EU
The government is trying to devolve power to the regional assemblies thus with their EU constitutions negating the need for the EU to take ours as ours is replaced this is just one of three strategies to take the UK
One is force the EU constitution
Two is introduce the euro
Three is divide the country into regions and give the power to the assemblies
This is all well underway
Brown said get rid of the regional assemblies what he did in fact was merge them with regional development agencies and let them infiltrate and oversee our councils merging them etc. The regional development agencies are in fact disguised regional assemblies with all their old powers and staff but now with more added powers and the government will be devolving more to them.. In the guise of devolving power to local levels they are actually giving power to the EU this process tied in with the theft of our constitution is designed to make sure the trap is steel tight. No way out. The regional assemblies are waiting ready Unelected undemocratic they wait using propaganda and the government to subvert councils.
Complain about this comment
One thing I forgot to say is that the 'Belgian' problem concerns the government nationalisation and sale of Fortis. The shareholders and investors were left with little or nothing after the bail out and challenged it in court and have won. Whether a government appeal succeeds or not I've no idea but for the moment the sale of Fortis to BNP is suspended. What I'm wondering is whether this might have a domino effect on other countries since if the nationalisation was illegal here then maybe it was in other countries as well. I wonder if there are court challenges pending in any other country and what will happen should they succeed, or if the judges will be asked to remember their duty by the political elite as in Belgium.
Complain about this comment
Anyone notice the changing face of our high street? Insitutational shops like woolworths are being replaced by foreign shops Word is that they get massive loans from the council who runs our councils? The NEW regional development agencies beefed up with new powers and run by the old regional assemblies.. These pretend to be regenerating our towns and cities what they are doing is helping get rid of all things British and replacing them with foreign businesses..
Complain about this comment
148 Buzet23
Thanks for the information.
I've been trying to find some information about the Flemish role in the 1830 revolution, and the creation of Belgium - but all I get is stuff about the Francophones.
Do you know of any online sources (in English)?
Complain about this comment
#151, Dan6713,
Dan, sweeteners have been around a very long time and it's not just foreign firms that take advantage of them. Politics has been involved here as well, just look at where the best sweeteners have been given and which ruling party tends to have those areas as either its power base or are marginal seats. As for massive loans I can tell you about the deal Ryanair got for making Charleroi its base in Belgium, the area has benefited vastly from the work that has ensued but the EU commission ruled that the sweeteners broke the anti competition laws of the EU. Now the ECJ has ruled that the aid was not public service controlled and therefore legal so there is an element of justice sometimes.
Quite frankly it is rare to find any medium/large company anywhere these days that is not multinational and I'd rather they brought work into an area than some non-European company. European based company's need encouragement and need to be supported in order to end the exportation of jobs and wealth to the far East and Asia or even the USA. Therefore it is not too helpful for you to designate all foreign business as unwelcome as whilst you may not like being geographically European, we all are and we need to support our area and one way or the other the EU partners are interdependent.
PS, I'm pro Europe, EU sceptic, English, Belgian and unemployed in a region of extremely high unemployment that has also seen traditional local industry decimated by a number of factors including the politics of Belgium.
Complain about this comment
Dan -
"Yes and a descriptive term The Schengen highway.. Dont try to appear to teach me making you the master and me the pupil it wont work"
Oh please. Nobody is trying to talk down to you. The Schengen to which I was referring is the open border treaty. Is that more to your liking? As to your personal situation, I was trying to be helpful. Being forced to resign by having your working life made impossible is called Constructive Dismissal. If you don't want to take up my offer, at least Google it. It may be helpful.
Complain about this comment
Buzet -
"I wonder if there are court challenges pending in any other country and what will happen should they succeed . . . "
There was a move by some shareholders of HBOS to block the merger with Lloyds TSB because the combined bank would be too much in the hands of the Treasury. Then someone reminded them it would have to be nationalised anyway and it all went away:-)
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile cultures are broken down and local people face massive change to a cultureless unfamiliar nightmare where money replaces human values and people are forgotten about. The real winners are big business who get to drive wages further and further down and who control the new politics of corruption.
THATS what the people are getting and thats what they are starting to realize but to late.
---------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Therefore it is not too helpful for you to designate all foreign business as unwelcome as whilst you may not like being geographically European, we all are and we need to support our area and one way or the other the EU partners are interdependent.
----------------------------------------------------
Foreign business has always been welcome here. However this is not about that.. Its about foreign business being given a massive advantage over indigenous. AND using our own money to do it
We are not talking about established foreign business but about immigrants who come here and get huge loans with no security to replace our high street tradditional shops.
Complain about this comment
#152, oldnat,
That's an interesting question as the people I know only ever refer to the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and the creation of Belgium in 1830 (or rather 1839). If you look at Wikipedia there is a description and I suspect from what is said there that it quite accurately describes the reasons for the current impasse. There are many in Flanders who yearn to rebuild the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and maybe the fact that the francophones rebelled has never been forgotten. It's a shame we can't talk about this offline as there are a lot of very strong opinions about this on these blogs, I have a little knowledge of sites which do have a background as I have been very interested in Family History research but Google is not always the best engine for historical research I've found, plus some of my friends know a lot about Belgian origins.
Complain about this comment
#155 threnodio
The legal case (which was dismissed) against the merger was that Mandelson had acted unlawfully by not properly considering the objection by the Office of Fair Trading that the merger would breach competition law.
Treasury funding was not the issue.
Complain about this comment
Dan -
Oh please. Nobody is trying to talk down to you. The Schengen to which I was referring is the open border treaty. Is that more to your liking?
---------------------------------------------
Word games? You corrected me about my use of the word Schengen to describe the Schengen superhighway and now you continue to undermine me by bypassing that to me being what? err touchy? emotional? unstable maybe? and then continue the master pupil slant Yes very clever
------------------------------------------------------
As to your personal situation, I was trying to be helpful. Being forced to resign by having your working life made impossible is called Constructive Dismissal. If you don't want to take up my offer, at least Google it. It may be helpful.
------------------------------------------------------
You paint me as a poor unfortunate who can use the system to put things right.. This system is the reason I lost my job in the first place...
The truth is there are many many thousands just like me who lost their jobs to the EU army of workers that descended here They worked for the minimum wage and less and they were happy as they sent as much as they could home
EXAMPLE 1XPOLISH WORKER
1 WEEK = £200 FIVE Polish to a house minimum expenses Send home a minimum of £!00 where it was worth seven times its value here so a polish worker sending home £100 is equivilent to £700 per week over there.. Is it any wonder Millions of polish descended on our towns cities everywhere...
Okay they send home a minimum of £100 weekly Times that by 52 weeks and that is £5200 Times that by two million polish workers and you have ten and a half billion pounds. Times that by five years and you have an awful lot of money leaving the UK FOR GOOD
NOW Good for local economies? The supermarkets have done well and thats about it..
Good for filling in those jobs that no one wanted? NO replace those workers already here and take up all other vacancies so leaving more unemployed who are then taking from the system in benefits... Add in millions who have arrived mainly from pakistan and get free housing and benefits.. Then allow cheap inports to flood the country putting many indigenous out of business and mix the lot up what do you get????
YES THATS RIGHT A MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE triggered but not caused by the so called credit crunch to which Gordon Brown continually tells us is global and not his fault well even that is HIS fault because he allowed the rules that govern our banks.. Without any safeguards his globalisation plans took no account of what if another countrys rules were not good enough? Just like we now have gun runners people smugglers and drug dealers everywhere..
This is the beginning of the end of this country all caused by new labour to fulfill their EU dream and why would they do this amount of damage to us???
Well we can only look at how Blair is a multi millionaire now and the reasons for that for answers.. It seems selling out your country makes you very rich.
Complain about this comment
#159, Dan6713,
From your figures I guess you're referring to building workers as I've heard a lot about that from my London building trade family and others. If it is the building workers then it would seem the initial surge is ending as building projects dry up due mostly to Brown's disastrous policies as well as the credit crunch, so maybe many immigrants might go back, especially since the Eastern countries are now short of building workers and are even in some cases importing Asian workers to fill that shortage (which is ridiculous).
As for "immigrants who come here and get huge loans with no security", are you talking about commercial funding, state funding or EU regional funding?
Complain about this comment
Well I was talking about regional development agencies (aka regional assemblies) using council money.
But I know this goes on through government and EU loans too..
Complain about this comment
And no I wasnt talking about just building workers My job wasnt in building.
Complain about this comment
#161, Dan6713,
We've been here with this discussion a few times as it's the mainly UK government that decides where the EU grants get spent on so in a lot of cases it favours their PC preferences. If Regional councils are showing positive discrimination to PC hobby horses them maybe what happened to Ken in London should happen to others i.e. vote them out.
As for your job, just remember the lowering of wages and margins on contracts has been around a long time, even in my own trade which was IT. I think that the myth there is a central council of 'nine' wise men is just another UFO or Atlantis type story, the company's have simply got too greedy and incompetent managers find it easier to up profits by bullying suppliers or contract workers.
Complain about this comment
Dan6713
Can you give an example that we can check of "immigrants who come here and get huge loans with no security".
I can't think of one in Scotland, where our institutions are under democratic control, but there may be an example under the non-elected regional development agencies that you have in England.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
As for your job, just remember the lowering of wages and margins on contracts has been around a long time, even in my own trade which was IT.
==============================
The problem was you can compete wiith lower wages but not when they use Polish workers to replace you and dont give you a chance
-----------------------------------------------
I think that the myth there is a central council of 'nine' wise men is just another UFO or Atlantis type story,
------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand?
--------------------------------------------------------
the company's have simply got too greedy and incompetent managers find it easier to up profits by bullying suppliers or contract workers.
----------------------------------------------------
No thats not what happened here.. Managers are often axe men with incompetent bosses who use there axe men to do their dirty work for them.. When a company is making a fortune and the boss only needs to worry about his golf but then still takes any opportuntiy to make a little extra money he doesnt really need at the expense of the loyalty hard work and trust of those in his employ and get away with it Im afraid were really back in the eighteenth century as far as the workplace is concerned and all thanks to this rotten to the core government. I watched them use the same tactics on someone with a heart condition needless to say he died of a heart attack at work.... Still they use the same tactics employing 16 year olds so the pay below the minimum wage and sack them when they are 18.. This is a company that used to spend a fortune on outside business consultants so this practice is fairly common among our businesses..
All this and much more has been allowed by new labour in their quest for the EU dictatorship handover.. We suffer they get rich They lie and so many believe the crap..
Complain about this comment
#165, Dan6713,
re I think that the myth there is a central council of 'nine' wise men is just another UFO or Atlantis type story,
------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand?
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists around who believe there is a small group controlling the world, whether it's big business, Masonry, Jews or even the nine wise men of ancient Indian mythology it's highly unlikely to be so simple a solution to what's happening in the world these days.
Your story about the tactics at work ring very true as I've seen that many times and recently a friend of mine who was an IT director in France got much the same until he was eventually axed. Personally I tend to blame this effect on the rise in power of financial directors on the boards as they now rule company's basing their policies on short term gains. Previously it was true working directors who ran the boards and their long term R & D, marketing experience meant company's were far better managed and human resources were not just there to fire people.
Complain about this comment
Dan6713
Can you give an example that we can check of "immigrants who come here and get huge loans with no security".
--------------------------------------------------
No but they do. The small firms loan guarantee is open to all immigrants the only criteria is the business is based here. You dont need security only a business plan.
Of course the figures are kept secret and the only evidence is what is visible.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @ 148,
It's an age-old stratagem called 'divide and conquer'.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists around who believe there is a small group controlling the world, whether it's big business, Masonry, Jews or even the nine wise men of ancient Indian mythology it's highly unlikely to be so simple a solution to what's happening in the world these days.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes and often that is the type of propaganda used by those who cant win to label those opposed as ufo spotters etc.. Not good tactics...
There is though a conspiracy that conspiracy is to take our country and slice it into regions for the new EU dictatorship... And that conspiracy is proveably very real and happening and needs to be stopped.
Complain about this comment
#167 Dan6713
I didn't realise you were simply talking about the SFLG scheme.
That doesn't use council money, but is privately funded by approved banks. A Government guarantee is available to the lender covering 75 per cent of the loan amount, for which the borrower pays a 2 per cent premium on the outstanding balance of the loan, payable to BERR.
In 2007-08 there were 2,619 loans made - total value was GBP206,759,347.
This has nothing to do with immigration, though of course, anyone who lives legally in the UK can apply.
It seems that you believe that
1. only native born UK citizens should be able to participate in the UK economy
2. your job loss was caused by immigrants
3. Labour have a secret plan to hand the UK over to foreigners.
I think one might have a fair stab at guessing which political party you support. I guess it got around 0.74% of the UK vote in 2005.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
#167 Dan6713
I didn't realise you were simply talking about the SFLG scheme.
--------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't I was talking about a deliberate attempt by this government to destroy our high streets using money through its organisations IE the regional development agencies Berr and any number of government and EU grant based organisations You asked for specific examples and I cant give them.
-----------------------------------------------
That doesn't use council money, but is privately funded by approved banks.
-----------------------------------------------------
A Government guarantee is available to the lender covering 75 per cent of the loan amount, for which the borrower pays a 2 per cent premium on the outstanding balance of the loan, payable to BERR.
In 2007-08 there were 2,619 loans made - total value was GBP206,759,347.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked for examples I cant give them all I can tell you is the number of new foreign businesses replacing old indigenous ones on the high street. Many times from newly arrived immigrants who were recently penniless.. Money for this ventures must be found from somewhere and it is factually correct to say that money is available through various grant schemes
------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with immigration, though of course, anyone who lives legally in the UK can apply.
-----------------------------------------------------
I never said it did although many are aware of these grants because they are encouraged to come here because of it often getting the grant in place before even arriving here.
----------------------------------------------------
It seems that you believe that
1. only native born UK citizens should be able to participate in the UK economy
---------------------------------------------
No it doesnt and thats a deliberate lie on your part
-----------------------------------------------
2. your job loss was caused by immigrants
---------------------------------------------------
No it wasnt it was caused by this government
--------------------------------------------------
3. Labour have a secret plan to hand the UK over to foreigners.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes that is actually correct. The EU to be precise..
-------------------------------------------------
I think one might have a fair stab at guessing which political party you support. I guess it got around 0.74% of the UK vote in 2005.
------------------------------------------------------
I was expecting to get called a racist and also the other names in fact it seems like now every name in the book Im going to end up being tarred as Nazi scum soon.. So do your worst belittle tar and feather me all you like Your EU monster is heading off the edge of a cliff and I for one will be having a street party
As for immigrants they are only people the same as me in fact now I have a bulgarian manager and she is really great.. I never ever would blame immigrants for wanting a better life for themselves and I would help them all I can..
This government is at fault here and should have protected the people it was elected to serve not destroyed our country..
As for grants to immigrants what would I know bein working class and living among it.. Do your really expect me to grass people up? I say good luck to the immigrants AND Lets get our country back off this awful government and EU dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
#169, Dan6713,
I don't know that there is truly a conspiracy, it's simply that Socialists that make it upwards from local politics are invariably irrationally committed to their dream no matter how warped it is, add to that their incessant need for power to implement their craziness and you have the direction of the current EU.
These people are a breed apart, empire builders, failed capitalists etc and they simply pay lip service to their voters as the voters are simply there to be manipulated after being foolish enough to vote this type of politician in. I've seen London Labour politicians like Ken in the 70's and more than a few Belgian politicians where I live. Here it is quite noticeable that the local politicians are very committed to a social environment and people are respected and looked after, but regional and national politicians are like Brown and his crew, only in it for what they can get i.e. power.
Regarding the SFLG scheme, taking those figures that means the average loan is 80,000 pounds which is an awful lot to give to someone with only a business plan and no resources of their own. When one considers how easy it is to create a half decent business plan that is based only on surmises and what ifs rather than provable facts, I must confess to being worried about this scheme, as it could easily be open to political abuse whereby PC hobby horses like ethnic minorities are favoured even if they have dodgy business plans.
#168, MaxSceptic,
You are of course quite right, it's an age old system and one our current leaders know all too well.
Complain about this comment
I don't know that there is truly a conspiracy, it's simply that Socialists that make it upwards from local politics are invariably irrationally committed to their dream no matter how warped it is, add to that their incessant need for power to implement their craziness and you have the direction of the current EU.
------------------------------------------------
The plan can be traced back to the fifties what is really telling is when John Prescotts office came out with a map of the EU regions in the UK that he said he'd just made when in fact an exact identical map was shown from the sixties..
The EU is without doubt designed to take over and has been long in the planning. Its deceptons and slow assimiliation through the years has been defended and played down by many politicians through the ages.. Ted heath and morning cloud kicked off the game and ever since the elephant in the room has been playing an invisibility game Well its time to end it and show the world what its game really is..
The funny thing is any one else trying this fraud would long ago have been imprisoned but because they control the laws they get away with it and right in front of a believing gullible public.. Simply amaziing Im sure in years to come historians too will find this extaordinary how people were decieved.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Look I dont really want to be discussing the issues surrounding immigrants because its not their fault how our system gets drawn up and the real target is new labour and their EU dreams.. These are the people we give our money too to carry out our wishes..
Anyone who believes they do this in our interests really should wake up...
Complain about this comment
#175 Dan6713
If you didn't want to discuss immigrants, then why did you bring them into the discussion?
Posters are judged by what they say, and it is reasonable for the rest of us to assume from your statements that you are against immigration to the UK - and to distrust your withdrawal from that position.
"the real target is new labour and their EU dreams"
Brown has consistently objected to euro entry (and has done nothing to move the UK towards the entry conditions).
Would you like to provide some evidence of Labour's "EU dreams"?
Complain about this comment
#175 Dan6713
If you didn't want to discuss immigrants, then why did you bring them into the discussion?
--------------------------------------------------
Because its part of the wider issues surrounding this governments EU dreams
--------------------------------------------
Posters are judged by what they say, and it is reasonable for the rest of us to assume from your statements that you are against immigration to the UK - and to distrust your withdrawal from that position.
-------------------------------------------------
Immigration is like a lock allowing water in and out but it has to be controlled.. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing and in recent times we have seen the biggest mass movement of people in human history to this country.. Now here you go drawing me into the immigration debate..
------------------------------------------------
"the real target is new labour and their EU dreams"
Brown has consistently objected to euro entry (and has done nothing to move the UK towards the entry conditions).
---------------------------------------------------
What you mean his five rules purpotedly to upset Blair.. The truth is Mandelson Blair and Brown are the architects of new labour.. Early in it was decided to allow Blair to lead while Brown would pretend to be upset and the party would be drawn to either being a brownite or Blairite either camp would draw those disatisfied with the other and in so doing Brown and Blair created two opposing sides that actually the pair of them were always united on.. Blair only had a limited shelf life regarding steering us into the EU and he did as much as he could before handing the baton to Gordon Brown to finish the job.. Brown could never join the euro with the pound riding so high he would have been stopped labour would have been uncovered etc... They have forced the pound down and his economic conditions are close to being met because Brown is making it happen possibly by about march time
---------------------------------------------
Would you like to provide some evidence of Labour's "EU dreams"?
-------------------------------------------------
Certainly..
The promised referendum.. The failed regional assemblies that prescott tried to get elected when that failed we got them anyway.. The EU navy given the go ahead.. The EU judiciary that operates here.. err EU LAWS Blairs presidency and mooted position of maybe full time president.. His giving up of the rebate....
LOOK it goes on and on and on to say Labour do not have the dream of turning this country into regions of the EU is to have your head completely and utterly buried in the sand..
Complain about this comment
#177 - Dan6713
"Certainly..
The promised referendum.. "
Ah, that is the big question. The referendum was promised for the EU Constitution which was abandoned following the French and Dutch 'no' votes. Lisbon is not a constitution, it is a treaty so, argue the leaders, no need for a referendum. Prodi says it is completely different, Giscard says it's virtually the same. They can't both be right. In other words, have we been had?
Complain about this comment
QUOTE
They can't both be right. In other words, have we been had?
-------------------------------------------------------
This is so sad its almost laughable How many sane people out there really believe the so called lisbon treaty is not the constitution is disguise..
Even its authors agree it is and they were paid to write it.. Its a deliberate deception that we all know only to well.. Ireland voted no on the EUs new constitution Note I call the Lisbon treaty a constitution in the same way I would call a car a car and not a lorry Word play all you like the majority of the British people are not as gullible as the EU might think..
AND YOU know what that means dont you.. It means that Labour LIED they lied in their manifesto regarding a referendum They lied when they said Lisbon was a treaty and they carry on the fraud thinking no one will notice the gaping great lie..
This is so comical its just like John Cleese's parrot sketch.. Only really its not funny because the stakes are our democracy..
Any other walk of life Any other group tried to perpertrate this type of fraud would be on serious charges by now.. But the government think they are above the law even in control of it but the police come under the remit of the crown still even though labour have plans to change that.. Blairs Soca was the first security force to work for the government and not the crown.. Working for the crown effectively means working for the people independent of government can you see other areas where new labour has interferred with those working for the crown? All things that belong to the people are being disbanded moved broken down or altered in preparation for their new regions of the EU..
Complain about this comment
EU workers arrived here enmasse.. Some UK working class workers lost their jobs in the struggle for British bosses to get cheap labour and replace their own loyal workers.. I know because I was one..
Mass immigration of at least 12 million example 2 million polish workers send 100 pounds homw weekly equals 10.4 billon pounds a year..
Blair gave up the 10 billion rebate
60 Billion given to the EU this year and set to rise next year..
Open borders and incentives for companies to leave the UK..
Massive government spending ..
Two wars being fought..
Massive house building and benefits given to many immigrants..
Can anyone ANONE spot how this might have a negative effect on the economy?
They've been doing this for a few years..
The credit crunch or sub prime loans have been known about by Bush who warned about then in 2001 He later forced freddy mac and fanny mae to lend to millions of new immigrants he let in... This created millions of sub prime loans that got sold to UK banks investors who also knew they were buying rubbish but they made huge bonuses and commissions.. They were sitting on a timebomb they knew about..
WHEN SUDDENLY when they all on board the federal reserve called time.. And the amazing thing is they knew about it made laws to make it happen they encouraged it waited patiently till it was all finished then grassed them all up big time.
To say the credit crunch crunch wasnt planned and organised would be an understatement..
The credit crunch MEANT that Bush and Brown could own the banks you own the banks you control capitilism So now our governments have a majority share in most banks... Heh heh..
Suckers all of us..
The EU will remove democracy and with the help of our government will take over capitilism..
Effectively they own us lock stock and barrel and no one has even noticed...
Complain about this comment
Well you can judge for yourselves. The Original draft constitution is HERE and the text of Lisbon HERE.
Complain about this comment
EU leaders openly admit that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format.
The ‘father’ of the constitution, Giscard D'Estaing said: "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly... All the earlier proposals will be in a new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way...What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained."
Political leaders also admit that they will not allow their people a vote on the Lisbon Treaty because they know it will be rejected. French president Nicolas Sarkozy says: "France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. "It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments...A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." So basically what we have is fundamental change without the consent of the citizens.
The UK Government is now claiming that the referendum it promised in 2004 is no longer necessary because the new treaty is nothing like the old EU Constitution. But otherEuropean leaders have admitted that it is almost exactly the same…
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”- Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor“A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties.”
– Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister“The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”
– Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister “They haven’t changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.”
– Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach “It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
– Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner “Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”
– Vaclav Klaus, Czech President“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”
– Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”
– Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution Even Gordon Brown has admitted that the new text is the same. After a Downing Street meeting with Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern he told the press that they had “discussed the European Constitution and how that can move forward over the next few months.”And yet his Government is still trying to claim that the opposite is true:
“The Constitutional Treaty has been abandoned.”- David Miliband, Foreign Secretary
Is this an honest process? Not only have other EU leaders let the cat out of the bag by saying how similar the new document is to the old EU Constitution, they also admit that they plan to trick voters into accepting it without referendums:“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”- Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister“The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”– Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister“Public opinion will be led to adopt,without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly…All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”– Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”- Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
Complain about this comment
Sorry here is a clearer version
The UK Government is now claiming that the referendum it promised in 2004 is no longer necessary because the new treaty is nothing like the old EU Constitution. But otherEuropean leaders have admitted that it is almost exactly the same…
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”- Angela Merkel, German Chancellor“
A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties.”– Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister
“The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”– Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister
“They haven’t changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.”– Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”– Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner “
Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”– Vaclav Klaus, Czech President“
There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”– Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister“
This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”– Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution
Even Gordon Brown has admitted that the new text is the same. After a Downing Street meeting with Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern he told the press that they had “discussed theEuropean Constitution and how that can move forward over the next few months.”And yet his Government is still trying to claim that the opposite is true:
“The Constitutional Treaty has been abandoned.”- David Miliband, Foreign Secretary
Is this an honest process?Not only have other EU leaders let the cat out of the bag by saying how similar the new document is to the old EU Constitution, they also admit that they plan to trick voters into accepting it without referendums:“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”- Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister
“The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”– Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
“Public opinion will be led to adopt,without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly…All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”– Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution
“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw theattention of public opinion to this fact?”- Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
The Government should keep its promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution“If we secure a treaty that is acceptable for Britain, then I believe we can also put it successfully to the British people.”- Gordon Brown, 12 May 2004“It’s not as though this is being imposed on the country. People will have the chance to put their views.”- Gordon Brown, 26 Jan 2005During his campaign to become Prime Minister he pledged to lead a “listening” government that would restore trust in politics “I will listen and I will learn. I want to lead a government humble enough to know its place, where I will always strive to be - and that’s on people’s side.”- Gordon Brown, 11 May 2007He said the Government would keep its manifesto promises… “The manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”- Gordon Brown, 24 June 2007But the Government promised us a referendum in its manifesto…“The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively... We will put it to the British people in a referendum.”- 2005 Labour Party manifestoIn 2004 the Government decided that the EUConstitution was so important that it shouldlet people have a say on it in a national referendum. Gordon Brown promised that there would be a referendum again and again.
What will it mean?Step towards a political union?The Constitution is “a big change from the basic concept of nation states. It’s a change of centuries of history.”- Romano Prodi, Italian Prime Minister
“The European Union acquires all the instruments of a federal state… The capstone is theConstitutional Treaty.”- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister
EU army?“Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army.”- Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
“When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If youdon’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it ‘Margaret’, you can call it ‘Mary Ann’, you can call it any name.”- Romano Prodi, Italian Prime Minister
“The project of the founding fathers is complete:the economic Union is becoming a political Union.”- Nicolas Sarkozy, French President
EU control over crime and policing?“The vast majority of national criminal law will have to be harmonised in the very near future.”- Gijs de Vries, EU Counter Terror Chief“The European FBI is in the making.”- French newspaper Le Figaro“A Commission spokesman was telling me, “Well we’d want to look at things likeBelmarsh, can you hold foreign suspects indefinitely?” The Commission don’t like it, so Britain could get hammered.”- Mark Mardell, BBC Europe Editor Less control over migration?
“It is ridiculous that the EU has 27 migration policies.”Jose Barroso, Commission President
The proposals in the Constitution “risk further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”- Geoff Hoon, Former Europe Minister EU embassies?
“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.”- Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister“
We could compel the Britishpolice to make a prosecution.”- Johannes Thuy, Eurojust spokesman
Complain about this comment
As a member of the armed forces we want out of the EU it is turning into a dictatorship on the lines of the old soviet union and that style is not for us we want Britain Back and nothing less
Complain about this comment
This is just another issue to make those idiots in government look busy and concerned for the well being of the tax payer, which is a huge joke when you consider Brown is attempting to borrow billions which will put the very same tax payers (and their decendant and thier decendants) to the poor house. It will be just another riduclous bargaining chip and when used they will tell you how clever they were
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
QUOTE
As a member of the armed forces we want out of the EU it is turning into a dictatorship on the lines of the old soviet union and that style is not for us we want Britain Back and nothing less
---------------------------------------------------
After two world wars and the price paid by our armed forces to maintain it for the people of our country This government should be forced to resign.
Complain about this comment
On holiday and a relative leant me their Laptop.
As has been said many, many times the European Union Parliament has no jurisdiction over the United Kingdom whatsoever.
The 700+ MEPs have no Electoral Mandate that can be applied to any Political-Judicial-Military-Financial-Social-Economic etc. interest of the UK.
MEPs at best in the UK can claim no more than 32% of the laughable 36% of entitled UK Electorate who voted in 2004.
That MEPs from across Europe in places like Luxemburg, Bulgaria, Latvia, Greece would presume to have some say on the functioning of British society is simply the trivial minutae of a politically corrupt, venal and undemocratic so-called Union that every UK Public Poll reveals 75 to 80% British Public opposition to in every way, shape and form.
Ignore the MEPs, ignore the EU and most especially ignore those UK Political Parties at the next General Election that do not categorically promise an Referendum on UK Membership of the EU within 9 months of taking Office.
Complain about this comment
Another example of EU hypocracy. Before retiring I worked for ten years in Germany where I was told that my sixteen hour days, and sixty hour weeks were entirely legal (no overtime was paid).
After five years I was informed that I was residing illegally in Germany ( in spite of being issued with a "permanent" visa in 1972), and I was taken to court for driving on my British driving licence (European model).
When are German car makers going to start using 406.2 mm wheels instead of 16 inches?
More EU regulations to hassle others, but to be ignored by the authors.
Complain about this comment
It's rather like the Irish "NO" vote to Lisbon. If you are an unelected functionary in the the EU this is how it goes.
First you enter into a solemn legally binding agrrement with a member country which includes an opt out.
Secondly you decide that the opt out is inconvenient .
Thirdly you threaten the MEPs that if they don't vote the way that you want that you will ensure that their expences (unlike your Budget) is audited thus reducing the amount of the MEP's claims to their actual, as opposed to their imaginary, amount.
Fourthly, having obtained the required vote, you unilaterally and illegally cancel the opt out.
Fifthly you revisit the Irish no vote and advise them to vote as you wish or suffer the consequences.
Sixthly having obtained the surrender that you had sought, you retire,with your colleagues, to an expensive restaurant in Brussels to celebrate your victory and the defeat of democracy. All on expences of course.
As part of the original Lisbon treaty it was proposed that making a statement which was derogatory of the EU institutions would become a criminal offence regardless of the truth or otherwsise of the statements being made.
Enjoy your freedom of expression whilst it lasts!
Complain about this comment
What have British working hours to do with the MEP's?
I spent my whole working life with International organisations in Europe. My working time was never monitored and I was never paid in proportion to the hours I put in.
Travel in my time, to the ends of the earth if necessary, and weekend working were expected and the norm for everybody except the local staff who were by the hour for a 40 hour week.
Complain about this comment
Well, well, looking at the pound vs. euro as a precedent, it seems to me that British citizens should confide more in the EU parliament than Westminster. Not that MEPs are not serving big business, but Gordon Brown and predecessors serve *only* big business, with the consequences in front of all to see.
Complain about this comment
Working in an NHS laboratory, I probably average 55 hours a week, including on-call emergency duty at nights and weekends. Like a lot of folk money is very tight these days for me as I have a big mortgage, and the likelihood of me being forced onto a maximum 48 hour week shift system is likely to cost me my house as it would appear from rumours currently circulating I could see a drop in earnings of as much as 15,000 a year. I simply can't afford that. I'm not alone - a quick poll of my colleagues suggests 25% of us will be in this position. So why can't we be allowed to continue as the status quo - because the alternative is simply not going to do any of us any good whatsoever?
Complain about this comment
Why doesn't the UK simply ignore the EU? I mean, what can the EU do about it?
With a bit of luck, kick the UK out and do every Briton a favour!
Complain about this comment
BigCStewart @ #194
Your situation and view of your own situation is a common view shared by many millions of UK Citizens.
The other side of the coin, especially when it comes to natinalised industries (such as the NHS) is that more workers = more national insurance contributions which subsidises (in theory!) more NHS benefits which could be a virtuous circle. But of course, you as an individual want to work longer hours, to earn more money and pay for those extra fripperies such as that next house up the housing ladder, that more expensive motor car, luxury holidays abroad, etceteras, etceteras.
You are not alone in putting self-interest first but you epitomise being the propaganda victim of the UK Business mentality which is to keep wages low, pay overtime to suit the business and employ as few workers as needed to produce the goods or provide the services.
Your self-interested view, however, will change, when the lack of government tax-revenues in the next few years forces the UK Government to cut back on government susidised employment (Believe me. It is coming!) and jobs in the NHS and local authorities will become a luxury and not a means to pay for life's luxuries such as the bigger house, the larger car or those expensive holidays.
When that happens the primary interest will be finding a job and there will be people glad of gaining employment through others not working 60+ hours a week and the employers having to create employment opportunities to make up for the available hours freed up through the EU driven Working Time Directive.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus @59
Crass anti-Euro propaganda fed to us on a daily basis, eh? Let's stick to the facts. The Treaty of Rome 1957 remains in force as the de facto EU Constitution, which the British Government has signed up to, and it states that member states are "DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples;" We are not stupid. We don't need any politician or newspaper to tell us that this is code for creating the United States of Europe. In fact the 'UK Establishment' seems intent on hiding this from us or pretending that "that's not really what it means" but every new treaty since 1957 demonstrates that it is clearly the EU's intention. The latest is the Lisbon Treaty which declares that there will be monetary union with the Euro as the currency. It's staggering to think that our own Prime Minister has signed this statement and now tries to diminish the fact - see his vehement distancing of himself from the idea that we should take up the Euro recently.
You say "the British are as keen to be be part of the EU as any other Europeans. It is simply a case of people knowing in their hearts and minds that the future is collective continental security and not national or regional security which is no longer viable." Doing things collectively is a great idea - which is what the electorate signed up to in the referendum of 1975 - the idea of easier trade through a customs union. What we didn't sign up to was political union. This EU 'project' is, and always has been, a con. You are indulging in the classic pro-EU tactic of putting forward the EU as the only solution to problems that require cooperation between sovereign states. We can live happily outside of the political EU by signing up to trade agreements and security agreements. The EU sells more to us than we do to it - in other words the EU needs us more than we need the EU so we have the advantage in negotiations. And then we get the Independence Dividend of over £100,000 every minute (check that for yourself if you don't believe me) because we no longer have to subsidise French farmers or satisfy the blizzard of EU regulations in the non-export sector. NATO has served well regarding military security and, let's be honest, the EU 'Army' is toothless without the Americans. What's more than this is that when we leave the EU we restore our right to self-determination and the ability to elect and remove those who make our laws. Imagine that, being free from the deceitful, pernicious, blood-sucking, thieving, cheating EU that beguiles our politicians, wipes out our industries (e.g. the fishing industry) and prevents us from giving aid and assistance to our own citizens (e.g. the EU won't allow our Government to reduce VAT below 15%). Freedom.
Or is it, Menedemus, that you simply don't have the confidence in the skill, wit and initiative of your country (I take it you are British?), including yourself, to take decisions for itself any longer? Do you really believe that putting your life into the hands of President Barroso (an ex-communist) and Co. is better? The EU-elite are compromised and interested only in themselves and a cushy gravy-train lifestyle paid for by yours and mine taxpayers' money. We don't need them, we are better off out. British people don't like someone else bossing them about and for that reason, when I have explained what the EU is REALLY about, there is nobody I know who wants to be part of the EU any more.
Complain about this comment
To LogicalJack (197):
You said: "We can live happily outside of the political EU by signing up to trade agreements and security agreements. The EU sells more to us than we do to it - in other words the EU needs us more than we need the EU so we have the advantage in negotiations."
The EU is an entity of nearly 500 million inhabitants, even without UK its 440 million inhabitants. What that means is that per capita UK is more dependent of the EU than EU is dependent of UK. If EU would decide to cut all trade relations with UK, the economy of UK would collapse while the economy of EU would only take a tiny hit. Rest assure, if UK would leave the EU, it would be the EU dictating the terms of any agreement and UK taking anything that is offered to it, not the other way around.
Now lets also brake some illusions that people have...
EU isn't an altruistic entity, its created to protect and develop the interests of its member states. If the interests of EU would be served by waging trade war with UK or any other country it would do it without a blink or hesitation.
A country which can't trade or network which its neighbors is inflected with heavy costs to its industries and businesses: decreased competition as there are less suppliers, decreased abilities for economies of scale, increased transportation costs etc..
No. The place for UK is in Europe, that is dictated by geography. The only question is what is UKs place in Europe, does it want to be active influencer and player in the EU or does it want to just look from the side when others build up EU to become a world power? Many Brits complain that the EU is not what they want, that its constructed by the French and Germans as to their image, but they fail to note that Britain has failed to take part on building the union in a positive integrative matter.
Complain about this comment
well it was the extra smack in the face of Brown, but , but, but, he is still there leading the country down the proverbial slippery slope of financial ruin. One might have hoped that the opposition parties could muster sufficient initiative to have a a vote of no confidence brought in and rid the public and their next generations of this clown in fancy No 10 dress.
Complain about this comment
Jukk_Rohila @#198
Despite our many agrrements and disagrrement I particular agree with your summation in your last paragraph.
If the UK was more involved and more like France and Germany in how they influence through a more "laissez faire" approach to implemetation of the EU Directives and Legislation instead of the, typically British, absolutism then the popularity of the EU would be very much different to the view expressed in many UK Opinion Polls.
On the other hand, if Britain was more influential in the Eu the same Directive and Legislation might not be so austere as to "upset" British sensitivities and thus be more easy for UK Citizens to accept with our custom of implementing every dot and comma of any legislation or directive issued by the EU.
If the UK and the EU were to find some happy medium wayline then the UK's membership of the EU would sit much more comfortably with the British State and its people.
This fractious relationship between the EU and the people of the UK (and vice versa) cannot go on indefinitely.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka Rohilla (198)
No. No. No. Clout in trade negotiations is NOTHING to do with size of population. It has EVERYTHING to with the VALUE of what is sold (hence Norway is 'rich' because of it's oil exports, the UAE likewise). The UK has the upperhand because, on balance, we are a CUSTOMER of the EU.
Your argument is illogical.
I notice that you have dodged the issue of political union and the cost of the EU in order to focus on a spurious false point about being unable to trade with our ex-EU neighbours once we leave them to go their own political way without us.
Do you live in the UK? Do you pay UK tax? Do you actually enjoy having EU Directives rammed down your throat about tax on your rubbish (the EU Land Fill Tax), the closure of our Post Offices (EU Directives on competition in the postal sector) and the like? I would really like to know. Because if you do then I can only assume that you are anti-freedom and against the principle of self-determination.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS