Eurosceptics triumphant
It's been a tremendous night for those who question the EU's direction and indeed its existence.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) have done well, although not as well as my excited reporting of rumours last night suggested. But it's a tribute to Nigel Farage's leadership that the party has increased its number of seats - yet a couple of years ago it could have fallen apart. His opponents blame us in the media for giving him air time: however he's a very effective spokesman for a strong strand of public opinion.
It's an important result. As a whole it confirms the mood of the British electorate towards the EU. It is also significant in terms of its impact on the Conservatives. It is pretty clear if you compare the local elections with the Euros that the Conservatives lost votes to UKIP. They want those votes back in time for a general election. So if there was ever any argument for them soft-pedalling their hard line on the EU it's gone. Those who've argued for a range of policies, pulling out of the centre-right group, arguing for a referendum, for a new relationship with the EU, will have their hand strengthened.
The Conservatives are now going through the list of those elected to find potential partners for their new group alongside the Czechs and Poles. So will I, later in the day, but I have no real doubt they will get enough support to form one.
A significant Eurosceptic group on the mainstream right will stir things up in the European Parliament. They will be backed up in mischief and serious opposition by UKIP and other Eurosceptic groups who've joined the parliament. Then there's the harder right-wing parties who've been elected, and generally have little love for the EU.
The saddest moment of the night: Labour MEP Richard Corbett lost his seat. Irrespective of party politics there are some people who are good for politics as a whole. Mr Corbett, a decent, thoughtful politician, is also one of the few people who actually understand how the European Parliament works and explained it well. He'll be missed on all sides of the chamber.
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~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The collapse of the Labour vote is clearly dangerous for British politics. Disaffected working class voters channeling their anger into extreme fringe groups exploiting their paranoia.
For the sake of us all the Labour Party needs to sort itself out. I do not like where this is going
Complain about this comment
The rise of both UKIP and the BNF were inevitable, given how the two main parties have pushed toward the centre of the politics in the last decade. Too many people on left and right feel disenfranchised by a political system in which only the centre has a voice.
With two almost identical centre parties it is hardly surprising that personalities have usurped policies as the main topic of conversation, but this again has added to public discontent, especially among those who voted labour for idealistic reasons.
The only question remains whether we really need two centre parties, and if so, which one is surplus to requirements?
Perhaps we have our answer.
Complain about this comment
Lets not forget that We were promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and that Promise was Broken by the Labour Party....... dont You think that could have been a major contributing factor to there dismal performance in these recent elections...???
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Mark, but your analysis is weak. The result of the EP election is clear: Gains for the conservatives across Europe and for the Greens. The right wingers lost. A clear win for the pro-EU groupings! Certainly not a "trememdous night for those who question the EU's existence".
You can look at some anecdotal evidence such as UKIP or Mr Wilders' party or the FPÖ. But Mr Wilders won't go to the EP and his 4 representatives need to be compared to the 16 French Greens under Cohn-Bendit. The Austrians have always been a bit on the Nazi-side and provided history's most criminal political export with a certain Adolf Hitler. But they are also pretty ineffective when it comes to power-games. The right-wing anti-EU groups will be desorganised and have very little impact in the EP as before.
I would also point out that in Germany, the by far largest EU Member State, the right wing groupings did miserably (as in France or Poland). Arguably, French, Polish and German results are more important than what happens in Bulgaria or Latvia.
UKIP is a very ineffective outfit in Brussels as you know. The most bizarre thing about them is that their key objective - getting the UK out of the EU (which I share but for other reasons) - cannot be organised through the EP. It would need to be organised in Westminster. But due to the UK election system UKIP will not achieve any number of seats in the House of Commons. UKIP in the EP is largely irrelevant and only provides work for the public prosecutor. I also doubt that 20% of votes for UKIP actually means that 20% of the British electorate wants to leave the EU. On this question, we can only speculate.
Complain about this comment
@biscuiteater:
"Disaffected working class voters channeling their anger into extreme fringe groups exploiting their paranoia."
I feel you are the paranoid one fearing the worst and furthermore you insult the people you call dissaffected by assuming they can be so easily manipulated.
Complain about this comment
Breaking news:
UKIP strenghthens its hand.
More British citizens buy europhobic.
Britain going to hell in a handcart.
European project still tied to ball and chain.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
"Eurosceptics triumphant" - really? That suggests that the vast majority of the voters and Anti-Europeans - what is your evidence for this statement?
Just because 13 out of the 69 or 19 percent of the MEPs are from UKIP you present this as a triumph and victory for Anti-Europeans. What about the other 81 percent? Don't they count?
OK it is important to notice that almost one in 5 of the MEPs from the UK are going to go take vast MEP salaries for 4 years form an organisation they detest in a most hypocritical way (and if past experience shows anything a corrupt way). But they do NOT represent anything near a majority. Your hyperbolic comments demonstrate your lack of mathematical ability not anything else!
Complain about this comment
Why no mention of the Greens who are now the fourth largest recognised party and had the biggest percentage gains in representation of all the parties. The Fred Goodwin factor (outrage about symbolism) has drawn attention to BNP's two MEP's but this duo will be forgotten within weeks of the new parliament commencing.
UKIP's success is a reflection of the feeling that the EU does not serve the interests of working people of the UK and is tainted by the bizarre antics of characters like Burlesconi et al.
Complain about this comment
This is not a success for the Eurosceptics, this is a humiliation for decent politics as a serious profession in the UK. All UKIP does in Brussels is to sabotage with amusing and populist diatribes. Apart from earning their deputies nice salaries and providing nice headlines in the Sun, this does not achieve anything for anyone. The UK has now lost good parliamentarians that did wield influence in the committees and groups. Europe will move ahead while the UK electorate has chosen a role of clowning at the fringe. In a time of a ballooning public debt, without empire to fund it, that is a radical way to solve the 'immigration problem'. Soon there will be a UK emigration problem.
Complain about this comment
"It's been a tremendous night for those who question the EU's direction and indeed its existence."
Come, come, it's been a moderately successful night. "A tremendous night" would have been if they'd swept the board. The fact that they didn't rather puts the lie to the claim of some posters here that the whole country wants to get out of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I share your opinion regarding Richard Corbett. While I certainly cannot say that I agreed with many of his political views he was a determined representative who took his job at the European Parliament very seriously and shared tremendous knowledge and helpfulness throughout the chamber. Regardless of political persuasion, an honest politician who worked hard for his constituents should be lauded.
On another note, contrary to the predictions last night UKIP's total is still at odds with the periodic (and dare I say spurious) opinion polls we always see about how Anti-EU the British public are. Also, I thought it was highly amusing that (aside from using Churchill, one of the founders of the European Movement, on its campaign material) UKIP is sending an MEP who is not British on the basis of Article 19 EC which states:
"every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State."
I'm not sure how this fits with UKIP's overall message. If they had their way apparently one of their own MEPs wouldn't be welcome in Britain and certain could not run for parliament!
Complain about this comment
I suspect historians will see this year's elections as simply another occasion upon which the vast majority of the population took no part. This fundamental sign of a sick society seems to have passed by commentators, including your good self, possibly because it's become commonplace. But as long as two-thirds of the electorate boycott elections, words like 'triumphant','strong gains' and 'breakthrough' are pretty empty. This level of alienation should be ringing alarm bells across Europe, and if we fail to recognise the danger now, we shall eventually pay the price.
Complain about this comment
In an earlier post, Mark, you indicated that in most EU countries the electorate had stuck with their governments, rather than (as usually happens between general elections) giving them a kicking. In these countries people were not blaming their governments for the current economic crisis: they blame the US and UK in particular.
Now it seems that the UK electorate has also laid blame on its government for the economic crisis?
The anti-EU stance is understandable given the unbalanced nature of press coverage that I have read (online and on my very occasional visits to the UK). The EU needs a good shake-up, and I hope the sceptics soon arriving in Brussels will work for improvement rather than for destruction. Because the EU is a necessary level of government in today's world. (Cue anti-EU onslaught!)
Complain about this comment
In Ireland the status quo has remained the same. Sinn fein the only party that is anyway eurosceptic will likely retain a seat. Libertas may get a seat but from a U.K. point of view their views are pro-EU However like the U.K the governing parties have been hit hard. Did eurosceptics win only in the U.K. or did parties with similar views gain in other countries?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I appreciate you have been up all night but are you looking at the same results as us? I know comparisons with 2004 are difficult, but, according to the results I see, the UEN and IND groupings are currently down on 2004 - so a decline in support across the EU for the Euro-sceptic groupings. Within the UK, the vote for the two withdrawal parties, UKIP and BNP is up by 2%. There is however a greater increase in vote share for parties who are seen as more supportive of the EU. The Green vote is, by itself up higher (2.6%) than UKIP and BNP combined, and there have been significant gains by the SNP. This is an argument for a polarisation of the vote rather than a swing one way or the other pro or anti the EU.
Complain about this comment
I have to say i think the result would be different if people were actually informed by the media of what the EP does! Yes it has terrible weaknesses compared to the Council
BUT . .
how many young women are there on their equal pay schemes, phoning from abroad for the same price as in the UK and believing this is some Vodaphone promotion and not the work of the European Parliament ???
Complain about this comment
Congratulation: UKIP did well. They gathered votes from traditional Tory voters - and those inclined to vote Tory to punish Labour, Lib-Dems and other EUrophile parties.
This is a clear lesson for David Cameron not to back-pedal on the promised referendum - even if it is 'ratified' by the Irish. He should have a long talk with the brilliant Dan Hannan
The BNP's risible rise is clearly a result of the collapse of the Labour Vote and the flaws in the convoluted EU PR voting system. A clear warning to proponents of PR in the UK.
The Left is in retreat all over Europe.
All in all a good day.
Complain about this comment
#4. RGruenebaum
Absolutely right. The conservative, the liberal, the social democrats and the greens, in other words groups in favour of the EU, have a vast majority in the EP.
I also noticed that the UKIP and the Tories won almost nothing in the UK election.
Complain about this comment
Still can't believe the BNP results - the government needs to address these serious concerns and address them quickly before this ever repeats itself. People who vote BNP know exactly what they are voting for when they vote for them, so this is a clear message against this country's immigration policy.
As for UKIP, I don't fully agree with everything Nigel Farrage says but he is a rare shining light in that he is an honest, no nonsense politician who throughout the campaign and indeed last night was giving straight up answers as opposed to those such as Harriet Harman who you couldn't get a straight answer out of if you tried. I do agree with him when he said that if there had been more of a debate on the EU and not just the expenses then UKIP's vote would have been even greater - as it was there really was no debate on Europe in this election if truth be told.
I just don't know how long it has to be that this country returns a Eurosceptic result at European elections for the main political parties to realise that public opinion wants a different direction in the EU. I fear that if the results continue to be ignored then the BNP could easily pick up a couple more MEPs in future. We cannot allow the BNP to gain any momentum of any sort. The government must listen to the people.
A good victory for the free market last night either way which I am incredibly pleased to see. Voters, despite the propaganda, do not see socialism as the way out of the economic downturn.
Complain about this comment
There is a real distinction to be made between supporting the EU, which I do strongly, and being happy about the European Parliament. The Parliament is an awful example of a body with (some) power and no responsibility. Hardly anyone knows who their MEP is and even fewer have the least idea what they support or vote for. It is an illusion that they provide democratic accountability for the European Commission. Their legislative record is dismal and they cost a very great deal of money. Until and unless there is some form of federal European state they serve no real purpose and it would be a good idea to suspend the whole operation for the forseeable future.
Complain about this comment
Simple question: do we want a federal Europe?
It's good to see some willingness to consider a formal opposition in the world of Europolitics.
Complain about this comment
I hope that now UKIP are an 'established fringe' party rather than a one-off, BBC and other media interviewers will start challenging Mr Farage's outright untruths about the proportion of UK laws made in Brussels (UKIP say 80%, every other analysis says less than 20%), the amount of money Britain spends on the EU (UKIP only counts money out, not the money in), and the realism of their stated aim of 'trading with Europe without having to obey their laws' - which the experience of Switzerland, Norway and even China shows is impossible.
Complain about this comment
It's been a tremendous night for those who question the EU's direction and indeed its existence.
------------------
That is so UK-centric.
The eurosceptic parties in Poland, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark were completely wiped out.
Complain about this comment
The integrity of the democratic system depends on parties honouring key manifesto promises. The commitment to hold a referendum on the transfer of further power to Brussels was absolute. It was made because all main parties recognised that this was what the voters wanted at a time when they were seeking votes.
Europe is important and the arguments about the desirablity of the Lisbon Treaty are far from one way. There is a debate to be had and a judgement to be made. This judgement should be made by the electorate, as was promised.
Labour has reneged on a clear commitment. It has paid the price for doing so in the European elections.
Complain about this comment
Let the Whining begin
Brown and the Labour Party got no less than they derserve. It seems that Democracy only suits them when they get the result they want.
The sucess of the BNP and UKIP is a direct result of the arrogance of Brown and the failed Politicians he now chooses to surround himself with, from Kinnock to Mandelson and all of those in between.
Brown talks of Democracy yet He could be the first Prime Minister ever to come into Office, and go out again, without facing an Election. I, for one certainly hope so.
The results of the Local Elections coupled with the dire results in the Euro Elections should be enough to force him out as Back Bench's look to secure their seats for another term, but will any have the backbone to act? I doubt it.
The BNP and UKIP are not simply gaining seats as result of a protest vote, they are gaining because they appeal to an Electorate who feel ignored and discounted by a corrupt and self serving Labour Administration who, it appears are aided in their duplicity by the two other "Major Parties".
Brown needs to go and GO NOW for the sake of his Party and for the sake of the Country but I sure he lacks the integrity to do so
Complain about this comment
The results of the Euro elections and the recent local elections give cause for concern. In the local elections people were strongly influenced and encouraged by right wing media "hype" about events at Westminster. Very important local issues have therefore been ignored. The same has happened in the Euro elections. This means that the democratic system isn't working properly. People have been been misled by the media.
A referendumon the Lisbon treaty would be treated by the xenophobic and Europhobic right wing media as a referendum on EU membership. People wouldn't be correctly informed about the advantages of the treaty. For us, withdrawal from the EU would be a disaster. Who wants to see a divided Europe again?
Complain about this comment
Have not posted here for a while, good to have a break. Mark has the analysis spot on, in the U.K. it appears the conservatives (who can only be described as eurosceptic) and UKIP have done well. The most pro E.U. parties, Labour and the liberals have fared badly.
People are deluding themselves if they think it is about expenses, the tories had their snouts in the trough as much as anyone and the liberals (apart from the odd trouser press) were relatively clean. The voters have punished those renaging on promises to hold a referendum on the Constitution/Lisbon treaty.
It is a great shame that the BNP did achieve their break through and I can only hope it is a short term blip.
In addition to the U.K. other euro sceptic parties in other countries have also done well. To try and suggest this is only a U.K. issue is nonsense. The establisment do need to look at these results and accept they have to listen to the people.
One other thing, if this election is what proportional representation is about, please take it away. I had to select out of a total of 11 parties, under each party there were 7 candidates. I consider myself reasonable politically aware, but how any one is supposed to establish what the individual 77 prospective MEP's stand for is beyond me. Yes I know for example 7 were conservative, but are they pro or sceptic. What are their views on centralisation of powers, Schengen etc.
In addition imagine if a similar situation was replicated in the U.K. Parliamentary election. I may have 6 people on the list I do not know, the seventh person has made bogus expenses calims. This could be replicated in other parties standing. I cannot punish the individual without punishing all the others. I want to be able to select an individual to represent nmy interest, some one I and other electors can hold to account. Not put my mark to a list of people who I do not know
Complain about this comment
How conveneient for Euro cheerleaders to suggest that UKIP encapsulates the entire anti-EU support, therefore the electorate support the EU. there will be plenty of anti-EU feeling amongst main party voters who nevertheless will loyally support their party. And then there is the little mater of the 67% who did not vote. Really, the only way to answer this is to have a focussed debate and a referendum where the voters are certain that their wishes will produce action.
Complain about this comment
Europe is at a treshold, far from Eurosceptics relying on an educated voter, European policies are representerd differently in every country, depending on the starwmen and spinn meisters of this world.
Now is the time for those who believe that Europe's peacefull period should carry on to unite and form an alternative block to that proposed by the 'unaccountables', the Comission and people like Mandelson, now is the time to propose an altewrnative, more sustainable and accountable stucture for European democracy.
An end to financial mismanament will win trust back, auditors must approve Europes finances and MEP's must agree to financial probety and itemised accounting.
To contemplate a breaking up of the EU would bring back old strife and tribalismns, with the resulting insecurity damaging the entente cordial and free trade accross borders.
The lack of support by the british media and Government for Europe, its institutions and work, is legendary, apart from bend bananas nothing much gets discussed in our media, Europe seems further away than the US, a calamity that must be rectified, because our money is earned in Europe, our history stems from Europe anmd NAFFTA will not step aside and make space for brtitain and its goods, should they despise Europe, it is not a doddle to leave Europe and its union, unless off course, you are pivotal to providing secret banking facillities to anyone who has money regardless as to were it comes from and how much blood is attached to it.
The BNP was let in by noLabour and their fickle voters. For example, to have the gall to refuse an interview opportunity on Radio 4's flagship political programme 'Today', on the day you are launching your Euro campaing, shows how much this Government has lost it. They never fought the BNP, it was left to small parties like the Greens and the SWP who pooled their votes in Birmingham to do the job. Unfortunately noLabour voters could not even be bothered to come out and vote for alternatives that were available, they were too full of themselves to care as to what follows their collapse, good riddance, now we have to deal with these egobrains and hate mongers, they will spread a thouroghly bad taste amongst the rest of Europe, Britain will be judged for providing hooligans with a stage to vent their spleens.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Speaking of the UK european elections: The people have spoken - or should that be - the peoples silence is deafening, either way everyone has to take note; with only 1/3rd of eligible voters bothering to use their vote whilst the euro-sceptic vote seeing an increase (both Conservative and UKIP) and the pro-european parties either remaining mostly static or their supporters sitting on their hands - the latter of which is what allowed the far right to obtain, by default, two seats even though their share of the vote was down.
A more european wide thought, with the projected share of the vote suggesting a majority for the centre-right in the EU parliament one has now to seriously question the future of 'Lisbon' and it's full ratification - Ireland might well ratify but will either the Czech Republic or Poland?
If Lisbon falls there are three likely outcomes;
1/. The often suggested 'two-speed' Europe.
2/. A retraction of the "EU", back to a solely trade orientated group, the old EEC in effect, although with modern rules to reflect an increased membership and globalisation etc. (I suspect that, in the UK, both the Conservatives and UKIP would settle for this option).
3/. The start of the actual break-up on the EU.
Complain about this comment
#20
"Hardly anyone knows who their MEP is"
That is rather more a comment about them than MEP or the EU - in a similar vain many in the UK would not be able to say who their local (local/district) councillors are - it's the disinterest in politics that is the problem, not any problem with the political system - putting it bluntly, more people probably stayed up (in the UK) to watch "Big Brother" last night than stayed up to watched the Euro-election results... :-(
Complain about this comment
@biscuiteater:
"Disaffected working class voters channeling their anger into extreme fringe groups exploiting their paranoia."
I feel you are the paranoid one fearing the worst and furthermore you insult the people you call dissaffected by assuming they can be so easily manipulated.
Well as the saying goes Elliot, you don't have to fool all the people all the time and the extreme groups know this. How many examples from history do you need. It only takes enough to be manipulated and we have a problem, and are there enough? Well not yet, impossible to say how many enough is in this circumstance, but we certainly need to keep an eye on it.
A Marxist perspective would I suppose be that the Labour Party are enemies of the working class as they make them think they have some input into the political system that is in effect still run by the same old self interested elites. Whether you agee or not with that, the Labour Party has moved away from its grass roots support in search of 'Middle England'. The expenses scandal, while engulfing all parties, it was somehow expected of the Tories, but it was seen as a final betrayal by the grass root Labour Support. Who do they turn to? Who is talking to them expressing their fears. Usual suspects come out the woodwork of nationalism mixed with xenophobia and outright racism to fill the void.
Complain about this comment
"As a whole it confirms the mood of the British electorate towards the EU." I disagree with this comment, it does not. The British electorate has no idea about what the EU is and actually does. Most of them are misinformed by constant battering of the EU by the media and therefore think it is the cause of everything that goes wrong in the UK which is not true. Sadly though, the only source of information they have on the EU is the impartial analysis of the media. The small minority of people who are actually informed of the EU hardly have enough weight in the elections to make themselves heard and so the masses manage to get UKIP elected to the EP which is just ridiculous in itself: a party that wants to withdraw from the EU now has to sit in EP plenary sessions for the next 5 years. ha ha! oh, the irony!
In fact, I would say that it is more a confirmation of the mood of the British electorate towards British politics and the Labour government. Of course, they are disappointed by the performance of the government and all the latest scandals surrounding it and so they want to show their disapproval by: voting in the opposition and contradicting Labour's position by calling for a withdrawal from the EU. The sad thing is, (and no one seems to have understood this yet), the EP elections are not about national politics, they are not just another national contest and a way to vote in the opposition, they are about the EU. Until people understand this, we will just continue to witness sad events like this one.
When is the EU going to wake up and decide to overhaul its public relations department, and start a campaign of real importance that could change the outcome of the EP elections???
Complain about this comment
#27
"People are deluding themselves if they think it is about expenses, the tories had their snouts in the trough as much as anyone and the liberals (apart from the odd trouser press) were relatively clean. The voters have punished those renaging on promises to hold a referendum on the Constitution/Lisbon treaty."
Indeed, and as UKIP's leader Nigel Farage stated in an interview, UKIP have had their own problems in this respect (expenses/allowances) but none the less UKIP increased their vote - go figure Mr Brown!
The issue does seems to be EU direction and 'Lisbon'...
Complain about this comment
I can't wait till the UK leaves the EU. Then it can go floating away with its embarrassing BNP and UKIP members, and leave the rest of Europe alone.
It seems that the BNP, UKIP, and even the Tories still yearn for the heady days of empire and splendid isolation when 'Britain' and its empire still mattered.
Of course, 'Britain' is simply an invention itself. Is Britain England? England and Wales? England, Wales, and Scotland? England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (or is this the UK?)? Even England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland (which Mr. Griffin might prefer)?
Before you go slamming the European project, take a look at the instability of your own 'nation' and its sovereignty, and how it relies on a suspension of disbelief. Europe is a similar attempt at coming together, but through negotiation and debate rather than proclamation and conquest.
You think that because European leaders bicker and disagree that the EU is not working. On the contrary, it is their disagreements which show that the EU is working. The EU provides a forum for such differences. The alternative, judging by the history of the previous century, is forming alliances (which consequently implies making enemies of those who are not allies), and discussions between individual European states (which means exclusion and playing states off against each other for your own ends). In case you've forgotten, this, combined with the rise of extremist governments, led to continental war on two occasions.
The EU can survive without the 'UK' or 'Britain', but 'Britain' cannot survive without the EU.
Complain about this comment
James-the-aged wrote:
"I suspect historians will see this year's elections as simply another occasion upon which the vast majority of the population took no part. "
I agree.
The result that raised my eyebrows was the 20% turnout in Lithuania. 1 in 5 folks voted.
Now ten years ago, you could not have found a place that was more in favour of the EU project than Lithuania. Everyone was sure that it was great for the country, great for them personally.
I am being treated as something of a doomsaying prophet among my mattress relations, because five years ago I took a very dim view of the EU projects that were being funded in Lithuania. I noticed, and pointed out, that the EU was prohibiting any development projects of industry that could compete with french or german industry, and that the local and regional governments were BORROWING money to build things they didn't need, like new council office building right next door to old council office buildings. Sure, there was a lot of money going into the economy at the time, but it wasn't a gift. It was a debt, and it would need to be serviced.
This is why I think the EU will break down. The way that the French, German and Swedish banks have engineered loans into eastern Europe has been nothing short of scandalous. It is not that these western powers used the EU structure to prey upon ignorant governments: they did, for sure, but that is not the worst of it. The worst thing was the way the EU was complicit in a lending program that was calculate to ruin the people of eastern Europe.
For those who do not follow the logic of what happened, let me spell it out once more:
The EU provided a framework for new governments in eastern europe to borrow "development funds". ergo, this same structure allowed banks from france, germany and sweden (primarily) to lend money to these governments. But at the same time, the EU did not protect the new eastern european governments from the national interests of the western nations. And so the EU became an instrument for dictating how the loan money would be spent. Eastern European nations were told how to spend their money, and the terms and conditions were drafted by the politicians and advisors to the governments of western Europe. As a result, eastern european governments were told that they could not invest in industry that would compete with the west. They were told to close power stations, to close steel mills, to shut down agricultural projects. The justifications given at the time were varied. The east was using environmentally dangerous practices. The east was using outdated technology that did not warrant investment. The east did not have the managerial capacity for advanced industries.
But all the while, the basic constraints on the lending to eastern europe were devised by the same western government who needed to keep their own economies strong, and who feared competition from the east.
The net result was that western europe ensured that eastern europe would become burdened by a mountain of debt, and furthermore that none of that debt would go towards building modern competitive economies.
That is predatory behavior in the extreme, and it has shown the people of eastern Europe two things that they will not forget easily:
1. The EU is a business club built for and buy the dominant western economies.
2. The EU is controlled by large scale private interests, and has no regard for the people it apparently serves.
And so, we have a 20% turn out for this election in a state that was once a poster child for the grand European project.
Whilst the EU project is being rejected by the independently minded people of the UK, it is becoming hated by the newly created slave class of eastern european people. It is in desperate trouble.
Make no mistake, the EU is in desperate trouble, and so are the economies of france, germany and sweden. If Latvia is not rescued and start printing worthless paper to pay its policemen and teachers, the knock on effect to the other baltic states will be to ruin the economic activity in the whole region. The other baltic states will also need to print money. And the bonds held by the western banks will become worthless, and then the investment class of the western nations will be faced with a brutal choice: Do they use force to dictate how the eastern economies will repay their debts, or do they themselves decided to wear the losses from a fraudulent and evil spirited economic scheme?
I suggest that if they use force to dictate terms to the east, Russia will have a great deal to say about that, and the east will flee back to the arms of mother russia. If the west does not use force and simply allows its loans to go bad, the economic fallout will cripple the dominant economies of western Europe.
That is the future for the grand project, and it all stems from the fact that the EU has always been a private business club for a privileged class of people who live by issuing debt to the lower orders of humanity.
Complain about this comment
I think you're overstating UKIP's success. Yes, they increased their share of the vote. But to suggest this means that British voters are rejecting the EU is ludicrous. If you add up the votes for parties that favour remaining in the EU, namely Labour, Tories, LibDems, and Greens, then I make that about 66% of the voters. Hardly consistent with a majority of Brits being against staying in the EU.
Complain about this comment
How can the EU overhaul its public relations department? Its like asking Goebbels to start telling the truth.
The PR budget of the EU is immense. It is all about telling everyone how good the EU project is.
Any organisation that spends a small fortune on telling you how good it is, obviously has nothing of worth to sell to you.
Is it not insidious that payments of EU pensions are legally dependent upon not speaking ill of the EU?
Goebbels would have been proud of EU techniques....
Complain about this comment
#38
"Hardly consistent with a majority of Brits being against staying in the EU."
You are forgetting that the Tories are basically a euro-sceptic party, if you put their election results into the same category as UKIP your assertions start falling apart. Remember that the Tories do not want to stay within the EU as constituted - ie. after 'Lisbon'. The following figures clearly show, out of those who could be bothered to vote, most people in the UK do not want to be part of that sort of "EU" and all europhiles have to accept that fact - like the BNP winning seats, how ever much it sticks in the gullet, facts are facts.
CON and UKIP = 44.2% + BNP = 50.4%
Lab/Lib/Grns = 22.3% + all others = 33.7%
I am now accepting, having 'slept on the results', that it would be best for the UK (and probably EU) if the UK did now have a referendum on Lisbon. Something more than just 'MPs expenses' or the 'worldwide recession' has effected these EU elections, something deeper...
Complain about this comment
I notice that a number of posters here are missing the point that apparently (and I'm not in this camp I should clarify) the majority of people in this country according to opinion polls are now questioning the benefits of EU membership. This claim is not just based on how votes went in the election just there, but sustained showings in opinion polls suggesting that this country does not like the idea of EU Citizenship, an EU Court gaining more influence (which it does under Lisbon) or more supranational elements creeping into the organisation.
There can be no doubt that if you put the majority opinion to the test in this country and explained everything to the voters here that they would be in favour of staying in the EU, but rolling it back to more of an EC type organisation. If you think anything else, you are deluded, plain and simple. A little like the Liberal Democrats.
If the governments within the EU are not going to listen to concern in countries outside of France and Germany which is growing increasingly sceptical of the *current* direction of the EU, then people will keep turning to more extreme parties to get their voice heard.
Some people are trying to play down the impact of the Eurosceptic vote - excuse me for thinking that the far right doing scarily well in once-EU enthusiasts Austria and Holland was a big deal! Law and Justice in Poland, though they didn't win overall, gained more seats. Hungary and Slovakia aren't quite Malta sized nations either!
Complain about this comment
Only Richard Corbett himself could object to my post 30. If Labour allows a federalist 'party within a party' to develop they are going to suffer the fate that befell them when militant tendency invaded their ranks. In the long-term the downfall of Richard Corbett will come to be seen as beneficial to Labour as the downfall of Derek Hatton.
Complain about this comment
"As a whole it confirms the mood of the British electorate towards the EU."
What are you talking about? UKIP managed to get support of nearly exactly the same number of people as in 2004 increasing it by just 0.3%. The same story for BNP. They are just incredibly lucky to get these 2 sits.
Can you say anything about Greens, who did very well? Much better than others.
Complain about this comment
The last two "Great Politicians" who wanted a Federal State of Europe were Napoleon and Hitler, that says it all for me.
There are those that claim that Churchill was also in favour of such a Union, but that is untrue. Churchill supported the idea of a "Mutual Aid" Programme aimed, solely, at countering the Communist threat.
I voted for for the BNP, in Yorkshire, dispite the propaganda peddled by the Media and the Left, because I actually trust them more than Brown and the Crooks he has surrounded himself with and because I believe my voice will be heard.
The Tories, and Labour have ignored the concerns of the odinary working man for years and have arrogantly continued on their path towards a Federal Europe and all that brings, including things like over regulation, unchecked Immigration and an undermining of everything this Country SHOULD stand for.
I served this Country for 23 years but looking at the mess we are in I sometimes wonder if that sacrifice was worth it. Likewise my Father fought in WW2 and Aden, while my eldest son currently serves in Afganisitan must also wonder
If nothing else, the election of two BNP MEPs make give the "so called" main parties the kick up the rear needed to get them back in tune with the Electorate and represent the interests of the Country and not just their inflated egos.
Complain about this comment
The EU can survive without the 'UK' or 'Britain', but 'Britain' cannot survive without the EU.
Why?
Personally I don't believe you, I think you are just a typical Europhile who pulls unfounded conclusions out of the air to bolster your love of the bastard that is the EU which politicians created without the consensus of the people, allegedly for our own good.
Until the politicians decide that the people actually need consulted on, and not dictated to, on the existence of, and if agreed, the direction of the EU, we will never get people interested or voting in any considerable numbers to actually see how we feel on who should be sent to represent the interests of EU on our behalf.
How British people voted on Thursady is an irrelevance, something akin to the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, or the Dutch and French votes on the Constitution, not worth the paper the great unwashed expressed their UNINFORMED opinions on. The same uninformed and unwashed that Gordon Brown would give his eye teeth to have put their X against a Labour candidate in the next general election.
It's got to the stage now where even informed people I know say, what's the point, they will do as they want anyway. What does that say about British and European politics?
Complain about this comment
I think 'bisquiteater' is wrong. The 'collapse' in votes for Labour is healthy, deserving and long overdue. The Labour Party is one of the great lies of the 20th (and now 21st) century. Talk of 'heartlands' and 'strongholds' abound...and when you look into them you find little or nothing has been set down to improve the quality of lives of those people. The odd sports hall, maybe a white-goods factory, or even an assembly plant, but all done as a 'graft' to assuage pressure groups. All the while through sinister devious underhand means the educational quality and thus eventual adult life-chances is being eroded for the very same people. Labour is thus a con of the greatest magnitude. Check out the sheer incompetence, the ignorance, the lack of experience beyond town halls - who amongst them brings a broad wisdon to the table from real-world experience? Answer? None. Think of John Prescott, the John Reed/Keith Vaz debacle which saw Tony Blair seeing off Elizabeth Filkin. Think of the old fellow manhandled at Blackpool by Labour heavies for merely saying "that's wrong". Think of the sinister games played by No 10 when Prof Kelly was being targeted by the henchmen masquerading as human beings working at No 10. Remember the dodgy dossier - the Iraq war fiasco, the cash for peerages scandal?. Remember how Chris Woodhead was 'removed' from his job in spite of the fact he was probably the best at that office ever? Remember the young student lady whose 'crime' it was to speak the names of those dead from the Iraq war - but to do so within reach of the gates of Downing Street. I thought free speech was guaranteed in the UK?
And so it goes on. All the while Gordon Brown, head down, shielded from watching eyes, deepening and widening the tax burden. Mostly by stealth but also downright in your face. He built the public sector payroll in places like the North East to some 63%, creating in effect a client-electorate (election results bear this out now). He penalised the hard-working 'coping classes' as if theirs was a crime. Of course to labour thinking it was: To work hard, achieve success, strive for the best education for your children, better yourself, grow your wealth and so on. Any and all of those values threatening everything labour stands for - not least because it builds a class of individual who can think and make judgments on merit. Anathema!
So let us rejoice that in some modest way the Labour government and party has had a good thrashing. They deserve little less. If you need convincing of that go back to Margaret Beckett on Question Time and listen to her reply when asked about returning ill-gotten expenses. And remember, she was Secretary of State at the Foreign Office once and to-day costs the taxpayer in excess of 250,000 pounds a year in police protection! Nothing in 'New' Labour represents honour, decency, truth, justice or even basic straightforwardness. Duplicity and deviousness shrouded in spin and carefully rehearsed rhetoric is all they stand for.
Whether these EU elections reveal something for the Conservatives to get excited about, who knows, it should but I have yet to truly get excited about David Cameron. He does seem genuine enough and I suspect he doesn't have a sinister duplicitous bone in his body. In that respect he represents something refreshing, so I wish him and his revived Conservative Party well at the coming General Election.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@44. "There are those that claim that Churchill was also in favour of such a Union, but that is untrue. Churchill supported the idea of a "Mutual Aid" Programme aimed, solely, at countering the Communist threat."
Have you read his Zurich speech? Because oddly enough when I read his Zurich speech he does actually say there needs to be an United States of Europe lead by France and Germany. Can you link me to a speech by Hitler where he say there needs to be an United States of Europe under his rule? I can't seem to find it.
Complain about this comment
#40:
You're right that the Conservatives are euro-sceptic and don't like the Lisbon treaty. However, that's not the same thing at all as saying they are in favour of withdrawing from the EU. Unless I've missed a pretty startling change of policy from the Tories, they are still in favour of remaining in the EU. The subtext to Mark's blog is that substantial numbers of British voters favour withdrawing from the EU. That's what I was disagreeing with.
You're right, however, that the majority of British voters almost certainly don't like the EU as it works (or doesn't work) currently. But I see no evidence that wanting to remedy that by withdrawing from the EU altogether is a majority view.
Complain about this comment
UKIPs share of the vote rose by only 0.3% of the vote.
Its hard to see why sites such as these are calling it a huge success for them.
UKIP will also find themselves without a group in the European Parliament as other Eurosceptic parties were soundly beaten.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If the government had given the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty as they promised and the vote was "yes" then UKIP would have no where to go and they would slip quietly into history.
The problem is that we wasn't given the vote and the is a chance that we never will so long live UKIP and any politician of any colour who has the courage to ask the public what they actually want
Complain about this comment
KAS1865 wrote:
"If nothing else, the election of two BNP MEPs make give the "so called" main parties the kick up the rear needed to get them back in tune with the Electorate and represent the interests of the Country and not just their inflated egos."
Regrettably, this is wishful thinking. That is not how this result will be perceived by the power brokers in the two dominant parties.
Put yourself in their position. You see a whacko fringe party get two seats, even though huge numbers of people are angry at the political leadership they endure.
So.. do you feel that the two party system is threatened?
Remember, you are a power broker for the PARTY. Not an MP, but rather a member of the party executive. Your job is to seek funding for campaigns from corporate sponsors, and to make sure they receive governments contracts in return. You groom potential MP's from university to the grave, selecting those who are bright enough to realize that the party calls ALL the shots, and can make or break them by giving them safe seats and cabinet positions. In effect, your job as a party executive is to market the party brand, and to hire and fire the ugly models who will strut your policy fabrications down the catwalk of the media circus.
So I ask again... Does the BNP winning two seats make you fear for your welfare? Do you seriously think the two party system is threatened?
Of course not. The two party system, and those who profit from it and rule through it, can sleep easy in their beds. They know they have just endured a scandal of epic proportions, wherein all their cheating and lying has been greeted with absolute outrage by the public. Public opinion of the whole political system, and all the people in it, has never been lower.
And yet the two party system remains completely dominant. You have only lost two seats to the whacko fringe.
Trust me, the party executives are sleeping easy. They have nothing to worry about.
The torries are gearing up to distribute contracts, and the Labour party is gearing down for a spell on the bench. The corporate sponsors..... well they simply do not care. They are not even watching. They give money to both sides equally, and they can therefore rest assured that NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
And there's the rub. The people paying for the results are getting the results they paid for, and representative democracy is working perfectly. The only source of confusion is for those who think it is the common people who are supposed to be represented, rather than the corporations and the aristocracy they represent.
And that is simply confusion brought on by sheer naiveté. I mean, be sensible. Why on earth would corporate sponsorship of political parties be so massive in scale, if the parties intended to represent the common people rather than the corporation?
Seriously, what would be the point? Is anyone going to stand up and seriously argue that corporations sponsor political parties because they feel a burning social need to ensure that the people have the best quality representatives, who will always tell the truth and stand up for the civil rights of ordinary people?
A person would have to be blind and stupid to believe such a thing.
Complain about this comment
Eurosceptics triumphant?
While I generally respect M. Mardell I have often noticed that his attention to detail in relation to the news he comments about is sometimes alarmingly low.
What better example than the headline and content of this thread. As other poster mentions above, this is very much a UK centric headline.
Mark, FYI, the key Eurosceptic and ultra-nationalist group in the EU parliament, Independence & Democracy, of which UKIP is key member, has seen its MEPs reduced from 22 to 19. Not only that, if my info is correct no less than 4 out of 9 countries have been wiped out clean off the I&D group: Sweden, Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark.
This means two things:
1. As things stand I&D no longer qualifies as a group inside the EU parliament as it currently has members from 5 countries, needing 7 to form a group.
2. UKIP will have to find europhobics from two other countries to qualify as a group, which in any case will be UKIP plus a handful of ultra-nationalists from continental Europe.
They may have to join the new party that Cameroon is trying to form, he, he, he, he....
Proposed BBC headline when this happens:
"Churchill and Thatcher meet again in the EU parliament."
Complain about this comment
Well, it took some time to dawn on you at the BBC, but, at least you got there in the end!
65% of Britons did not vote and of the 35% that did the largest number by some way voted for EUro-sceptic Political Parties.
How the BBC Editors could have missed/overlooked that key point of the EU Elections in the UK/England still concerns me?
Was it oversight or misplaced loyalty?
The fact that in Europe the 'anti-EU' Electoral Vote also rose to new heights was also largely unreported by the BBC (and I would add Sky also ignored its significance - - inc. today when Adam Boulton continued to downplay it with comments like "..shouldn't make too much of it as it was no worse than last elections.." - - when of course 5 years ago the EU Commission, Parliament etc. had all vowed to 'work' to 'reconnect' with the Citizens!).
Clearly that 'reconnection' did not go according to plan!
Which brings me to my final concern on the BBC coverage of these EU Elections: How come the BBC has not picked up President Barroso on his colossal duplicitous deceit of proclaiming the outcome of the Election was that Voters had "..supported the EU.."!?
At least your primary analysis was spot on, "..As a whole it confirms the mood of the British electorate towards the EU..", but, you did not really elaborate on what that mood was, so, we must conclude you meant UKIP winning against the Conservatives and Labour in % terms reflects the 'anti-EU' are in the ascendancy across the British Isles.
Complain about this comment
I think it's going some to claim that people voting for the main national opposition party is an expression of pure Euroscepticism, and on that basis to say there's a majority for EU withdrawal. Sure, the Tories are Eurosceptic, but they are also the opposition. People might be voting for them to send a message to the Government (which is the issue they actually campaigned on).
If you voted for UKIP or the BNP you probably (but not definitely) want the UK to leave the EU. If you voted for the Tories, it's a lot harder to tell.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 and #54.
If you read Mr Mardell's other Blogs on the EU Election you would have seen he dealt with pan-European issues: This particular Article (late in my opinion) dealt with the impact on the UK/England of the results.
However, you use statistics to raise the matter of 'Euroscepticism' in your attempt to suggest it is only a UK affair and perhaps should first have considered the full implications of the Election Turnout.
If you are pleased to see the IandD numbers fall what is your opinion of a fall to 43.5% pan-European Electoral Turnout?
Afterall, you use numbers to indicate a lack of support for IandD, so, what would this spectacularly low Turnout of Citizens indicate?
If you seriously claim this Election was the European Citizens' endorsement and mandate for the European Union Parliament then clearly the meaning of the term "Eurosceptic" has utterly eluded you.
If you can explain how 57% of European Citizens not voting is a positive reflection on your beloved EU, please do so - - we all await this exercise in statistical trampolining - - when numbers drop for the 'anti-EU' that is significant, but, when numbers drop for the 'EU' that is not!
Complain about this comment
Just one technical comment. The voting system seems to be flawed and seriously biased in favor of the large EPP and Socialist groupings. The system is so heavily biased that one would have to wonder whether it is still a system of democratic representation or whether it represents only a semblance thereof. This results from the combination of the fact that there is a separate election in each state (i.e. each state has a firm quota of representatives and in small or mid-sized states there are not enough seats to represent the less dominant political views) and subject to minimum percentage thresholds in a number of states. In practice this means that minority views (e.g. liberals, greens) are disproportionately shut out from political representation in the European Parliament. For example, about 25% of votes in the Czech Republic (over 10% for about 5 different liberal parties, more than 6% for at least 3 different eurosceptic parties and about 4% for 3 different green parties), went to parties that did not pass the 5% hurdle and are not represented in the EP. Voters can therefore "freely" choose among EPP, EC, Socialists and Communists, voting for the "minority" parties (such as ALDE, the third largest grouping in the EP) is equivalent to not voting at all.
This system needs urgent reform, or else it will only add to voters' disenchantment with the system. In the short term this system may be advantageous for the EPP and the Socialists, but in the long term it tends to motivate voters to give up on voting entirely. And hence part of the explanation for the so-called lack of interest on the part of the voters. So, politicians, please stop blaming the voters and look at the system. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Lisbon treaty does not address this systemic flaw. One has to wonder why that would be. Has that been done on purpose? Regardless of the outcome on Lisbon, another reform is sorely needed without which the system is not capable of functioning in a democratic fashion.
Complain about this comment
The Austrians have always been a bit on the Nazi-side
A comment made above has stated that austria has always been a bit on the Nazi side. How can some one make a comment like that when larger gains were made by the Conservative Party. The FPÖ and the BZÖ do have a following that is unfortuanate but does this make them Nazis? The ÖVP have made the biggest gains here in Austria.
We have a BNP member in the EU parliament now. They are in my humble opinion far worse than anything the FPÖ and the BZÖ can say. So please do not think of the Austrians as Nazis.
Complain about this comment
oulematu: Which reforms to the voting system would you recommend to allow minority representation in the EP ? For example, how many MEPs would be needed to proportionally allow minority representation in the EP for the less populous member states, and would that nett increase in MEPs be a positive change ?
Complain about this comment
oulematu wrote:
"Just one technical comment. The voting system seems to be flawed and seriously biased in favor of the large EPP and Socialist groupings."
Thank you for this observation, and for your excellent reasoning to support it. It had not occurred to me, but it fits my thesis on how and why the EP has been created.
But it is not just the EP, it is all the institutions of the EU. They have been created BY the catholic democrats and socialists, FOR the catholic democrats and socialists.
Elsewhere I have observed that the way the commission is selected is cynically certain to allow the Socliasts and the catholic democrats to have a stranglehold on the commission. Briefly, it is obvious that the leaders of coalitions who rule all member states have always belonged to one of the two major parties. Bu giving the appointment of the commission to the leaders of the coalitions, the two parties ensure they will always have complete control over the commission. And by giving the commission complete control over EU law, they gave themselves complete control over European government.
This isn't theory. It is observable historical fact. Goggle "President of the European Commission", and have a look at who has been the president, and what party they belonged to, since the whole show began.
There has never been a commission that has not been under the control of the socialists or the CDP, since the very beginning. But what is truly sinister is the way the presidency has swung to and fro between the two major parties since the beginning.
The EU is evidence that the political parties that run Europe have agreed to set aside their ideological differences and unite against a common enemy: the will of the people. The socialists and the conservatives who manage the taxpayers money have decided that the will of the people is a useless inefficiency, an obstacle to be overcome.
And why wouldn't these two political parties set aside their differences and unite? After all, they receive their funding from precisely the same corporations. What possible justification could there be for disagreement over policy?
The biggest problem with the EU is that is has not been confronted earlier, when it was still small. Arguably it is now so big that it will steamroll any movement that aims to replace it with democratic practice. We all saw how Ireland was openly threatened when it voted "no" to lisbon. My suspicion is that parties like the UKIP will be bought off, given money for their acquiescence until the new European superstate is established.
Complain about this comment
#16 Tom Belton says
"I have to say i think the result would be different if people were actually informed by the media of what the EP does! Yes it has terrible weaknesses compared to the Council BUT . . how many young women are there on their equal pay schemes, phoning from abroad for the same price as in the UK and believing this is some Vodaphone promotion and not the work of the European Parliament ???"
Tom can you explain why equal pay for women, or fair terms in mobile phone contracts, should not be matters for national parliaments? If that sort of thing is not to be dealt with in Westminster then why do we bother with electing MPs and running huge departments of state?
Does it not more democratic sense for nations to decide how they want to run their own internal affairs?
Complain about this comment
#62 killary45
Mobile phoning is a transnational issue. Obviously a national parliament cannot make regulations like maximum charges for a telephone company outside its own nation state jurisdiction. It is exactly the opposite with the European parliament provided it is allowed to deal with an issue at all.
The parliament only succeeded in getting the horrible prices down because the right side of the parliament, usually not a friend of political regulations of prices, found them horrible too and realised that market would not get the prices down by itself.
The prices will be reduced each year on July the 1 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Complain about this comment
#63 The contract made between a mobile phone company and a customer is made in the UK and should be subject to British law.
If we were not in the EU there would be nothing to stop the British parliament making a law to insist that mobile phone contracts made in this country should not contain unfair terms, and they could for example impose a maximum price for overseas use.
Only someone brainwashed by Euro propaganda could think that we should be grateful that after a campaign of around ten years the Euro parliament has finally got round to doing something that we could have done very quickly in Westminster if we were not in the EU. This case is really an example of how useless the European parliament is at protecting consumers.
Complain about this comment
#64 killary45
To my surprise I see you do not understand the notion jurisdiction.
Here is the second paragraph from the Oxford dictionary:
2 [C] an area or a country in which a particular system of laws has authority:
Practice varies between different European jurisdictions.
Complain about this comment
killary45 and #64.
Precisely mate!
'Mobiles' is just a tiny example of an incredibly overmighty and unaccountable EU interference in the daily Governance and work of the UK/England.
Why is the EU involved in anything to do with UK/England Taxation/Finance policy, Justice system, Health and Welfare services, Policing, Employment law, Military, Science and Technology etc.?
Short answer: It should not be at all.
Of course the UK/England does not need an EU to make rules, regulations, laws, agreements, deals etc. for any of the above other than by way of international co-operation.
The EU was/is an organisation based on Paris-Berlin-Brussels interests: As such it is perfectly feasible for the UK/England to negotiate deals on cross-border travel for people and goods, set duty/tariffs and continue to have business contacts/contracts that are pan-European.
All the rest is a shambolic cloak of EUrocrats restricting and stifling free-will, initiative and enterprise.
If that suits mainland Europe that is fine, but, it is not suitable to the UK/England.
Complain about this comment
If we have to be fair the referendum that should be held in UK first is not about the Lisbon Treaty, but about the country staying in EU. If this one succeeds than people should be asked about the Treaty.
Complain about this comment
The politicians (almost all parties) are in a bubble and do not want to accept where the majority of public opinion lies in the UK. If they spent more time in public places, they would quickly pick up on this.
In the form of the European Charter of Human rights, a huge social and financially wasteful burden has been placed on the British people. The decision, which was of course in no way influenced by the potential spoils for the legal system has been inequitable and has done little but to foster resentment and intolerance to dangerously high levels in the UK.
You need Europe in the form of a trading agreement but you don't need this legal gravy train or a power hungry commission.
Ditch it and resume the system of governing with British Law which if I am not mistaken, was one of the most highly respected and fair systems in operation globally before the charter came in to being.
PS, I consider myself lucky to be living/working outside the UK/Europe currently and hopeful I do not have to return to a 3rd World Country in the coming years.
Complain about this comment
#65 Mathiasen you should know that British jurisdiction applies to contracts made between companies and consumers in this country. You are wrong if you think that because a service is being provide outside this country that means it is outside the jurisdiction of the British courts. That is a rather elementary error.
If I go to a travel agent and buy a foreign holiday I am purchasing goods and services that will be provided by the company overseas. If there is a dispute then I would be able to go to the courts in this country because although the holiday took place overseas the court has jurisdiction because the contract was made here.
If the European Union had not "harmonised" the mobile phone business then it would have been possible for the British to legislate in any way we wanted to remove unfair terms from mobile phone contracts. As it is we had to wait for agreement from 27 countries before we can do anything. Like Tom Belton I wish more people knew all about this before voting in the Euro elections.
Complain about this comment
#69. killary45
It is amazing. The German parliament can pass a law saying that people in the UK should drive in the right side. It will have no effect for obvious reasons. If the Germans none the less insist they will have to use military force before they achieve the goal.
If you can solve a problem through bilateral agreements in this case through political regulations of private telephone companies it is not necessary to have a permanent coordination like the EU structure. If 27 countries find it easier to make bilateral agreements criss-cross on mobile phoning or anything else instead of having a permanent coordination of their common market they can do so.
They just haven't. Your country is member of the EU.
We are wasting our time.
Complain about this comment
#70 Mathiasen
I think that we have made some progress. We both agree that the reason that the British parliament cannot deal with unfair terms in mobile phone contracts has nothing to do with the particular issue of "roaming" into Europe.
It is irrelevant that the charges were applied for use of the phones outside this nation because Westminster cannot make any laws about mobile phone contracts because the mobile phone business has been "harmonised" within the EU.
If we were not in the EU it would have been entirely up to the our parliament whether or not we made the mobile phone companies reduce their charges for their British customers when they used their phones abroad.
We are no longer arguing at cross purposes. My point is that being in the EU, as it is constituted at present, means that we have to wait many years to get agreement from the parliament and the commission (and perhaps also 26 other countries) before we can legislate on an issue that should be purely own business. If we want to restrict the terms of competition of mobile phone use by British customers, but the Bulgarians want to have a free internal market, why cannot we both allowed to do what we want? If the British mobile phone user knew that their charges had been high for years because we could not do anything until the Euro system got round to an agreement, I doubt that it would help the cause of Euro enthusiasts.
Complain about this comment
We are not making any progress, but I dont want to spend more time on it. Getting the UK out of EU is something you will have to discuss with the Britons.
I shall tell you what people in the UK and outside the UK know: They didnt stand a chance to get the roaming prices down. It is market economy and people are getting horrible bills from the telephone companies. They now observe that the roaming prices are lowered throug the single market also for roaming and that EU has made a timetable for further lowering of roaming prices this year, 2010 and 2011.
Coming to something more interesting: The regulation of roaming prices is a political intervention in the free making of prices. Such an act has many opponents in every national parliament and the EP. It is indeed noteworthy that a number of parliamentarians have compromised with their ideological notions and have accepted this intervention.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mathiasen wrote:
"The regulation of roaming prices is a political intervention in the free making of prices."
It is not. It is the enforcement of the law.
The EU is founded on the principle of the free movement of services across borders. There are volumes of laws prohibiting corporations dividing the EU market into fiefdoms and structuring cartels to fleece the populations of money. That is the point. These telco corporations are cartels. They have illegally conspired to form distinct monopolies, and these monopolies are in clear breach of the letter of the law, and also of the spirit of the law.
To speak of enforcing the law as "political intervention" is a curious way of seeing the world. One could use the same sophistry to describe the Italian government "intervening" in the business of mafia contract killings.
After all, do not the Italian police "intervene in the free market process" of hired killers when they arrest and charge mafioso thugs? Yes, they do. Because what these criminals do is against the law.
Complain about this comment
#74. democracythreat
Do you have references to EU judgments convicting telephone companies of violation the roaming maximum prices in the EU in the past?
Lets keep the time line in mind:
If the telephone companies in the future charge higher prices than the maximum allowed by the EU legislation it is a violation of the law, and they can brought to trial by a second branch of power, namely the courts. The prices they have charged in the past have generally not been illegal.
The new lower maximum prices will not be effective before the 1st July 2009, 2010 and 2011.
The control of these maximum prices is law enforcement. Fixing maximum has been legislation.
A strange exchange.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
#74. democracythreat
"Do you have references to EU judgments convicting telephone companies of violation the roaming maximum prices in the EU in the past?"
It is a breach of the founding principles of the EU to have ANY roaming charges. Any at all, let alone "maximum charges".
Nevermind ECJ judgements, the question of market sharing is addressed specifically by the treaty itself.
I refer you to Article 81 (1),, subsection C (this was previously Article 85, if you have an ancient copy of the treaty), wherein it is written that:
"The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market; all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member states and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which;
....
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
...
(e) make the conclusion of such contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
If you wish to read some case law, I refer you to the 1970 Quinine case;
Case 41, ACF Chemiefarma NV v. Commission [1970] ECR 661
and also;
Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission [1972] ECR 619
Now the whole "thing" about the telco cartels is that they unusually meld the practice of state tariffs AND the private breach of the principles of a free market. You'll know that articles 81-84 deal with competition law, and thus the private practice of dividing states into fiefdoms, but these provisions merely seek to achieve the same overall aim as articles 28-30, which deal with STATE tariffs that are designed to protect markets.
The reason I say that is because of the negotiations that went on when the Commission first brought charges against the telcos. There can be no doubt, the practice of roaming charges is a very clear and fundamental breach of competition rules against cartels. BUT... curiously enough, the telcos argued strenuously that the rules must not apply to them. They were outraged, and they sent their own commission to brussels to fight their case.
But they didn't argue the law. Instead, they argued that they could not make sufficient profits if the law were to apply. They threatened to increase fees for local telephone bills, and the clear message to Brussels was simple: If you make this law apply to us, we will cut off your campaign contributions.
Now to understand how that works, you must be familiar with the ancient practice of "tax farming". Tax farming is when a ruler, traditionally a king with money problems, sells the right to tax a regional population for cash. Thus, a regional lord can "buy" the authority to tax his local population.
Not surprisingly, tax farming was outlawed by parliament very soon after the divine rule of kings was removed from the political world of europe. It is abhorrent for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that it encourages poor fiscal management by the central government and it subjects the common people to injurious burdens that have no proper justification, and which enrich private individuals in the name of the state.
So tax farming is archaic, and it is completely undemocratic. It is a bargain between the central government and the local lords.
This is precisely what has occurred between the telco's and the major EU parties in brussels. The telco's gather truly vast amounts of cash from the illegal practice of cartels across the common market. However, they also give huge cash payments to the two major political parties across europe.
When the Commission tried to enforce the law, the telco's threatened to take away the share of their ill gotten gains from the major parties who APPOINT the commission.
And so it has come to pass that telco's can continue to charge roaming fees inside the "common market".
Yes, it is clearly a breach of both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. But it suits the two parties who created the EU, so it continues.
It is not strange at all. It is quid pro quo and qui bono at work in a system made for the parties, by the parties.
And anyway, the CDP can hardly be called dishonest by wishing to bring tax farming back to Europe. They are the "CATHOLIC" democratic party, after all. The popes and their kings were tax farming the french for a thousand years before the revolution.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and #76.
Keep it coming!
Excellent detail and a running commentary that just reduces the 'pro-EU' to the lowest common denominator. Brilliant!
Of course, you realise you cannot win this argument; not with EU enthusiasts because the EU has provided itself with the perfect circle of EUrocratic documents whereby anything stated in one document is contradicted in another.
This is the EU administrative equivalent of the scientists' long sought after 'perpetual motion' but of 'paper' with the bonus equation where 'x' not only = 'EU Directive codecil', but, may also be taken as 'random corroboration' of whatever the EU has put in place irrespective of its true value!
Don't 'get' what I mean!? Well, then you 'get' the EU!
Complain about this comment
Richard Corbett naturlly knows the EU and its workings, because he passionately wants more power for him and other people like him.Just like Ian Paisley(for example).To Ian, the Protestant church was a method and a pretext.Surely Corbett may know the EU well but i think a clever and deceitful person like him could make good use of it only for himself.And Richard like all other people like him are flabby in most all other matters, they dont have much of an ideal or vision of anything, to them it only matters that they are in a seat of power and that the measure and area of power be as large as possible.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip at 66
You seem to say that the UK (not sure why you keep writing UK/England) if it leaves the EU could (and presumably should) negotiate a series of bilateral agreements to achieve amongst other things, free movement of people, goods, etc. Just thought I should point out, that sounds like leaving a club and then asking if you can still participate. Surely the time wasted renegotiating what is already in place is better spent on other things.
I sense that the objection to the EU has nothing to do with policy but rather with a sense of emasculation from the outdated notions of sovereignty and the loss of the British (or as you say, British/English) empire.
Complain about this comment
seanmarkshcneider and #79.
re, "..negotiate a series of bi-lateral agreements.. a sense of emasculation from outdate notions.."
Well, I have not seen your contributions before on this or other Blog Articles (sorry if I've missed them), but, had you seen/read any of mine over the last year or more I suspect you would not have written that critique.
I really do not want/intend to rehearse all my doubts and concerns about the EU for you; nor do I want to yet again explain why the EU is not needed for UK/England to succeed, or for that matter, for mainland Europe to progress.
Suffice to say I consider the EU an outdated and dangerous notion which many have tried over the centuries and it has always led to catastrophe for the European Citizen.
Furthermore, it has been the British Isles Citizens' successful experience of 2,000 years of geographical-historical-cultural-political-military development that anything more than economic ties with a pan-European entity, e.g. the EU is not condusive to the progress of these Island peoples.
I will explain, as you are not the first to comment, my reference to 'UK/England' is because I recognise the United Kingdom as designated by UK Statute Law no longer exists in its true sense. The Devolved powers-authority granted by legislation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have significantly diminished the Union of 4 Nations on the British Isles.
Thus, England, being the only Union Nation presently without its own Parliament needs always to be recognised as a singular State within the defunct UK, and of course, England most certainly needs to retain its independence at all points of the compass-culture-politics etc. from the European Union.
I cannot tell you how very tiresome and woefully inadequate is any 'pro-EU' lobbyist who refers to the "..lost British Empire.."! Aaaah!
Where do you people come from? Are you aware less than 1 in 8 British Citizens were alive when that historical term 'Empire' was last used? Do you not realise that just as Europe has moved on since Hitler, America since Kennedy, Russia since Gorbachev, that the British too have had a non-imperial history?
Why would I, the grandson of Dutch and Germans and son of Belgians and English wish for a past that ended with the 1960s!?
Why would any Briton residing in a modern, exciting, thriving 60,000,000 multi-cultural society hanker after some 'Union Jack' fluttering over far flung fields!? Yes, I deeply respect the past but recognise the bad alongside the good, and, one area I believe needs to be kept always in the forefront of Citizens on these Isles is that Freedom and Individual Rights and Responsibilities were strived for and won at immense cost. Membership of the European Union is one certain way to lose all that has been gained.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of competition law, and the way some folks are more equal than others under EU law, a recent decision in the Netherlands is curious.
There was a scandal recently wherein numerous dutch construction firms were conspiring to defraud the dutch taxpayer by forming a cartel that set prices for government contracts.
Now to be clear; these firms were engaged in fraud. They were setting prices as part of a cartel, in order to cheat the taxpayer. If you or I conspired to defraud the government, we would be considered criminals. We would be arrested, and charge as criminals, under the criminal law.
But this case involved very large construction companies. Now these firms admitted that they had conspired to set prices. However, it was not considered "fraud". Only a breach of competition law. Why? I don't know. A funny thing happens with the law of fraud. If an individual tells lies and cheats another person, or the government, in order to get more money, then this is the crime of fraud. But when a group of corporations conspire to lie and cheat the government, well this is simple a civil wrong, a breach of competition law.
So in this case, the companies admitted that they were engaged in lying and cheating, and that the purpose was to cheat the government of money. But then they argued that their fine should be reduced, because they did not ALWAYS lie and cheat and steal. Only sometimes.
The judge agreed, and reduced the fine.
Europe, and indeed the west generally, is entering a curious stage of legal development. It has become impossible for white collar crime to exist, because whole frameworks of civil law have been created in order to process crime committed by corporations. This means that only individuals, or criminals without the means to act through corporations, can possibly be guilty of crimes. Sure, rich folks can cheat and lie and steal and defraud..... but if they do it through corporations then it will never be a crime.
Is it any wonder that we face a financial crisis, when white collar crime has been deemed an impossible ocurence?
The case, if anyone is interested, is Rotterdam District Court, April 15 2009, LJN: BI1202 and Rotterdam District Court, April 15 2009, LJN: BI1203.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip, I appreciate your response and it is always good to understand better where people are coming from. These forums can be rather impersonal, regardless of whether you agree with someone or not. You may not have seen me around much; I have had a rather busy year to date. I will endeavour to post more, and do so in a constructive manner.
Whilst I certainly don't see eye to eye with you regarding the dissolution of the United Kingdom, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the importance of individual liberty. The difference that we may have is where the threat to individual liberty comes from. I have been involved in the legal profession and political circles long enough to know that the real threat to our liberties comes not from the EU, but from overzealous states. It is at the hands of the state that we have lost so much liberty from 1914 onwards. The fundamental freedoms of the EU are essential to combating the barriers that states have set up against an individual's right to live where they want, work where they want, etc. These are the freedoms which matter.
As Democracythreat has pointed out, the four freedoms (and competition law) have not always been defended to their fullest; but the truth is, that the EU and such freedoms only work as well as the Member States want them to.
P.S. On the subject of competition law, I can only say that if there is one person who deserves to be re-appointed to the Commission it is Neelie Kroes. The iron lady of the commission has done a tremendous amount for European competition enforcement in the past few years, and we are lucky to have such a fierce advocate for fair competition in Europe.
Complain about this comment
seanmarkschneider and #82.
Fundamentally disagree with your views on the EU: Especially the idea the European Union is less of a "..threat to liberty.." than Nations!
An EU Parliament elected by less than 44% of voters claiming a Mandate to legislate for Citizens from Stockholm to Prague to Athens to Lisbon; an EU Commmission wholly unaccountable, power-aggrandizing and unresponsive to EU Citizens (see Pres Barroso speeches on anything from the recent MEPs elections, to Eire Referendum, to Constitution mark II the Lisbon Treaty, to the use of Directives etc.!); an overmighty EUrotocracy, fiscally corrupt at every level, and a political Federalist-expansionist agenda totally without foundation or support amongst Citizens.
The whole concept of 'one-size-fits-all' and 'strength through unity' is dangerously undemocratic and from the Romans to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler and Stalin it eventually failed at a terrible human cost to mainland Europe and the British Isles.
That anyone could consider one-set of rules for Trade-Transport-Travel-Employment-Welfare-Judiciary-Manufacture-Police-Foreign affairs-Military etc. applied at an all embracing pan-European level as a version of "liberty" is political duplicity and sophistry of the worst kind.
Why any Europeans would want to go down that path again is beyond my understanding!?
However, it is entirely Democratic for each Nation's Citizens to make that choice by the Ballot box: If Europeans seriously believe they will be better represented and protected by MEPs and a European Court of Justice that is their right.
In 1975 I and millions of Britons voted 'Yes' in the UK/England to joining a pan-European Trade-Tariff-Travel Union called the EEC. To have a settled method of transporting and exchanging goods, services and people within the geographical region known as Europe appealed to most Britons as it did mainland Europeans. It would be a positive contribution to reducing international tension and thus reduce chances of another pan-European war.
What has happened since is a disgraceful, disreputable and wholly undemocratic transition into a European Union successive UK/England Governments have never allowed British Citizens any formal right and responsibility to respond to.
It maybe I am in a minority in which case Referenda on EU Membership and/or the Lisbon Treaty will settle the issue: What are they afraid of?
Then again, we do have the EU version of "liberty": Although the Eire Citizens were at total "liberty" to vote down the Lisbon Treaty it would seem that is seen by Paris-Berlin-Brussels as "taking their liberty" too freely! 'Yes', you may have a Referendum, but, 'No' you may not vote any way except as the EU chooses!? Given Pres Barosso etc. reaction to the Eire Referendum it may be that if I were in a majority within the UK/England my Democratic rights would be trampled on as is clearly happening to the Irish Citizens. A 2nd Eire Referendum: That is some "liberty" your EU is taking over!
No, I am afraid "..the truth is.." the 4 Freedoms only work so long as Nations remain independent of the dead-hand of Brussels with its deliberate stifling of Individuality, Enterprise and Free-will in favour of a 'Brussels knows best' mentality: I believe we have all heard that refrain before and it always ends in tragedy for the Citizen.
Complain about this comment
What a truly glorious moment that such a contemptible figure as Richard Corbett was voted out. The man acts so unbelievably arrogant and in my viewpoint does not really like democracy, considering the way he professes to love the EU. That the odious BNP have apparently picked up that seat is regrettable.
Corbett is a well known and proven manipulator of facts. He keeps denying that over 80% of laws come from the undemocratic system that is the EU despite evidence to the contrary. Other EU-philes also continually twist the truth in order to hide the degree of control the undemocratic EU has over legislation (with Barroso's Politburo in charge of legislative initiative).
---------------------------
This is the truth: 84% of legislation originates with the EU
Former German President Dr Roman Herzog, also former president of the German Constitutional Court in an article in Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007, co-authored with Lüder Gerkin wrote the following:
It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin
To get a true picture one needs to count all legislative acts that the nationals of EU member states must obey - primary national legislation, statutory instruments, directly applicable EU regulations and the special category of EU legislation known as EU decisions, which are binding on the Member States they are directed to. Moreover, all EU-derived Acts of the national parliaments and statutory instruments should be counted, not just those that explicitly mention the EU.
It is hard to get accurate figures for the relative proportion of legal acts originating in Brussels and those originating in the national parliaments of the different EU States. Attempts to get these figures from Government sources are usually fobbed off by the national authorities as too difficult to work out. The reluctance by national Governments to provide this information is surely itself significant.
The only exact figures that exist are those produced in Germany by the German Ministry of Justice. With Teutonic thoroughness these stated in answer to a parliamentary question in the Bundestag in 2005 that between 1998 and 2004, 23167 legal acts were adopted in Germany, of which 18917, some 84% of the total, were of EU origin; so that less than one-fifth originated domestically.
---------------------------
Considering that the review done in Germany concerned 1998-2004 and that the EU has never ever returned a power or competence to the member states, that figure is likely to be higher than 84% should 2002-2008 be considered. 90% wouldn't surprise me at all.
To those who claim the EU is democratic: where the heck is the EU-demos? It doesn't exist, so by definition the thing can never be democratic. And that's just using the proper definition of the word 'democracy'. Even if we were to ignore the absence of an EU-demos, the EU would still be undemocratic.
Legislative initiative lies with the EU Politburo aka Commission which, together with the EU Council, can bypass national parliaments in... say... 84% of policy areas? Parliamentary democracy is therefore virtually dead.
I have no doubt all those of federalist persuasion are begging and pleading with Gordon Brown and Labour to hold out as long as possible and delay the next UK general election as long as possible, in order to try and ram that undemocratic Lisbon Treaty (which removes vetoes, and thus removes national parliamentary democracy and replaces it with EU elitist-rule) through before that UK general election can happen.
Complain about this comment
Is it because it is post #84 that "marcel75" plucks the figure of 84% as the prercentage of our laws that are adopted at European level?
Yes, eurosceptic Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan claims 84%; UKIP leader Nigel Farrage said it was 75%, the figure most often mentioned by anti-EU types (such as French National Front leader Jean Marie Le Pen or Libertas) is that 80% of our laws come from the EU, while Conservative leader David Cameron said that almost half of all the regulations "affecting our businesses" come from the EU.
Remember all of the above have an interest in exaggerating the figure to make you think that the EU is taking over every aspect of our lives and that national governments are irrelevant (and never mind either that national governments in the EU Council are the ones who, with our elected MEPs, adopt EU laws).
What is the real figure? Just 9 percent according to the politically neutral House of Commons library, 6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament.
The quoted German figure relates to the Bundestag, whereas in Germany the bulk of legislation is adopted at Land level (Bavaria, Saxony, etc), so quoting EU law as a percentage of federal level legislation only is utterly misleading.
Complain about this comment
I really dislike this business of revisiting referenda.
I know this is the Irish people we are talking about but the principle is the same.
Policitians decide something a little risky is their way forward and set up a referendum to get formal approval. Try devolution for Wales. We were asked in 1972 and said no. We were then asked again more recently and said yes. That raises two points,
1) Will we be asked again in another 25 years in case we have reversed our current decision
2) Why do we put up with the patronising pat on the head from these people.
Complain about this comment
@britishandeuropean (85)
Didn't you bother to read what I wrote? On the request of former German president Herzog, the German ministry of justice zealously went through all pieces of legislation that were passed between 1998-2004 and applied to Germany, and found that 84% of those came either directly or indirectly from the EU.
That means that for 84% of legislation, through the period of 1998-2004, Germany's parliament had no choice but to apply EU legislation. EU legislation as you know cannot be rejected by national parliaments or even amended.
The 84% figure is likely to be higher if they do such an investigation over the period 2003-2009. All those figures you mention are being mentioned by people who have an interest in hiding from the public just how far the destruction of parliamentary democracy has already gone. You don't seriously expect a national parliament to go openly and say to their electorate: oh sorry, but we're really powerless now so we should really abolish ourselves?
You disingeniously try to suggest that the Bundesrat is the one that decides about law in Germany. You are utterly wrong. The Bundesrat co-decides only on that legislation which has consequences for the provinces ("Bundesländer"). By definition, the Bundestag is the leading legislative body of Germany (at least, it used to be until the undemocratic EU came along). All pieces of legislation mentioned are applicable to Germany so by definition were all approved by all necessary legislative bodies. For EU regulations, no parliamentary approval is needed.
Also, please explain: where is this EU-demos that is a prerequisite for EU-democracy?
Complain about this comment
There is no doubt that a major part of the legislation in the Federal Republic has its origin in the EU. There are few complaints if any in Germany about this. Let us not forget that the country also has influence in the commission (Verheugen) and in the council of ministers. The EU legislation comes as no surprise to the Bundestag.
The statistics shows that also the biggest country in the Union is subject to the coordinated legislation in the EU, and that is something small countries have reason to be very satisfied with. And in many cases also explicitly are.
Complain about this comment
Irish opt-outs
Before a second Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty the EU ministers of foreign affairs have debated to make a binding declaration on opt-outs in social matters and defence for Ireland next Thursday. The Irish minister has also said that his country wants to forbid abortion.
Apparently Ireland would like to have these changes written into the Lisbon treaty, but it will be difficult for the country to achieve this. Changes in the treaty can lead to new negotiations, which the prospect that they never end, and many ministers are fearing that it will be impossible for certain heads of governments, notably Gordon Brown, to sign the treaty a second time.
After the Maastricht referendum in 1992 the Danes were asked if they would block the rest from adopting the Maastricht treaty. (The Danes answered no to this.)
Analogous with this the Irish minister has said that Eires problem should not be exported to the rest of the EU. The plan is therefore that the new Irish opt-outs will be written into the next treaty when Croatia is expected to become the next new member of the EU in some years ahead.
Complain about this comment
#87 Marcel75
It may be true that national Parliaments can't change EU law after its been adopted, but they have a strong influence during the European legislative procedure. I have in the past been a technical advisor as part of the UK delegation at Council meetings where we have been under strict instructions to put down a 'parliamentary scrutiny reservation' which means the UK cannot accept a proposal unless and until it has cleared scrutiny by the Commons and Lords scrutiny committees. This can be the source of much frustration at Council (since the scrutiny procedure can often be slow) and it often restricts the ability of the UK delegation to compromise (which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on which way you look at it) but please don't suggest that national Parliaments are powerless.
As for the 84 per cent figure, this makes a very good shock-horror headline, but doesn't really stand up under scrutiny. The vast majority of 'EU laws' are to do with detailed trade requirements in order to ensure a level playing field (and even most Euro sceptics will agree that the UK should continue to deal with the EU on trading matters).Also, many so-called 'new laws' are actually simplified or consolidated legislation which may be deregulatory in some cases. You often need to issue a new Statutory Instrument to repeal an old one, but this would probably be counted as a 'new law'by people such as UKIP. Lets take a typical recent UK SI , for example, Statutory Instrument No. 1266 (The Surface Waters (Shellfish) (Classification) (Amendment) Regulations 2009). This is a typical 'level playing field' requirement intended to ensure that shellfish producers who use clean waters are not undercut by those from other Member States who use polluted waters. All the 'new legislation' does is to incorporate a simplified and consolidated (but essentially unchanged) European Directive into UK law to replace the existing Directive. Yet it would probably be condemned by Eurosceptics as 'yet another law emanating from Brussels eroding our National freedom'. , etc, etc, etc.
Complain about this comment
When the Swedes back in 1968 (I think it was) switched the driving lane to the right side and thus harmonised with the majority of the European countries no one had told them to do so but they had realised two things: It would probably be an advantage to Swedish manufacturers of cars and it would be easier, that is less dangerous, for Swedes to drive in Europe.
The EU legislation is analogous with this and where it is not a number of systems like the basic distribution of powers and the opt-outs are preventing legislation.
No matter if 1% of 84% of the national legislation has its origins in EU the Euro sceptics will be unsatisfied: They simply dont accept the construction. To the rest of us the percentage does not matter.
Complain about this comment
Re #23 The Midland 20
"The eurosceptic parties in Poland, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark were completely wiped out."
In Ireland the three main political parties are pro Lisbon, Libertas is not Eurosceptic, it's aim was to be a pan-European party, though it was set up initially to campaign against the Lisbon treaty. It was basically untested, and interestingly, vilified by the three main parties, and largely ignored by Sinn Fein, the only genuinely eurosceptic party.
Sinn Fein are not acceptable to some voters because of Ireland's history - therefore, those anti-Lisbon voters who are not willing to vote for Sinn Fein have NO political voice!
This in a country that voted against the Lisbon treaty! Democracy? Yeah, right!!
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
#89 Mathiasen
"The plan is therefore that the new Irish opt-outs will be written into the next treaty when Croatia is expected to become the next new member of the EU in some years ahead."
Given the clear level of voter dissatisfaction with the Irish Government in the local and EU elections recently, does anyone seriously believe that their assurances will be trusted??
At this point, I'd rather turn my back on a rattlesnake!
Until recently, I had fairly moderate political views, now I'm simply tired of being lied to/treated like a fool.
Therefore, I refuse to believe these "assurances".
In addition, social matters, and defence weren't why I voted against it in the first place - they are merely the concerns of a limited number of voters who happen to make up sufficient percentage points to POSSIBLY get the required "Yes" vote - or so our Government hopes.
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
@Iantownhill (90)
National parliaments having 'influence' over legislation is not enough. National parliaments represent the national demos (peoples) and should have 100% control over a nation's laws. It is utterly unacceptable that the bulk of legislative powers has been moved away towards a EU Politburo over which the peoples have zero influence and which they cannot vote for or against.
The EU Politburo (Commission) was created so that politicians could have an anchor in Brussels via which they could bypass the national parliaments to create laws they knew the peoples do not want.
Why should my country be subject to a law no-one here agrees to, but is forced upon us by corrupt Italians, moneygrabbing Romanians, guilt-ridden Germans or selfish French?
We can make our own laws. We don't need Latvians or Poles to help us with that.
And besides, there is no EU-demos so the EU cannot ever be democratic. But even if there was an EU-demos, the EU would still be undemocratic. In a democracy, the people have a direct influence on the decisions made, if necessary through a parliament, but that is the only step possible between people and law. Through the EU, democracy-hating politicians have not only created several extra steps in this process, but ultimately severed the link between voter and law. This is undemocratic and unacceptable.
Therefore my argument, that those who support the EU automatically oppose parliamentary democracy, is 100% correct. The EU is not, never has been and was never intended to be democratic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#94
What I tried to say in #95 was that comments like...
'Why should my country be subject to a law no-one here agrees to, but is forced upon us by corrupt Italians, moneygrabbing Romanians, guilt-ridden Germans or selfish French?'
represented an attitude which is summarised by a old British racist expression which involves the word 'Calais'. Unfortunately it also involves another word which I tried to disguise but was still rejected by the moderators. I think people will draw their own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS