Send a message to Brussels
The European Parliament has had some early discussions today of a super new project to promote voting in the European election in June.
The idea discussed at a meeting this morning is to put hi-tech booths in city squares all over the European Union's 27 countries so citizens can "send a message to Brussels".
When I heard about the idea I didn't know whether to laugh at the inevitable outcome or cry at the naivety of those involved.
I'll be eager to get access to the tapes and play the messages here.
I am sure those leaving London's pubs and clubs in the early hours of Saturday mornings will be forming queues to have their say. Or at least thinking of ways to put the booths to good use.
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 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark, I think this is a wonderful idea. Me and my friends already know what message we are going to send, if we get the opportunity.
The message is: hey EU, gives us our parliamentary democracy back, our money back and then get lost!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I think you have it just about right there.
Perhaps this calls for a competition? To find the best misuse of an EU Comment Booth!
Public toilet?
Kissing booth?
Home for the night for a homeless vagrant or three?
I bet the guys that think up these ideas are on about the same sort of salary as matches the annual pension of Sir Fred - and look what he did for the reputation of Bankers!
Complain about this comment
No to the Treaty !
Complain about this comment
OK - you win - the lunatics are running the Brussels asylum. Bit like London really.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
"I am sure those leaving London's pubs and clubs in the early hours of Saturday mornings will be forming queues to have their say. Or at least thinking of ways to put the booths to good use."
Pity you think voting is just akin to urinating!
But I suppose for a journalist that is about on par. You like to think that what you write and say is more important then the common people - the thing about democracy is that both you and I have the same single vote!
The problem with any referendum like 'democratic' system it really matters who writes the question e.g. 'when did you stop beating your wife?' (as an example!) Most 'democratic' systems are really there to keep those in power in power and the people quiet - hence such expressions as 'go on waste your vote' when it is suggested that a 3rd candidate might be a good choice in a US presidential election.
However a voting system that we could all join in with on every bill before the European parliament might be nice (that is if and when the European parliament had any real power) If everything they proposed needed a simple majority of the registered voters of the EU then we could not blame Brussels for all ills - we would have chosen them ourselves! Of course voting would have to be made compulsory too!
They might like to experiment with a citizens bill or two just to see if the people could be bothered - however it must be said that the efforts being made by the EU to overcome the democratic deficit far exceed those by our national government!
Anyone any (sensible) ideas for such bills?
Let me start the ball rolling with:
"A bill to prevent the keeping or use of inaccurate personal data."
Complain about this comment
TO VOTE or NOT TO VOTE??
that's the question..
so basically becomes a Referendum...
who will vote is pro-EU and who doesnt is EUsceptic..
Let see the outcome...
Complain about this comment
A good idea in principle however Mark your right the vast Majority of messages they recieve they will not want to hear. Maybe the Labour Government could errect a booth next door to give us the opertunity to tell them what we think of them also.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Brussels admits it is hard of hearing.
I think the EU has problems because it is a closed club. The debate on what sort of united europe has been closed, long ago, before people were even invited to comment. Now, of course, one is either "for" it, or "against" it.
If you are for it, you are 100% in favour of everything it stands for. If you are against it, you're a whinger and a spoiler. You're economically stupid, and hate everyone.
This seems very odd to me, because the idea of a united europe can't really be said to have evolved very far in the public mind.
It is only within the EU ranks of hired employees that people consider the debate about what sort of EU is desirable closed.
In European law schools, for example, one studies only the EU as it is created by the commission. One never studies competing ideas about how a united Europe might be constructed.
Why? Why is the debate so closed, and the structure of a united european federation set in concrete?
Why must Europeans take it or leave it? And if they leave it, why then must they take it or leave it again, until they take it?
I think the only answer to this question must be, can only be, that the people who have invested so much into the current EU structure are terrified that "their" EU might not be the dominant paradigm of European government.
If the masters of this current EU were genuine, if they really wanted a united Europe, they could have one. All they would need to do is listen to what people want, and give it to them. All they would need to do is change the structure, and make the EU truly democratic.
But they do not. "THEY". that is the key to understanding the EU and its problems. It is "them" and "us", and it was "they" who set these terms.
I suspect (one cannot know) that if the Commission were to offer Europe a referendum on becoming a federation of direct democracies, based entirely on the swiss constitution, then we would see a united federated Europe within the space of time required to organize the vote.
Complain about this comment
This may well be the European Union's one and only worthwhile contribution to British culture and a form of voices-sur-le-manche!
Now, now, I'm not referring to 'les pissoire', although doubtless late at night these EU-boxes will be mistaken for the concrete monstrosities inhabiting many town centres!
No, I see them as the Vox-pop box for the general public: Once installed any Citizen may enter and lodge without let or hindrance their observations on the EU-at-large. In normal circumstances there is as much likelihood of good as bad comments being made.
They may reduce international tensions as when England yet again are beaten in their national sport by the French, Germans or Italians the outpouring of national grief and rage will have a ready-made outlet and EUrocrats in Brussels in receipt of this integral part of the English psyche will have finally found a genuine purpose for their over-paid factotum lives!
Complain about this comment
If they want a good turn out they need to give us something to vote on that we care about.
How about the constitution? I think that would have a great turn out.
How much are these booths going to cost us? and who is getting the contract to supply them?
Complain about this comment
the only time i would vote would be for the abolition of the corrupt, expensive, useless Euro parliament....and the rest of the failed euro experiment.......i voted for a common market, no more no less!
Complain about this comment
Ah, Mark, it is you who are naive - the people who dreamt up this idea don't for one second think that the views and opinions of the voters mean a thing, and won't allow this waste of money to change any of their anti democratic ideals and policies..
But if it gives the illusion of consultation, and stops the peasants from revolting, then it will be [our] money well spent for the nomenklatura that kid themselves 'that they know best' and have our interests at heart..
Complain about this comment
Oh come on John_from_Hendon. Mark hit just the right tone in his comments.
Some EMP with, obviously, no contact with real people wants to establish a sort-of "have your say" line. Just read some of the postings on Mark's previous blogs, take note that these are the ones that got past the censor (sorry, moderator), and then judge what sort of messages might be sent. Never mind the other uses to which such waste-of-money booths would be put.
Many candidates to the EU Parliament (Yes, it's about a free election, not a referendum) have set up their own blogs. If you search, you might find that candidates in your own constituency have done so. But that means taking a real interest in the EU and what it's about :-0)
Complain about this comment
best idea from the EU so that we can tell them to get lost
Complain about this comment
"When I heard about the idea I didn't know whether to laugh at the inevitable outcome or cry at the naivety of those involved. "
I share your reaction, Mark. I suppose this just about sums up the competence of the people that are sent to the European Parliament. Talk about "festive events" and "breweries"!
Now, if you had to actually give your true identity and be prepared to discuss your comments there might be some point. If not it'll simply be an opportunity for anonymous foul-mouthed abuse such as appears on Guido Fawkes's blog.
Pity the poor souls who'll be required to read all of this - it certainly wouldn't be the MEPs themselves.
Complain about this comment
#8, absolutely spot on.
This is one of the silliest ideas the EU has come up with since the Constitutional Treaty.
Complain about this comment
One vote every four years is a bit thin, don't you think?
Especially when we choose between two career politicians belonging to more or less identical political parties that have evolved to sway public opinion by raising money from corporations, and spending it on media space.
It is a bit boring, surely?
As I have mentioned in other threads, the Swiss model of democracy seems to work really well. The people are the sovereign power, meaning that any person can submit a vote to the nation.
If they gather the signatures, anyone can write a bill or submit a proposal to veto a bill drafted by the representatives in parliament.
And the system works. It works exceptionally well. The Swiss have not passed crazy laws, and they have repeatedly vetoed laws that favour special interest groups.
They stayed out of two world wars, have kept unemployment below 5% for over a hundred years, and have a standard of living that puts the rest of the world to shame.
And the trains run on time. And they are clean. True.
Oh yes, they have banking privacy, and very low taxes.
Complain about this comment
9. ikamaskeip wrote:
"No, I see them as the Vox-pop box for the general public: Once installed any Citizen may enter and lodge without let or hindrance their observations on the EU-at-large. In normal circumstances there is as much likelihood of good as bad comments being made. "
You are obviously far more charitable than I.
Have they said whether anyone is even going to listen to these messages .... or better yet actually take them on board.
And what's more should anyone listen? Who will be leaving messages (I mean the serious ones at least) ? Just the extremists on both sides.
This is pure fluff / spin / B-S or whatever you want to call it..... and a massive waste of money.
Mark has it right here
"When I heard about the idea I didn't know whether to laugh at the inevitable outcome or cry at the naivety of those involved."
The answer, Mark, is "Both", although for naivety I might substitute cynicism.
Complain about this comment
9 ikamaskeip
"They may reduce international tensions as when England yet again are beaten in their national sport by the French, Germans or Italians the outpouring of national grief and rage will have a ready-made outlet"
I can imagine the condition of these booths after a night of "outpouring of national grief and rage".
Still I'd better find out who manufactures them and buy some shares! ;-)
Complain about this comment
8. democracythreat wrote:
"
The debate on what sort of united europe has been closed, long ago, before people were even invited to comment. Now, of course, one is either "for" it, or "against" it.
Why? Why is the debate so closed, and the structure of a united european federation set in concrete?"
You make an excellent point.
I am very pro a united Europe .... just not the one that we have got at the moment.
The future of Europe should not be black and white, for or against, but should be able to evolve through shades of grey to meet the changing the demands and ideas of the 21st century.
We are still forcibly trying to implement the idea of the 1970s and 80s with regard to the role and powers of the EU. The world has changed dramatically ince then.
Were the EUrocrats more accountable, the graft and corruption less obvious and the whole thing more democratic, then I believe more people would be in favour.
However that would mean the current bunch of trough-swillers would lose their goldmine!!!!
Complain about this comment
@12 Lordbedd is on the money - An illusion of participation. Unfortunately it would do little if it were a mere counting tool for opinions, and since it is unlikely to be a consultative two-way discussion method, it will not in any significant way create any dialogue to promote meaningful democracy.
As long as it is mere counting votes for questions that always end up presenting the reality according to some, the deficit of democracy will persist and freedom be abused.
At the end it would be no more than another page on the EU endless websites - why not merely add voting widgets there?
Complain about this comment
Well said Mark, this has to be worth a prize for the highly paid consultant(s) that suggested it, how about placing the team responsible in the booths late at night to hear and experience first hand the thoughts (and otherwise) of the long suffering peasants they're screwing.
Mind you the results of these messages will no doubt be somewhat similar to a nu-Labour public consultation, no how much dissent there is the result will be the same i.e. what the politicians want.
Complain about this comment
Shrewd. A way to waste more EU taxpayer money and hood-wink those who utilize these boxes into thinking their voices actually count and are being heard.
As far as generating good PR through window dressing this China-style distraction may actually work and convince people of the EUs accountability to ordinary citizens.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised by your reading of the situation Mark. I don't doubt that many people will find it amusing to send streams of expletives to Brussels. However, in that respect it will appear no different than for any any MP, or rather the person who reads their post. People with very little constructive to say, or indeed, complete sentences, and wish only to send abuse, will simply find their post in the bin. Those with constructive thoughts will probably be sorted into piles and someone from one of the bigger piles will be presented a representative of a group complaining of that problem. Then no doubt their will be some sort of PR excerice perhaps mixed with some level of actual low level change. I think it is quite likely people with constructive but anti-EU feelings will also be chosen, they are gold dust, the EU can been seen to be listening to criticism and addressing some concern, real or imaginary. Just look at the redefining of fruit and vegetable standards a few months ago. As for the people behind this being naive, I think you make a surprisingly simplistic analysis of the situation. I also think you view this in a very British way, that any contact between the elected and electors must be confrontational. Living abroad from the UK, in the other parts of the EU, I can say for sure that some people will treat this seriously and their voice might well be heard. Ultimately though, with a constant stream of expletives and urine, almost begging to be ignored, is it Britain that's laughing or the rest of the EU?
Complain about this comment
Don't feel bad, in california there was one assemblyman i think from Santa Clara that wanted to give 14 year olds the right to vote. But the other thing is that if this "great" idea goes through, do you really think anyone in Brussels would bother to read it?
I recall many many years ago watching a movie, i think it was from Poland, about a despotic society that encouraged people to call some number and tell the person on the other side of the phone whatever their problems were. Unfortunately the other side had a taped reply that sounded sympathetic and sounded like a real person. That movie was a critique of communism but i think it can apply to a benevolent dictatorial capitalist system also.
Complain about this comment
And here is another rant from me about inetp bureaucracies. In Sacramento where i live, some brigth city bureaucrat decided that it was a great idea to have traffic calming islands in the middle of streets and on the corners but which actually cause the opposite feeling, irritation at the idiocy and the final result: agitation not calm.
Well, recently while riding my bike i was about one of those corners when i had to look back because of a large truck coming my way. But when i turned i hit one of those traffic calming protruding islands that sent me over the bike which hit my leg which caused me to go to the doctor, have an MRI done and five months later my leg is still recuperating. And furious as i was, hoping that a fine lawyer would take my case against the city - i am not into lawsuits, but this really pissed me off - he told me i could not sue the city. And i was lucky that i did not get run over by the truck.
Complain about this comment
I am 100% pro the EU and if this is the best the European Parliament can come up with perhaps we could do without it. Save a lot of money including the cost of moving backwards and forwards to Strasburg every six months.
Complain about this comment
My flabber is ghasted by the incredible idiocy of the people who hatch such schemes.
Bearing in mind the entry criteria for Eurocrats, this just demonstrates that a university education and fluency in three or four European languages is no guarantee of having a brain.
(MEPs, on the other hand, definitely do have brains - but these delicate organs are dedicated solely to the expansion and management of their expense accounts).
Complain about this comment
#5 - John_from_Hendon
"A bill to prevent the keeping or use of inaccurate personal data."
What about a bill preventing them from acquiring it in the first place?
Out of interest, do you think the resulting remarks will be moderated or do you think they might be noticed before the election? Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Out of interest, how on earth do these people expect to get planning permission before the summer? You think Brussels is bureaucratic, just wait till the county planning officer gets his hands on this
Complain about this comment
Priceless!!!
Do they REALLY want to know what we think of them??!!
Complain about this comment
Brussels;
You're all doing very well. Just keep doing what you are doing and America will have 27 fewer competitors to worry about.
Mark.
Complain about this comment
#25 - ofilha
Traffic calming measure - a diversionary tactic designed to prevent people from driving properly: a means of maximising revenue by fining them for doing nothing wrong: a mechanism to attract inward investment by turning perfectly innocuous pieces of highway into potential grand prix courses: a method of disposing of tax payers' money on their behalf saving them the trouble of doing it themselves.
Complain about this comment
You can ring them now. I suggest you do. Below are a few links to get you started. I suggest you start ringing them from the bus or train and tell them clearly that you demand a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and that if you don't get one you just won't recognise it.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/team/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/verheugen/team_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/barrot/myteam/default_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm
Complain about this comment
'...
The idea discussed at a meeting this morning is to put hi-tech booths in city squares all over the European Union's 27 countries so citizens can "send a message to Brussels". '
But they know we want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and that we want to vote NO and they ignore us.
We have to do something they cannot ignore. Something non-violent, please!
Complain about this comment
Before we all have terminal hysterics at the stupidity of the EU in this instance, consider that these "opinion" polls may serve a purpose.
If you are able to pick and choose the timing of your referendum, it would help to know what the public sentiment was, would it not?
After the Irish fiasco, my suspicion is that the EU-crats decided "never again".
That is the great thing about being the one to control the referendum process. If you can pick your time, and you know the mood on the street, you can always claim that everything you did was "democratic". And, of course, you'll never face a losing vote.
That is pretty much the story of the EU so far.
That is what you get when referenda are controlled by one group.
Hence, REAL democracy has a system for initiating referenda that gives any citizen the power to force a vote, should they obtain sufficient signatures on a motion.
Note the total absence of "parties". Note the inability of controlling forces to pick and choose their time.
And most of all, go to Switzerland and note the way the politicians behave. They do not make grand speeches. They do not have grand opinions. They are meek, and they spend most of their time listening. Not talking for the cameras, but listening to what the public has to say.
Because, in Switzerland, there is no point lying to the people in order to push through a profitable bill for your corporate sponsors. All the effort is in vain, because at any point in time any person can say "Hang on! This stinks..." And if it does stink, others will smell it, and that is your grand effort to circumvent democracy finished, right there.
Direct democracy defeats corporate perversion of representative democracy. Its limited presence in the USA is why that country is the greatest power on earth, despite the corruption of the federal system by corporate powers.
I think the swiss model will eventually become the european model, for a very simple reason. The swiss are proud of their political system. They are the only people on earth, save the yanks, who are. they will never give it up for what the rest of europe endures. But Europe would give away its systems if only it could get the chance.
Complain about this comment
#35 SuffolkBoy2
I understand your frustration - the Unionist parties (Con, Lab, Lib-Dem) at Holyrood are about to combine to vote against the Scots having a vote as to whether we should start negotiations with the UK to restore Scotland's independence.
However, your post seems more than usually confused. It's not the EU who are denying you a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but the UK Parliament - who are the sovereign body in England.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
I think it is a wonderful idea on the technique of getting more voters out to vote in June's Elections...via a big public project....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
I vote for proportional representation in national government elections.
The top eight countries doing better at the start of the crash were seven of them with proportional representation.
I suggest the corporate lobbyists have less power over proportional government.
And at one time people ("experts") said it would be impossible to vote more than once every 4 years. Times and technology change. Now we have the technology lets vote far more often on what our government can and cannot do.
Like for instance invading a country with no proof that country has made a hostile action towards ours or our allies.
Complain about this comment
Sounds to me that Mark spent his day sitting through a boring conference waiting for someone to say something completely outrageous that he could use to wind up the punters, to see if they would over-react.
And he succeeded, as usual.
Complain about this comment
24 olyus1
"Those with constructive thoughts will probably be sorted into piles and someone from one of the bigger piles will be presented a representative of a group complaining of that problem. Then no doubt their will be some sort of PR excerice perhaps mixed with some level of actual low level change."
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha bonk
Sorry, my head just fell off.
I'm pro-Europe, and I'd love to believe that your view is true, but ...... come on. It's a shameless bit of PR fluff and nothing will change because of it. Just waste money, and gve people a feeling of "involvment".
Complain about this comment
24 olyus!
"Living abroad from the UK, in the other parts of the EU, I can say for sure that some people will treat this seriously and their voice might well be heard."
Where do you live?
I'm in Rome and in Itly the EU is barely mentionned. We have enough problems with our own politicians to worry about whether we can change Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7922851.stm
The reason many Italian MPs don't want this system is that they routinely reach over an vote for their absent neighbour .... and as an incentive they are being offered additional coffee breaks to make up for the actual extra time they will have to be "at work" in order to vote.
Sometimes I really miss Westminster!!!
Complain about this comment
37 oldnat
"It's not the EU who are denying you a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but the UK Parliament - who are the sovereign body in England."
You are absolutely correct in this.
The UK government policy has always been to have a referendum "at some time" because someone (I forget who) once promised it.
However realpolitik means that you do not hold the referendum until you are 100% sure you will win it (this applies to both Labour and Conservative) because No means No ...... well unless you're in Ireland of course.
A mass lobbying campaign of Westminster MPs to organise a referendum is the only answer .... except that this too will be ignored.
However the reall issue is blurred by this Yes or No mentality.
The question should be what kind of EU do we want to be in, not "In or Ou".
Complain about this comment
#35 SuffolkBoy2
I don't think it is the EU that aren't giving Britain a referendum, I think that's our government in Westminster.
Complain about this comment
#29. threnodio wrote:
"What about a bill preventing them from acquiring it in the first place?
Out of interest, do you think the resulting remarks will be moderated or do you think they might be noticed before the election? Just a thought."
Well, you haven't been 'moderated' yet 9:25 am Thursday 5 March and I do not see which of the 'house rules' you could have transgressed, so I do not understand your concern.
As to acquiring data in the first place - I see little prospect of preventing the acquisition of data - however if 'they' had by law to ensure that it was accurate and the only way they could do that is to ask you to confirm that the data they hold is accurate them my 'bill' would have the same effect as yours.
I recall writing to my MP on the subject as to if it was a 'human right' to have accurate data held about one - he did not think it was - which I suppose is about par fro MPs!
WE have at present the situation that inaccurate data is held about you- 'they' have no responsibility to ensure the data is accurate - yet decisions about you are made on the basis of the inaccurate data. This is a particular problem with such (terrible) legislation as the ID card system - which in its present form has no mechanism to correct inaccuracies at all. Basically the people designing the systems and law are idiots - no database contains 100 percent accurate data and not to provide any mechanism to correct these inaccuracies is daft - again on par for the most governments.
My solution for the ID card bill is to let individuals freely edit their own record so it reflects who they wish to be - it should even allow people to have multiple identities - a long establish system in most of the World.
To attempt to prevent singing in to a hotel register as 'Mr and Mrs Smith' would take much of the joy of the dirty weekend something that is a universal pleasure for the vast majority of the World's people. Indeed it is a long established right to be who every we wish to be - after all to change your name all that you need to do is to tell those who you wish to call you by that name what your new name is to be. (The legal deed poll system is actually unnecessary in most cases.)
Complain about this comment
Doctuer-Eiffel (39)
Personally, I am against proportional representation as it can lead to insipid and stagnant government with minority parliamentary goups having far more powerful say in the formation of the Executive than their votive share should allow.
The Israeli Proportional Representative government of Benjamin Netanyahu is a prime example of a Right-wing government being formed from a collaboration of right-of-centre to ultra right-wing parties to prevent the most Left of centre party with the largest share of the popular vote (and more seats than Netanyahu's party) from continuing to hold the reins of power in Israel.
Such a proportional representative government as Netanyahu's will likely be swayed by the ultra right-wing clique and be more aggresive towards the Palestinians and, indeed, the Iranians who's President has avowed to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.
War between Israel and Iran is now far more likely than it was. So much so that, despite your last paragraph, Israel could well take pre-emptive action to attack Iran before it launches its first nuclear missile at Israel - the Iranian Military Chief of Staff having yesterday warned the World that Iranian Rockets now have the capacity to reach Israeli territory and and are targeted at Israel's Nuclear Facilities.
The alternative, in keeping with your last paragraph, is that we must expect Israel to wait until Iran launches its first nuclear rocket at Israeli territory before anyone can support Israel in responding to that aggression.
How many Israelis will need to die first from nuclear or biological attack before France would support Israel in its war with Iran that would inevitably follow an Iranian attack?
I think, you might find that proportional representative elected government will actually lead to an Israeli pre-emptive attack upon Iran sooner or later and Europe will become embroiled in the resultant catastrophe.
So much for reactive-only wars and so much for the good that proportional representation will do to to ensure that a pacifist line is maintained.
Complain about this comment
Mark, are you going to be a columnist in the Sun anytime soon? You seem to be in the right frame of mind. And with the crowd here, the same usual suspect leaving the same venom-filled comments about any EU initiative... It becomes quite boring to be honest.
The EU stop chemical firms selling dangerous pesticides? A plot to kill UK farmer (lol)
The EU is not listening to the people. Open communication channels? Derided straight away as a cynical ploy.
To be honest I wish there was a referendum in the UK on EU membership, so that the whingers can go their own way! Please Mr Brown!
Complain about this comment
It's typical of politicians to put forward such insane ideas instead of simply engaging people in a truly European public debate: by launching an EP electoral campaign on European issues, not on domestic ones!
Complain about this comment
@ 37 oldnat
" However, your post seems more than usually confused. It's not the EU who are denying you a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but the UK Parliament - who are the sovereign body in England. "
More than usually confused? Me thinks the EU-phobics are *terminally confused*: They keep voting UKIP (and now BNP, watch the forthcoming European elections) for the European parliament, where they only have the entertainment value of shouting and posturing, waving placards, etc, but they are *totally powerless* to either a) give them (the UK) a referendum, whether it is a nonsensical one about the LT or a sensible one (an In or Out referendum) or b) to progress their agenda to withdraw the UK from the EU.
They just moan, invent or distort facts and throw abuse at anything to do with the EU, but they will never, repeat NEVER, vote for these anti-EU parties for the British parliament, where they would give them all the referendums they could swallow, including (supposedly) an EU-withdrawal referendum and they would have every chance of progressing their anti-EU agenda.
The only explanations that I can find for this bizarre behaviour are two:
a) They are barking mad
b) They have swallowed their own propaganda, i.e. they firmly believe that the only way to get the UK out of the EU is to send their representatives to Brussels (or Strasbourg, whatever the case may be) but not to Westminster, because the UK is ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, so pointless sending them to the British parliament.
If I include a third option, I may fall foul of the censorship, so take your pick out of the above.
Complain about this comment
@alex_9672
The EU system pressed upon national governments to cancel referendums. Other national politicians like Merkel whirlwinded across the EU to meet governments to convince them to deny referendums. The EU system is set up so it will automatically gang up on you once you get to Brussels, as a newbie politician. "Don't rock the boat, don't derail the gravy train" is the motto.
On a sidenote, I am all for cooperation in Europe and wouldn't necessarily be against some form of federalism. But I am completely and utterly opposed to the antidemocratic politicians-gravy-train setup we have now. What we have now cannot be reformed and therefore has to be broken down and disbanded.
Complain about this comment
@Jorge (49)
better an EU-phobe (I am also a nazi-phobe and an islamophobe) than someone who betrays democracy (which is what the pro-EU crowd does).
Complain about this comment
I am interested to note the enthusiasm with which people have responded to this post and having only had a look at the first few I'm surprised at the depth of hostility towards Europe.
I have difficulty understanding why the British simply do not hold a referendum and quietly leave the EU, preferably sooner rather than later.
It is unconscionable to benefit from the free movement of people, money, goods and services, cheap travel, less hassle when changing money, farm subsidies, favourable customs regimes, etc. and then say, out of complete ignorance, we want out.
That's my take.
Complain about this comment
#50, marcel33,
I am reminded by your words of an experience I had in 1976 with the NHS when I worked in a computer centre of one region. There was one of the regular reforms (originated by politicians of course) carried out, but as always it reformed nothing but was just an excuse for everybody to gain money by milking the job change or disturbance allowances etc that were given to staff affected.
I have no doubt you're right about the EU, any reform would, just as with the NHS, never change the inbred mentality that causes its problems. The nature of the beast is its mindset and a reform will not change that until the mindset is removed by completely new politicians with a different agenda and less concerned about lining their pockets at our expense and more concerned about the population that voted them in.
Complain about this comment
"The idea discussed at a meeting this morning is to put hi-tech booths in city squares all over the European Union's 27 countries so citizens can "send a message to Brussels"."
What would Gordon Brown and the Labor/Lib-Dem/Conservative conspiracy that rules Britain do if say 80% of the respondants from Britain sent the message that they want out of the EU? How could they ignore that? Flirtation with democracy is a dangerous game....for a pack of tyrants. That they are even considering it shows they are desperate, have run out of ideas of their own, and are frightened.
You're all doing very well.
Complain about this comment
@dannycool170 (52)
So you are actually in favor of a farm subsidy system that is destroying the livelyhoods of tens of thousands of African farmers who cannot compete with the EU's dumped surpluses? I cannot believe anyone would have the audacity to actually publicly support such an obviously racist system. Why is it that the EU crowd is trying to build a big fat wall around Europe and basically ignore or talk down to the rest of the world? Us EU-phobes (proud to be one) are looking towards the entire world, unlike you.
And actually, I am from the Netherlands where anti EU sentiment is at least as strong as in Britain. We were betrayed and denied a referendum because the politicians knew we'd vote no (again).
And all those socalled benefit you mention, it seems you are perfectly willing to give up on democracy to get them. Because that is what the EU system is, unelected and/or unaccountable politicians making decisions and laws instead of elected national parliaments. You don't seem to love democracy, are you politically speaking leftist inclined, by any change? University educated 'progressive'?
And finally, the EU has disproportionately burdened the smaller and medium-sized businesses with its avalanche of regulations. Nice going there EU.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII et al
This E.U scheme will only encourage desent from those who have previously not engaged with Europe those who are ardently Pro-European tend to be more forth-coming wioth there views.
As there is now a growing belief in the UK that the Government is actively encouraging riots this summer so the can declare a state of emergancy. The E.U encouraging Desent is playing right into there hands
Lines from Government Ministers about the "Court of Public Opinion" rather than the "Rule of Law" is the first step of the incitement to violance that they want.
This Summer I predict we will see Terror Laws used against Protestors in the Governments last desperate attempts to Cling to Power.
I hope the Police are enjoying there Riot Training. And that they remember that they are there as our Protectors and not the Governments footpads.
Complain about this comment
WEP
Rule of Law? What rule of law? Did you read the opt outs? They were almost incomprehensible to anyone but a lawyer. How about Lisbon, did you read that one? How about the Constitution? Maastrict? The laws are written in words deliberately designed to be incomprehensible and open to later interpretation to suit the politics of the moment. And when that doesn't suffice, they are simply ignored or thrown out as when the case of France and Germany violating the budget deficit restrictions in the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict was finally decided. Instead of paying the billions in fines they owed, their friends on the court ruled that the provision was no longer useful and therefore the fines and the pact was set aside. Rule of Law? What a joke the EU is.
Complain about this comment
I think the battle for the EU as we know it has already been lost.
That does not mean the battle for a federal European union is lost.
But this model, it has begun to stink like the rotten end of an old dog. It has abjectly failed to win over people who are critical of it, and it has begun to lose more and more people who formerly supported it.
Why? Because it is a closed model, a special club. It is not evolving, or engaging with public opinion. It has made clear that its own executive have a monopoly of thought on what constitutes a European Union.
This current gesture is too little, too late, from the wrong people. If there is anyone in the official EU "system" who really wants to see a federated union of european states, they need to acknowledge that this model has failed, and thereby begin to win back popular support for the positive aspects of such a union.
Complain about this comment
To be a little less sceptical this just may be the first step towards direct democracy however far in the future that may be. I would like to see a united Europe one day but frankly I feel that at the moment my vote makes no difference whatsoever. Not until we have pan European parties and programmes that more people will get involved for their vote will count and they would be able to make a real difference. Until such time we have to do with what we have. Any attempt to involve more people into things European should be welcomed. Even those opposed to anything that comes out of EU at least have the inventiveness to make suggestions. What we need is more constructive suggestions; try to be positive.
Complain about this comment
52 DannyCool170 wrote:
"I'm surprised at the depth of hostility towards Europe.
I have difficulty understanding why the British simply do not hold a referendum and quietly leave the EU, preferably sooner rather than later.
It is unconscionable to benefit from the free movement of people, money, goods and services, cheap travel, less hassle when changing money, farm subsidies, favourable customs regimes, etc. and then say, out of complete ignorance, we want out."
You make 3 points, all valid in their own way, but IMHO you slightly miss the real point on all 3 issues.
1) Hostility to Europe.
I believe that this is actually hostility to the EU in its current corrupt and undemocratic form. I believe that many people are in favour of a federal Europe, but are disgusted (and rightly so) with the gravy train that the eurocrats ride.
2)Referendum in Britain
Onl the British government can hold a referendum. It has in fact been promised by successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, but has been allowed to drop off the political radar.
Rule one of referenda - don't hold it unless you know you'll win - look what happened in Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands.
3) Hypocracy.
You're right on this ... but how many of those anti-EU Britons actually really do benefit from these things?
Was it really so much harder to take a holiday to Spain or the Greek Islands in the old days?
Changing money? - Britons still have to.
Farm subsidies - do we have any farms left?
Customs - ok for the south-east of England with the "booze cruise" to the Calais hypermarkets but most people don't get a huge benefit.
The people who do benefit generally support the EU. Personally I would reform the EU, not leave it.
Complain about this comment
58 democracythreat
"Because it is a closed model, a special club. It is not evolving, or engaging with public opinion. It has made clear that its own executive have a monopoly of thought on what constitutes a European Union.
If there is anyone in the official EU "system" who really wants to see a federated union of european states, they need to acknowledge that this model has failed, and thereby begin to win back popular support for the positive aspects of such a union."
Spot on. Reform of the EU would be my aim.
Problem is, however, that the systemic corruption and graft is so entrenched that it seems a Sisyphean task to even get reform on the table. Why bite the hand that feeds them?
It's conundrum - how do you get enough reformers into the system, without them getting stuck into the big trough when some of the other piggies make room for the new snouts.
Complain about this comment
Where is democracy? When people are ruled by chosens of elites and not chosen of the people.
And why is there no cap on the spending of campaigns? As this ensures the non elites or non rich can never be leader.
This is the sad reality of today's democracy.
Complain about this comment
Romestu:
"1) Hostility to Europe.
I believe that this is actually hostility to the EU in its current corrupt and undemocratic form. I believe that many people are in favour of a federal Europe, but are disgusted (and rightly so) with the gravy train that the eurocrats ride."
I only wish that were the whole story. Many pro-Europeans like myself too have problems with the EU in its current form. The problem in Britain is that there is a sizable hardcore of the population that reject ANY kind of european political union. You will find that many on this blog will reject EU integration EVEN if the democratic deficit has been sorted out, EVEN if it became a more accountable and less wastefull institution. And at the source of this is a dislike of continental europeans. It is pure old fashioned Xenophobia. And they dont believe that the EU can change because it is not...BRITISH. You would think that this kind of nonsense would have had its day in a multi cultural country such as Britain, but clearly accepting all men are equal is fine for ethnic minorities but not for continental europeans.
2)"Referendum in Britain
Onl the British government can hold a referendum. It has in fact been promised by successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, but has been allowed to drop off the political radar.
Rule one of referenda - don't hold it unless you know you'll win - look what happened in Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands."
Please call it tommorow... please... the (now slightly less mighty) finacial contribution was always really scant benefit for the years of foot dragging and opt outs. The only reason why UK might stay in is for the single market. Which is sad. Economic self interest is its only reason for joining in the first place. At least the french government still pretends political solidarity and european ideals. The UK government can't even manage that.
3) Hypocracy.
"You're right on this ... but how many of those anti-EU Britons actually really do benefit from these things?
Was it really so much harder to take a holiday to Spain or the Greek Islands in the old days?
Changing money? - Britons still have to.
Farm subsidies - do we have any farms left?
Customs - ok for the south-east of England with the "booze cruise" to the Calais hypermarkets but most people don't get a huge benefit.
The people who do benefit generally support the EU. Personally I would reform the EU, not leave it."
Until they really need it that is. When Israel invaded Lebanon and the FO (uncharacteristically) managed leave its citizens stranded, British citizens were more than happy to excecise their "European citizenship" by turning up to various member state consulates and politely requesting that they be evacuated along with the other european citizens. I doubt that prior to the EU the consulates would have been legally obliged to help them.
(I apologise to the scots and the welsh- I use British as a shorthand for both the UK government and the English tabloid public opinion)
Complain about this comment
"This is the sad reality of today's democracy."
let me take you by the hand,
and walk you through,
the streets of Zurich.
Complain about this comment
46. At 10:00am on 05 Mar 2009, Menedemus wrote:
@Doctuer-Eiffel (39)
"Personally, I am against proportional representation as it can lead to insipid and stagnant government with minority parliamentary groups having far more powerful say in the formation of the Executive than their votive share should allow."
Presumably you are for the bogus confrontational politic that is manifest in the British gobbing bucket (parliament)
Cameron leading NewLabour and Brown leading the Conservatives. (now why did I deliberately say that? Because there is NO difference between the two parties and everyone knows it!) Both serviced our manufacturing industry all the way to China.
If the Europhobes campaigned for more democracy in the British parliament it might make their EU stance more credible but as they are NOT really interested in democracy and are only interested in EU bashing to raise their extreme rightwing covertly their gobby muscle flexing is laughable.
When I see basic democracy happen in the UK I will applaud but not until then.
When political parties cooperate openly and responsively to the electorate that is called democracy.
If two parties are the same but pretend to be different that is called deceit and IS a stagnant government.
The whole mechanism of proportional representation promotes votive share.
After 30 years of insipid and stagnant government we all deserve change.
The UK left wing right wing nonsense is a red herring and has been for a long time. The real conflict is between Democracy and capitalism.
Personally I am for basic democracy inside or outside Europe but preferably within.
Sulking like a kid in the corner just isn't me.
Complain about this comment
Doctuer_Eiffel
The only problem with PR is the party List system, which means if your near the top of the list for any Party you always get elected. I understand how this can be compaired to "safe seats". But netherless this still need some further thought.
Complain about this comment
There is a story on the BBC today about what the "experts" think about the Lisbon treaty.
The views of the French gentleman from the "Think Tank" in favour of the EU, pertaining to the referendum process, are worth considering in detail.
"Parliaments are legally entitled to ratify treaties and international conventions - there is no particular need for national referendums on European issues."
This shows blind ignorance of, or contempt for, constitutional law. At best, it claims that Parliament is sovereign to make whatever law it pleases. If this is true, how can one parliament bind future parliaments by giving up this sovereign power?
He continues:
"Those who ask for referendums want to vote against the EU and their own government.
Referendums are really populist procedures. People use them to answer different questions - not the actual referendum questions."
So...people who want to vote on issues are trouble makers. Popularism is evil, and people are too stupid and emotionally unhinged to vote on the issues. All these views are presented with remarkable candor. This man is talking to the popular press, after all.
Aside from the chilling contempt this man shows for those not so superior as himself, there is also a logical flaw in his reasoning.
If popular decisions are so bad, and if people are too stupid to know what they vote for.... what does that say about representative democracy?
That it has no legitimacy? That representatives are elected because they know how to manipulate stupid people?
What this guy is saying, in essence, is that absolute dictatorship is preferable to democracy, because the people are stupid. that is where his logic leads.
He continues:
"Did Tony Blair ask by referendum to be allowed to send troops into Iraq? Did Margaret Thatcher ask by referendum to be allowed to carry out social reforms? Did Winston Churchill ask the English people to engage his country against Hitler? No. They all went to parliament, to have a debate and make the best decision. That is also what Sarkozy, Brown and Merkel did."
Again, the man is remarkable for his candor. He is less remarkable for his logic. I have read these last sentences several times, and I am still not sure what point he wished to make. I gather he believes that invading Iraq, and Thatcherism, were the BEST ideas.
In any case, this is the sort of man who runs the EU, and who wants it to expand its' powers.
The sort of ultra privileged man who is so sure of his innate superiority that he goes to the people to tell them they are a bunch of fools who cannot be trusted. He does so with no awareness that such a course will make him hated by the vast majority of folks.
This guy is not evil. He is not part of a conspiracy to pervert democracy. He is just a man who was brought up to believe he is extremely clever, and somehow superior to everyone "below". He is a fool, and further, he represents the intellectual standard of leadership within the highest ranks of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Doctuer_Eiffel
Which is why democracythreat is right direct democracy is the only answer. We could have a box on the wall in our front rooms which allowed us to vote on every issue the technology is there for this to happen.
I would even accept having to swipe an I.D card on the box in order to vote if i meant that I had a voice.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu
Regarding your head falling off, I'm not sure if I follow.
I say: "Then no doubt their (sic) will be some sort of PR excerice perhaps mixed with some level of actual low level change."
You say: "It's a shameless bit of PR fluff and nothing will change because of it."
Doesn't it seem we're saying more or less the same thing? The difference being perhaps I think they might do something to reinforce the PR exercise.
I live in Finland. The EU, amongst broader politics is discussed quite bit, the idea that most people would urinate or swear at the guys in Brussels is absurd. People would want to have an intelligent discussion, and whilst I do know plenty of anti-EU types, they would be embarrassed by the notion of what is the assumption regarding anti-EU types in Britain. I can't imagine them thinking, after realizing what Mark talks about will probably actually happen in the UK, the thought that of being associated with people from that side of argument would be a good thing. The fact is that europhobes in the UK have very little shame, and will gladly be the angry little men shaking their fist, swearing and urinating in anything EU, but ultimately no county, country or the EU is run by them, so really, who has the last laugh?
Complain about this comment
dt
This is what happens when you don't have a written down constitution, an independent supreme court to interpret the legality of laws using the constitution as a standard, and there is no separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Is it legal for the Prime Minister on his own authority or even with the aquiesence of Parliament to cede sovereignty of the United Kingdom to a supranational organization beyond the control of the UK's population? It seems like a basic issue every UK citizen should have a right in deciding since it directly affects their entire lives. But not only is that not the case, the population hasn't even whimpered about it. This is because they have never actually fought for their own freedom on their own initiative. In fact they only fought WWII when they were forced to and for what? A treaty with Poland. In the US, actually ceding national sovereignty to a supranational group like a NAFTA morphing into a superstate would be the trigger for another American Revolution. The people wouldn't even stand for talk of it. I'd take up arms against it myself. So would my neighbors.
Complain about this comment
I think that they are making a good effort reference to making young people think about their responsibilities to the European union that before we do that I think it is very important that the European union get their act together and educating the government's of the eastern bloc countries to act in a real effort to stop the terrible corruption that exists in all the eastern bloc EC countries this is what I would call it worthwhile exercise.
Complain about this comment
Re: 52
"I'm surprised at the depth of hostility towards Europe." It is not hostility towards Europe. It is hostility towards the EU. They are not one and the same.
"It is unconscionable to benefit from the free movement of people, money, goods and services, cheap travel, less hassle when changing money, farm subsidies, favourable customs regimes, etc. and then say, out of complete ignorance, we want out."
Firstly, let’s deal with that statement about "complete ignorance". Just what is it about the pro-EU camp that makes them resort so often to insults and name-calling? Is their case really so weak that they need to keep using tactics like that? I apologise to nobody for my profound scepticism and disquiet about the EU. However, I am very far from ignorant, in any sense of the word. That is why I refrain from suggesting that in the sense of being rude and uncomprehending [Collins English Dictionary] the word "ignorant" might actually be applied to the pro-EU camp.
Secondly, just why do the pro-EU camp always talk in platitudes? It is actually rather difficult to make a case for any "benefits" the UK has had from EU membership. We have always been net contributors to the budget. For the period 1997-2005 that net contribution was 44bnGBP. During the same period our trade deficit was 72.5bnGDP. That gives an aggregate deficit over those 9 years of 116.5bn GBP. If anything the annual deficit has probably increased since 2005.
Recently the Tax Payers Alliance published research suggesting the Common Fisheries
Policy costs us 2.81bn a year and other research puts the cost of EU regulations at around 10.7bn a year. Overall, that would suggest we pay around 26bn GBPs year for the "privilege" of EU membership. However, in a report published in 2007 a group of Labour MPs put the figure much higher at nearer 45bn GBP and "on a rising trend".
So the "cheap travel" you mention doesn’t work out so cheap after all, and that’s not counting the environmental cost of it.
As for "farm subsidies", Which? the independent consumers association has calculated that the CAP costs the average family of four an extra 20GBPs a week, 1000 a year, in extra food costs. The World Bank has estimated that as well as the $50bn a year the EU spends directly on agricultural support policies there is a knock-on cost to consumers in terms of higher food prices of $63 annually. That hits the poorest, who spend the highest percentage of their income on food, the hardest. The Bank also highlighted the cost to the developing world through lost trade of around $20bn a year.
Also, I have studied agriculture across Europe from the far north of Finland via the Polders to the Med. I have listened to bureaucrats, MEPs and even Ministers of Agriculture trying to explain but still cannot work out why we have to subsidise agriculture at European level. If the subsidies were directed at ensuring food security it would be a different matter. They are not.
Complain about this comment
63 [also 60 & 69]
Several points here:
1. "The problem in Britain is that there is a sizeable hardcore …… that reject any kind of European political union". In fact, there is a sizeable MAJORITY that rejects any kind of European political union. Opinion polls repeatedly show that around two thirds of the population want either a looser arrangement based on free trade or would prefer to leave the EU. In other words, they reject political union.
For some of them their reactions may be instinctive but there are substantial rational arguments, not least the financial ones set out in my earlier post, for their views.
"And at the source of this is a dislike of continental Europeans. It is pure old fashioned Xenophobia." So, once again, we are back to the insults and name-calling that is so prevalent among the pro-EU camp.
Well, I am a profound EU-sceptic. I also have a long record of working for European understanding and cooperation. That includes serving as European President of an international association, a position I was elected to, and then re-elected, by my peers from across the continent. I represented my association at a development conference in the Philippines where I was a key-note speaker along with two guys from the US State Department and three other members of our association - a teacher from Sweden, the then Taiwanese Finance Minister and a Shadow Minister from Australia. I have also had the honour of being the main guest of a German President at a reception held at the Chancellery.
However, I have deep disquiet and am very, very sceptical about the EU. And whilst I make absolutely no apology for that, according to your reckoning I am xenophobic. Fortunately, my many friends from across Europe - and indeed from across the wider world - would laugh at you for saying so. Quite honestly, I value their opinion much more than I do yours.
2. Referendum in Britain
"Rule one of referenda - don't hold it unless you know you'll win - look what happened in Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands". It is worrying that so many of the people who contribute to these blogs cannot see the dangers that are spelled out in that sentence. However, those dangers underpin the substantial rational arguments for the view of the majority in the Britain that we do not want political union.
"At least the french government still pretends political solidarity and european ideals." The operative word there is PRETENDS. And surely that is the real hypocrisy and is what you should actually be addressing in your paragraph 3, which you give the heading, "Hypocracy". The real hypocrisy like that of the French is yet another rational argument why the British public do not want political union within the EU.
Complain about this comment
What a wonderful way to allow the mice to feel they set with the cats. Allow them to extend their views.
Being one who has heard a bit on teck ideas would this not allow the government to know threw video, voice or picture, DNA? who are the radical elements and where they are at?
Far be it from me to even suggest that European governments in a time of social, economic and political problems would use this to safeguard their postion from the dirty mass of unknowing people they rule.
Sixty years of progress. Sixty years of little military need by each nation. Sixty years of billions of American dollars poured into the economies of Europe. Now when times are going to get every bad the money tree is shutting down. Europe will need a military against the great Bear in the north and at the same time the factories will shut down so you have real Europeans vs those just here for two or three generations.
Yes this is a great idea. Allow the people a voice! You the people watch what you say because those in government do not trust you. At least in France they have a history of cutting the heads off of government.
Complain about this comment
@ 67 democracythreat
" This shows blind ignorance of, or contempt for, constitutional law. At best, it claims that Parliament is sovereign to make whatever law it pleases. If this is true, how can one parliament bind future parliaments by giving up this sovereign power? "
You are the one, together with the rest of the EU-phobic club, who hasn’t got a clue about constitutional law. Every law that a parliament passes is automatically binding on future parliaments UNTIL it is revoked, derogated or amended by a new act of parliament.
Exactly the same applies to the law of the UK parliament that made this country part of the EU, its accession treaty. Any future parliament, even the present one, could hold a vote to revoke that treaty. Of course that decision should be put to a referendum (even if, as the UK has no constitution, it is up to the British parliament to discretionally decide when a referendum should be held) and then there is a very clearly specified exit procedure in the Treaty on European Union ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm ):
"Art. 50 - Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
The very fact that the EU-phobic brigade keep going on about the UK being run by an unelected and corrupt dictatorship of Brussels bureaucrats says it all about a) their sheer ignorance of constitutional law and b) their lack of respect for their own parliament. Perhaps, as I say above, they have swallowed their own lies and think that the British parliament is powerless to revoke the British accession treaty to the EU which the British parliament itself passed in the early seventies.
Admittedly one thing is true. The British parliament is elected by an undemocratic system, the FPTP, but however it is elected, it is still the only entity that is sovereign to decide whether the UK should stay or leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1: You state the law well. i concede the point.
Complain about this comment
@jorgeg1 (75)
At least us 'europhobes' love democracy and parliamentary rule. You EU-lovers hate democracy and love unelected rule by decree.
The EU is not, never has been and was never intended to be democratic. And the EU is bad for almost everyone except politicians. Did you know your foodbill would be lower without the EU? And African farmers wouldn't see their chances of competing destroyed if the EU didn't exist?
How can EU-lovers justify supporting the CAP which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa because whole farming communities have been forced out of business because of EU dumping of surpluses? It's pure racism I tell ya.
Complain about this comment
"Art. 50 - Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
nemo dat quod non habet, surely?
Complain about this comment
If the EU is so wonderful why did the Irish voters reject your constitution. Becuase the EU is another name for France running the continent. If you truly want to be a beacon of light, read the notes of Franklin, Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Then maybe you will realize that We the People is not just a tired phrase, but rather a way to approach government of the people, by the people and for the people. Not just for the party elite or the oligarchs. I am an unrepented citizen of the American Republic with my favourite authors of Thomas Paine and Ayn Rand. Do not sell yourself too cheaply for the price of staying warm in the winter, maybe be more then what you can afford. William of Wallace shouted it from the Highland and when he wasbeing drawn and quatered in London under the eyes of Edward the Hammer. FREEDOM
Complain about this comment
Amerika first, your patriotism is hugely appealing.
I often wonder, if the Americans had not invented representative democracy and the two party system, how could the clowns at westminster ever have broken free of the evil french?
As for the light on the hill, I must avert my eyes, for the brilliance of it has caused me to drop my stash of dollars into a puddle of chinese milk.
And yes, "we the people" is not just a tired phrase. It is also a corporate slogan. You may remember the old song:
"We the fictional people,
with shareholders out of they minds,
Your judges are cronies,
your senators phonies,
We're gonna rob you blind!"
If you tap out the rhythm of the Simpnsons theme song, with your crack pipe against the prison cell walls, you can just about feel the glory of Abe Lincon entering your spleen.
Complain about this comment
That Mark Mardell thinks the so-called Choice Boxes will become urinals for British binge-drinkers says perhaps more about drinking habits in Britain than about the naivety or otherwise of those who came up with this idea.
The point of the Choice Boxes is not so much to harvest views from voters - after all, only a tiny number of European electors will have the opportunity to use them and those who do may not be representative - but rather to provoke press coverage, debate and comment about how citizens can communicate with their elected officials in modern society. In that context, the Choice Box represents a nice juxtaposition between the old-fashioned soap box and the high tech.
I'm therefore quite pleased that the Brussels correspondent of the world's leading news-gathering organisation is already talking about them (and starting a debate) before they have been unveiled or even launched.
Complain about this comment
That Mark Mardell thinks the so-called Choice Boxes will become urinals for binge-drinkers says perhaps more about drinking habits in Britain than the naivety or otherwise of those who came up with this idea.
The point of the Choice Boxes is not so much to harvest views from voters - after all, only a tiny number of European electors will have the opportunity to use them and those who do may not be representative - but to provoke press coverage, debate and comment about how citizens can communicate with their elected officials in modern society. In that context, the Choice Box represents a nice juxtaposition between the old-fashioned soap box and the high tech.
I'm therefore quite pleased that the Brussels correspondent of the world's leading news-gathering organisation is already talking about them (and starting a debate) before they have been unveiled or even launched.
Marjory van den Broeke
Deputy spokesperson of the European Parliament
Complain about this comment
Ms van den Broeke,
With all due respect, your claim is based on the premiss that people do not know how to communicate with their elected officials.
You risk insulting a huge number of people with this argument.
You suggest we need "debate" in order to somehow work out how people can speak out to politicians who are desperately keen to listen.
I put it to you that if you had been listening to people, you would already know that the complaint that is most widespread is that "elected officials" do not listen to anyone except their party managers, and their sponsors.
Well, if you are listening now, my question to you is: Why we do not have a direct democracy model, such as the democracy that is so successful in Switzerland?
Secondly, why is such a model not even on the table?
I put it to you that Europe has become a land where the majority of people in all nations are united only in their mistrust of the two party system of representative democracy, because they perceive that the two party system is vulnerable to manipulation by corporate lobby groups.
If you are listening, I look forward to the reply.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat writes that he has nothing but contempt for America or its instuitions.
The phrase of We the People is not a phrase of corporations, but rather the fundamental core of the US Constitution. Every politician takes the same oath that is preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God. Richard Nixon found out the cost of violating this sacred oath, while it is too bad that Bill Clinton did not suffer the same fate. While does the EU profess to be so superior, when our gates a full of europeans flocking to our shores in search of economic, religous and political freedom. All entire generation of American men gave the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that Europe was free. To ridicule Abe Linclon is even more offensive. You think that you are a wit, but you write as if you are a twit. I actually feel sorry for people like you, that have so little regard for the average person that they would ridicule their betters.
Complain about this comment
To: Marjory van den Broeke
Deputy spokesperson of the European Parliament
So this is all part of the 2.4bn euro information and communication strategy campaign to "sell" the EU and is political message? Of course, it will be dressed up as getting the views of the people.
Meanwhile, when the French & Dutch vote against the new constitution their views are ignored. The consitution is then renamed the Lisbon Treaty and the myth perpetuated that it is a different animal. And when the Irish still said "no" they are informed they will be forced to vote again until they come up with the answer the EU wants.
And as the European Parliament's Deputy Spokesperson obviously reads the posts on these blogs can we please have an aswer to the point I raised in 72 above. Why on earth do we have to subsidise agriculture at European level? 20 odd years ago I was at a meeting where a woman who was then an MEP and later a member of the Dutch cabinet said that it was "a socio-economic issue". However, she didn't spell out what that meant. Is it still a "socio-economic issue"? And if so who is social and what is economic about it?
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 (75) is right, particularly his last paragraph. The EU can only be as democratic as its Member States. The most powerful of the three institutions is the Council, which is composed of representatives of the 27 elected governments. Obviously, if the method of electing those 27 governments is itself flawed, then the Council cannot truly represent the views of the citizens of those Member States. Democracy, like charity, begins at home.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Thanks for highlighting this idea.
It reveals the true heart of the EU when it appears to be so embarrassed by voter-apathy towards the European Parliament that it has to come up with another pet project to try to mend itself in familiar EU fashion, i.e. by using our taxpayers' money to fund a system to make itself look good. Thus conveniently avoiding the real issue which is that the EU is an anti-democratic organisation which only wants to hear the 'right' answer from the electorate (see Irish referenda, French and Dutch votes on the Constitution, et al).
The European Parliament is a non-entity when it comes to real decision-making with only the European Commission having the power to raise new legislation, so (surprise, surprise) voters have worked out that their vote is almost meaningless in the light of the non-results that the EP produces. More profound is the fact that the EP has no 'government' side with a 'loyal opposition' as per our own House of Commons because the real power is with the European Commission - so what's it all about then? What's it all for? I maintain that it was brought in by the EEC (as it was then) in 1979, with MEPs from the 10 Member Countries, as a figleaf to cover up the core principle of Monet, Spinelli and co-founders of the EU which was that the peoples of Europe (the real Europe, that is, not the EU) could not be trusted to run the continent by having elected governments of their own countries. What Monet and the others really signed up to body and soul was the idea that we (the electorate) would be much more secure living under a continent-wide supra-national government in a country called 'Europe' instead. Hence the all-conquering goal of 'ever closer union'. What they threw in as well for good measure was the belief that it was perfectly OK to compromise on their morals in order to achieve this - hence the deliberate policy of deceit adopted in the 1950s to work on national governments from the side by setting up the European Coal and Steel Community and slowly chip away at national sovereignty.
That principle of deceit has worked very well because, sadly, few national politicians, including our own, can resist the opportunity to service their own interests at the expense of our sovereignty - Heath, Major, Blair, Brown have all fallen for the attraction of 'European' glory while carefully failing to explain the true cost of what they have signed us up to. By the way, Heath's duplicity during the negotiations with the French in 1971 as now revealed in papers released under the 30-year rule is chilling stuff. Notice how carefully the big parties General Election manifestoes remain vague on what policies they intend to negotiate with the EU in the coming 5 years - then SPLAT we get hit with another raft of EU laws from left field - now our politicians are even denying that they are at the mercy of the EU.
The EU not only promotes deceit it also rewards it (lax accountability on generous MEPs expenses). The EU promotes a one-party system and does not tolerate dissent or criticism from anyone outside 'the club' (e.g. Labour MEPs walked out of a speech by the Czech President in the EP when he raised this very point - how ironic!).
The picture is clear. This Soviet-style organisation called the EU will never win the respect of the electorate until it cleans up its act. Then turnouts just might increase.
Finally, in case you thought that 'Soviet-style' is an ill-considered term, let me tell you about EUROPOL. This is the EU's shady police force whose officials are exempt from prosecution and operate under central EU command not the nation state which they operate in. No way should ANY police have immunity from prosecution. Why do they want these powers? Will they make voting compulsory and send in EUROPOL to beat us up (with impunity) when we refuse to comply?
This is the true face of the EU and it has nothing to do with the freedom-loving peoples of Europe. I just wish that media would advertise these facts properly so that the debate is properly informed.
Complain about this comment
amerika_first wrote: "democracythreat writes that he has nothing but contempt for America or its instuitions. "
Ah, no. Not quite. I have contempt for unbridled nationalism of any kind, but it is true that American nationalism is particularly virulent in our current era.
I think the USA is a beautiful piece of real estate, and I have numerous American friends. I think the USA, after Switzerland, is a very good argument for democracy, and I think some of the institutions in the USA are worthy of huge respect.
However, I think that systems evolve, and I believe that corporations have evolved to prey upon systems of democratic representation and render them hollow and not fit for their intended purpose.
I also think that there is nothing quite as pathetic as a person who claims to speak for a nation state, except perhaps someone who identifies so strongly with a flag that they believe that anyone wearing a uniform is incapable of doing evil.
In short, you are not America, and you do not speak for America.
You wrap yourself in the American flag and you use the inflated status as a platform from which to deride other nations and other cultures.
Nothing could be more un-american, as this sort of behaviour drags the good name of your fine country into the mud.
You don't care about America, or its reputation. That is why you call yourself "amerika_first".
Anyone who truly loved his people and was proud of them would never use their name to denigrate other peoples and cause resentment against their country.
The flag is a plaything for you, and you use it to stimulate your feelings of vicarious glory and power.
Patriotism is truly the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Complain about this comment
#82, MvandenBroeke,
Congratulations, you have just confirmed the opinions of most people I know who were formerly EU supporters and I'm not talking about UK people. You and your friends have clearly lost the plot, you stated "but to provoke press coverage, debate and comment about how citizens can communicate with their elected officials in modern society".
Have you not yet realised that the point of public consultations, enquiries etc is that you list to the objections and then react, ideally changing your policy to follow the views of the population. Your concept of this is that you know better than the population and the consultation is merely an expensive rubber stamping of your unpopular views.
I and most others I know suggest you find a nice desert island and retire there and leave us alone, hopefully with the pension you deserve, zero!
Complain about this comment
Well credit where it is due. Congratulations to MvandenBroeke for jumping into the bear pit here. Rather tainted by not actually replying to any questions though.
Complain about this comment
Want to improve the reputation of the EU? Let the commission demand a referendum in each member country and watch your popularity rise. Especially if you take on concerns about the EU and act on them after the inevitable thrashing.
Complain about this comment
To: Marjory van den Broeke
Deputy spokesperson of the European Parliament
May I remind you that I still haven't had an answer to the question posed at 83 above - why do we need to subsidise agriculture at a European level?
Since a large portion of the EU budget goes in these subsidies and since EU taxpayers provide the money for them, surely we are entitled to ask what is a perfectly reasonable question.
And if we pose such a perfectly reasonable question and others like it and then do not get any answers aren't we entitled to be somewhat cynical about so-called Choice Boxes. Aren't we also entitled to be cynical - and angry - about the vase sums of money spent on promoting the "idea" of the EU. Surely, if it has so much going for it there would be no need for any promotion.
Complain about this comment
The participation of Ms Marjory in this thread has become a symbolic representation of the way the EU operates.
Someone comes along, states their grand title, states their grand intentions, declares that what they really want is to listen, and then disappears.
Ms Marjory, you are not impressing, or fooling, anybody.
Who are you to lecture us on what the E is doing?
Are we so stupid that we cannot see for ourselves?
Perhaps you should listen more, and lecture less.
Complain about this comment
93
You have hit the nail on the head. But are you surprised that we have some official with a high sounding title justifying some silly scheme but, when pressed on something of substance, simply does a disappearing tick? The Americans have a way of summing it up but that's too rude to post here.
The bottom line - in more ways than one - is that the taxpayers are paying for this garbage. And apparently that is to the tune of £2.3 billion a year.
Shouldn't some of our politicians be asking whether, in the current economic circumstances we can afford it?
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat, dwwonthew, Buzet23
Firstly, let me apologize. I didn’t abscond but was really busy.
@democracythreat. Firstly, not all EU countries are two-party democracies. In fact, I think the UK is one of the rare ones, althought to be precise, it is a three-party democracy. On whether Switzerland is a more successful democracy than others whole libraries have been written and as a simple spokesperson I will refrain from entering into this discussion. Whether elected officials (I’m not one) listen or not, is probably a matter of opinion: if they don't do what you want, you probably feel they didn't listen; but others with a different opinion will feel that they have been listened to.
@dwwonthew: the campaign obviously doesn’t cost 2.4bn euros. It’s not even one million per EU country, it’s 18 million, i.e. less than 4 eurocents per EU citizen, which is really little compared to what is spent normally by national authorities and corporate companies.
If you look at what has happened since the French and Dutch no votes against the constitution, it seems hardly reasonable to say that people’s views were ignored. The EU has been in some disarray since, governments drew up a new draft treaty and policy-makers are trying to accomodate voters’ perceived wishes as much as possible, such as in the area of consumer protection.
The agricultural subsidies stem from a time that the EU was still smarting from its inability to produce enough food itself. Arguably, that time has long passed and other choices could be made. That is a matter of choice and of specific policy decisions you may agree with or not. These kind of reflections, however, should inform your vote. But think about it: if you don’t agree with decisions taken by e.g. the UK or the Dutch government, surely you don’t argue for the reduction or even abolishment of the UK or the Netherlands.
Call me old-fashioned, but the “idea of Europe” for me still holds out the best promise of living in peace and prosperity – if not without political strife and differing interests.
My “high-sounding title”? It is what it is: I am the second spokesperson and it was only fair that I said so, to “jump into the bear pit” with open vizor, to show where I was coming from.
@Buzet23: Of course the comments and wishes which people will voice in the Choice Boxes will be recorded, compiled and shown to political parties, MEPs and candidates. But different people have different views and so do politicians, so not all politicians will react in the way you would want them to.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS