Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released

[CyberRose]

Ah forget it, both of us are talking to ourselves aren't we?

 

[gosub]

40 page Pro Intergrationist analysis of Lisbon treaty

 

[CyberRose]

40 page Pro Intergrationist analysis of Lisbon treaty

Could you quote the relevant sections you want me to take note of? I don't have the time or the patience to read it all...

 

[gosub]

Could you quote the relevant sections you want me to take note of? I don't have the time or the patience to read it all...

Its a sensible document that would not benefit from an additional page with the words "fuck off and die Cyberorse". Those whom have read this thread will by now have noticed your complete failure to build a coherent and consistent arguement, but I did notice in this thread yesterday #29 that you consider the government's "redlines" imaginary, odd then that you parrot their position.

Incidently the Human Rights Act is on the statute book and relevent UK International Obligations and contacts here

 

[CyberRose]

Its a sensible document that would not benefit from an additional page with the words "fuck off and die Cyberorse". Those whom have read this thread will by now have noticed your complete failure to build a coherent and consistent arguement, but I did notice in this thread yesterday #29 that you consider the government's "redlines" imaginary, odd then that you parrot their position.

Incidently the Human Rights Act is on the statute book and relevent UK International Obligations and contacts here

YOU accuse ME of not being able to "build a coherent and consistent argument"?!?!?! You can't even put a sentence together let alone construct a logical argument!

I also note that you don't seem to be able to comprehend and respond to simple questions, so I'll ask again: Which parts of the Treaty do you object to?

And I have no idea what you're on about with the other thread (altho I am flattered by the interest you're showing in what I write)

 

[gosub]

(3) Less control over asylum and migration
Oh look! Eurosceptics in anti-asylum seeker rant shocker! Tell me what exactly is wrong with giving asylum seekers and workers more rights? Since when did human rights become something to be opposed?! Besides, the “case” is out of date as it refers to the Constitution not to the Reform Treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been consigned to the annex of the Treaty and does not apply to the UK – now even if that were the only difference between the two documents it’s a pretty significant difference yes?

Fuck me you guys are hilarious aren't you!

Unfortunately for your little back-patting game, this particular UK law, as it is actually incorporated into EU law, is not enforceable by the UK but by the European Court of Justice. It is only possible for someone/thing to be above a law if they are responsible for enforcing it. The EU is responsible for enforcing EU laws and therefore it is not possible for the UK to be "above" this particular law...

If this story is real, then I suggest someone suggests taking it up with the EU Court of First Instance where they can accuse the UK of breaking EU law

http://curia.europa.eu/en/instit/presentationfr/index_tpi.htm

Clear enough for you? That, by the way, is a rhetorical question.

 

[CyberRose]

Mate, selective quoting just makes you look like a bit of a twat. Why didn't you also include this quote of mine from the same thread?

And before you say the UK has not signed up to this, this particular Article is made up of the various, legally binding, international agreements that the UK has already signed up to, including UN laws, Council of Europe laws and EU laws, all of which have been incorporated into UK law

I was quoting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it conveniently brought together all laws regarding that particular issue that had already been ratified, seperately, from the Charter. The UK has already signed up to these protocols (and did so of its own accord)

So anyway, now we've established you're a "bit of a twat" please answer my question: Which parts of the Treaty do you object to?

 

[gosub]

I object to the use of four letter words like "mate" from someone who: considers the negation of the current UK constitution; negation of the current EU constitution by ignoring the plebiscites of both France and Denmark; and the abandonment of any sort of notion that a manifesto commitment is binding; will make the EU "more democratic". Only in the sense that it will make the term 'democracy' as valueless as your postings.

Gordon Brown will be the last Prime Minister that can have voted for getting us into this mess, I who have never had a say. want one, That you are contemptuous of me I do not take personally, from your postings you are contemptuous of vast swaths of the electorate and where they draw their information from in this information age.

Yet given an anonymous forum, given the vast array of data in cyberspace, very rarely do you enlighten with links to people prepare to stand or fall by what they publish. On one of the sparse occasions that you have, you linked to an article broadly in line with your and the government's projected view that this treaty amounts to little more that five red lines :here

When I quoted your contradiction in another thread, with referenced context, your elaboration only added to the notion that red lines are illusory.

As I have explained before, that until parliament votes to extend the debate, something you oppose, debate here is worthless (though seemingly worthy of your avid attention). You must decide if you want to see the flop because this incessant barracking isn't even worthy of as two bit poker player.

(second attempt after pub, preferred first version. Fuck knows what button I pressed )

http://www.theyworkforyou.com

 

[CyberRose]

I object to the use of four letter words like "mate" from someone who: considers the negation of the current UK constitution; negation of the current EU constitution by ignoring the plebiscites of both France and Denmark; and the abandonment of any sort of notion that a manifesto commitment is binding; will make the EU "more democratic". Only in the sense that it will make the term 'democracy' as valueless as your postings.

Gordon Brown will be the last Prime Minister that can have voted for getting us into this mess, I who have never had a say. want one, That you are contemptuous of me I do not take personally, from your postings you are contemptuous of vast swaths of the electorate and where they draw their information from in this information age.

Yet given an anonymous forum, given the vast array of data in cyberspace, very rarely do you enlighten with links to people prepare to stand or fall by what they publish. On one of the sparse occasions that you have, you linked to an article broadly in line with your and the government's projected view that this treaty amounts to little more that five red lines :here

When I quoted your contradiction in another thread, with referenced context, your elaboration only added to the notion that red lines are illusory.

As I have explained before, that until parliament votes to extend the debate, something you oppose, debate here is worthless (though seemingly worthy of your avid attention). You must decide if you want to see the flop because this incessant barracking isn't even worthy of as two bit poker player.

(second attempt after pub, preferred first version. Fuck knows what button I pressed )

http://www.theyworkforyou.com

There was no contradiction in the other thread you refer to as I have already explained in my last post. You deliberately misquoted me to back up your argument, something that is considered incredibly bad form in U75.

Just to show how stupid your argument is, do you honestly think that none of the Charter of Human Rights is already UK law? The vast majority of it is probably already UK law (otherwise there would be no human rights in the UK)

So: Which parts of the Treaty do you object to?

 

[CyberRose]

Just incase you missed that, it was: Which parts of the Treaty do you object to?

 

[gosub]

I didn't misquote you at all, at best selectively quoted you though I reference where I was taking the quote from. If you read my argument in this thread rather than spouting the latest line of defense devised at Milbank (or whichever building they can afford the rent on), you would the part of the treaty I object to is :all of it. they are behaving as if they already amended the treaty of Rome, trying to ram through ideas already rejected by member states that, had the good grace to consult their electorates. Personally I have objections to the formal acknowledgement of the EUro as I have personal history and we still haven't that other promised referendum . I do also have some concerns about the energy part of the treaty, though I was hoping for some enlightenment for the greener posters here (who as it stands will have no input to treaty debate at all). But those are only personal before you start on the divide and rule. I find it nonsensical for you dismiss the notion of a wider national debate and then embarking on that debate before it has been secured.

I am having a bit of nightmare week. (why I haven't been around) Currently sitting here, waiting on a phone call to say that Linklaters have agreed our strategy (touch wood) for dealing with latest fuck up by what was considered to be a blue chip French company, so don't expect quick response.

Some interesting stuff this week :
Interesting article in the Observer

not sure of the politics in de Spiegel but it resonated with me

oh and the European Scrutiny committee published their final report here with this press release
Oddly they are having same difficulties with the Charter of Fundamental Rights as reflected in this thread. Oh and very upset that this treaty will be signed ahead of any UK parliamentary debate. Democratic my arse, and what did Brown waffle on about it the summer about putting Parliament first?

ETA: Also check out www.europe.gov.uk the official governemnt site, that is so slanted doesn't even provide links tho the EUropean Scrutiny Commitee or their sterling work, just rebuttals.


Am starting to come round to way of thinking of leaving it to Parliament (if it lost there I don't see how the subsequent vote of no confidence can be won. There are some vital decisions need taking in next year or so that I have no confidence in the government getting right : I know everyone else is getting caught up in reenacting 'Our Friends in the North' but ten years after getting elected on a ticket of anti sleaze and Education, Education, Education- child literacy has gone through the floor.

 

[CyberRose]

Why do you object to all of the Treaty?

If you oppose the reforms it carries out, what reforms do you think they should make, or do you believe the EU is fine as it is?

(And yes you did misquote me because you're trying to say that existing UK laws prove the Charter will apply to the UK, when it won't)

 

[gosub]

Take it up either with the editor that the quote button is malfuntioning or with microsoft that the right hand mouse cut paste bit doesn't work.

Because these ideas have already been rejected by two of the member states whose governments showed courtesy to their electorates by consulting them. To reheat them and ram them down peoples thoughts is wrong. (there is a quote by Tony Blair on that but I can't find it).

There is most definitely a need for reform but it needs to be bottom up and the only way we get that is if, for a second time, the top down 'take this medicine if you know what is good for you' brigade is defeated. If they knew what is good, nay vital for them, they would come to understand that standing aloof from their respective electorates is down right dangerous.

My one voice in what is it 300 million would have liked to see Maastrict reformed with a lender of last resort and exit mechanisms. CAP needs further reform vitally with the dual demands of bio fuels and food production, and current grain reserves at worrying levels, saying set aside will be used for bio-fuels from next year isn't enough, because that has already been happening They need to address scams such maintenance of fences which makes parcelling land up so it is inaccessible but hugely profitable in fence maintenance grants. And I have concerns on fishing and the energy side too, but I'd rather wait a greenie to brief so I can have better idea if my suspicions are valid. Democracy is pretty vital too. National parliaments still has the highest level of voter participancy so seems logical to build out from these hubs, yet as that EUropean Scrutiny Commitee report states there is clear and present danger that won't happen.

But those are just my concerns without still having read the thing. Others may vary, and it is all still irrelevant until the debate is opened out. So in the mean time rather than twiddling thumbs and stop ta fait accomplait ahead of public consultation.

 

[lewislewis]

Look the EU is a body that can save us from right-wing 'British' governance. The European Union enshrines a load of dignified and progressive principles, whereas Britain enshrines a load of imperialism, racism, right-wing newspapers and hating foreigners.

We must do all we can to try and better understand the EU and present it as an alternative sphere of ideas and policies, than Westminster. Where this treaty fits in with that, I have no idea.

 

[CyberRose]

Look the EU is a body that can save us from right-wing 'British' governance. The European Union enshrines a load of dignified and progressive principles, whereas Britain enshrines a load of imperialism, racism, right-wing newspapers and hating foreigners.

We must do all we can to try and better understand the EU and present it as an alternative sphere of ideas and policies, than Westminster. Where this treaty fits in with that, I have no idea.

Well if people are genuinly sceptic about the EU then this answers a lot of their questions. Goneforlunch realed off a big list of criticisms she had of the EU and, hilariously, the Treaty sought to rectify ALL her concerns.

The problem is that eurosceptics are not against this Treaty, they are against the EU. That is what they base their arguments on and this is why people like Gosub feel they can claim they are against this Treaty and not give any explanation as to why.

They support UKIP's policies, but these policies are just madness. Forgetting the "other" policies UKIP has come up with to prove they aren't a single-issue party (which, incidently, is pure Thatcherism), they claim that we can leave the EU yet still remain part of the free-trade zone. That's true - Norway and Switzerland do. But what they fail to mention (or are too stupid to work out) is that the UK would STILL have to pay contributions to the EU budget but get NOTHING back. They would also be subjected to EU laws but they would give up their right to have any influence over them. For whatever reasons this arrangement suits Norway and Switzerland but no way would it suit the UK.

I find it extremely hypocritical (or more likely, stupid) that UKIP don't like foreigners telling us what to do, but propose exactly that whilst taking away the UK's right to influence other nations...

 

[goneforlunch]

Well if people are genuinly sceptic about the EU then this answers a lot of their questions. Goneforlunch realed off a big list of criticisms she had of the EU and, hilariously, the Treaty sought to rectify ALL her concerns.

It is not up to you to decide whether this treaty rectifies MY concerns, and saying that it seeks to rectify my concerns suggests either desperation or ignorance on your part. As it confers more powers to the EU's institutions WITHOUT addressing my concerns satisfactorily, how can it possibly have rectified them anyway?

The problem is that eurosceptics are not against this Treaty, they are against the EU. That is what they base their arguments on and this is why people like Gosub feel they can claim they are against this Treaty and not give any explanation as to why.

I am against both the EU AND the treaty.

They support UKIP's policies, but these policies are just madness. Forgetting the "other" policies UKIP has come up with to prove they aren't a single-issue party (which, incidently, is pure Thatcherism), they claim that we can leave the EU yet still remain part of the free-trade zone. That's true - Norway and Switzerland do. But what they fail to mention (or are too stupid to work out) is that the UK would STILL have to pay contributions to the EU budget but get NOTHING back. They would also be subjected to EU laws but they would give up their right to have any influence over them. For whatever reasons this arrangement suits Norway and Switzerland but no way would it suit the UK.

I support UKIP because it is the only way I can see to the restoration democratically elected governments in the future, but I can certainly live with its policies. There is too much 'pure thatcherism' in the EU for me to live with.

Leaving the EU whilst remaining trading partners is entirely possible (even Tony Blair admitted that much) and even if we could not negotiate a better deal, it would still mean that we would only be subjected to EU laws governing the single market, and our contributions would be MUCH less than they are now. This suits Norway and Switzerland, and they have both voted twice in referenda to keep it that way. Of course it would suit the UK too! [Gosub has never claimed to be a UKIP supporter and has said that they party is nothing to do with him.]

I find it extremely hypocritical (or more likely, stupid) that UKIP don't like foreigners telling us what to do, but propose exactly that whilst taking away the UK's right to influence other nations...

So are Norweigan and Swiss people "STUPID" too? How arrogant.

 

[CyberRose]

It is not up to you to decide whether this treaty rectifies MY concerns, and saying that it seeks to rectify my concerns suggests either desperation or ignorance on your part. As it confers more powers to the EU's institutions WITHOUT addressing my concerns satisfactorily, how can it possibly have rectified them anyway?

You listed numerous concerns you had with the EU. This Treaty answered all the concerns you listed. Of course, as you're blindly against the EU I don't think it covers all your concerns ("concerns")

I am against both the EU AND the treaty.

No. You're against the EU. Everything else is irrelevent. You have shown you don't know the contents of the Treay and you don't know the reforms it will make. All you know is that you are against the EU so you're "criticisms" of this Treaty are irrelevent.

I support UKIP because it is the only way I can see to the restoration democratically elected governments in the future, but I can certainly live with its policies. There is too much 'pure thatcherism' in the EU for me to live with.

Good for you. I fundamentally oppose the monetarist policies of UKIP (and Thatcher) so I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Altho you gotta love the opportunism of UKIP. Their policy is privatisation. But not the Post Office. Why? Because that has had bad press recently for being privatised so UKIP have decided to abandon their principles for that little matter!

Leaving the EU whilst remaining trading partners is entirely possible (even Tony Blair admitted that much) and even if we could not negotiate a better deal, it would still mean that we would only be subjected to EU laws governing the single market, and our contributions would be MUCH less than they are now. This suits Norway and Switzerland, and they have both voted twice in referenda to keep it that way. Of course it would suit the UK too!

The UK's net contribution today is around £4.5billion. Norway contributes £1billion. So for an extra £3.5billion we don't just get to follow the rules, we get to set the rules. As for EU laws, you're telling me that it is a policy of UKIP that we should be tied to, with no imput from ourselves, ALL EU economic laws (which are the vast majority of EU laws)? How exactly does that achieve UKIP's aims of not being told what to do by the EU?

Also, leaving aside the economic rules (the first pillar of the EU - the Community), that leaves us with Justice and Home Affairs (police/judicial cooperation) and Foreign Policy. We shall also ignore Foreign Policy as this is currently, and probably always will, be in the hands of nation states - not the "EU".

So all UKIP proposes is that, in order to save £3.5billion, all we are going to do is not apply JHA laws to the UK. That's it. And just how many JHA laws do you think there are?! And do you think it would be sensible to allow foreign paedophiles and terrorists into our country and not be able to request from other EU states information about them? Or if we identified people who had committed a crime in the UK that had fled to the EU, don't you think it's in our interests to apply for their extradition?

[Gosub has never claimed to be a UKIP supporter and has said that they party is nothing to do with him.]

Well his arguments are certainly plagarised from UKIP information (or from the right-wing media)

So are Norweigan and Swiss people "STUPID" too? How arrogant.

Of course not. They know what the arrangement is and what it involves. They are obviously happy to go along with any economical laws imposed on them by the EU and have no influence on those laws. But the whole point of UKIP is that they DON'T like ANY laws being imposed on us (even tho we have a huge influence on those laws currently). So the stupid UKIP comment still stands because they propose having EU laws imposed on us, but removing our right to influence those laws...

 

[goneforlunch]

You listed numerous concerns you had with the EU. This Treaty answered all the concerns you listed. Of course, as you're blindly against the EU I don't think it covers all your concerns ("concerns")

Once again, it is NOT your call to decide whether the treaty answers my concerns. I have very clear-sighted reasons for my opposition to the EU.

No. You're against the EU. Everything else is irrelevent. You have shown you don't know the contents of the Treay and you don't know the reforms it will make. All you know is that you are against the EU so you're "criticisms" of this Treaty are irrelevent.

I know I'm against the EU, and I do know the contents of the Treaty which I'm also against. I simply don't regard enough of its proposals as "reforms" at all. I have a well-read printed copy of the Constitution in front of me which is the same in all its intents and purposes as the Lisbon Treaty, and I know that it doesn't answer my concerns anymore than the Constitution did. (I'd love a printed copy of this Treaty too, but I'm told they're not available to the public, and it's too long and expensive to just print at home or work.) And lots of things which are nothing to do with the EU are extemely relevant. Stop stating my position because you don't see things the way I do and cannot therefore know what it might be. I wouldn't presume to do it to you.

Good for you. I fundamentally oppose the monetarist policies of UKIP (and Thatcher) so I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Altho you gotta love the opportunism of UKIP. Their policy is privatisation. But not the Post Office. Why? Because that has had bad press recently for being privatised so UKIP have decided to abandon their principles for that little matter!

Good for you too! A large part of thatcherism was the privatisation of state owned industries which has been taken up enthusiastically be the EU, and overturning that policy will not happen in the EU. However it might in an independent country. Multinationals appear to be very happy with the EU's right to govern, and I don't want my life run for the benefit of them. Do you agree with the privatisation of the PO despite the rising costs and likely reduced services for people in outlying areas?

The UK's net contribution today is around £4.5billion. Norway contributes £1billion. So for an extra £3.5billion we don't just get to follow the rules, we get to set the rules. As for EU laws, you're telling me that it is a policy of UKIP that we should be tied to, with no imput from ourselves, ALL EU economic laws (which are the vast majority of EU laws)? How exactly does that achieve UKIP's aims of not being told what to do by the EU?

And STILL it suits Norway and Switzerland! And in what sense do we get to "set the rules"? We have a tiny fraction of the vote in the EP, and 29 of 321 votes under the QMV system! When British influence is successful (as in the debate over biometrics) it is certainly not the kind of influence I want to see succeed. I doubt many British voters even realise what the government is pushing for in EU circles. But you think they should trust them anyway?

And you are supposing that we would not be able to negotiate a better deal. Even if we could not, it suits other countries. WHY NOT US? And please not the "influence" argument.

Also, leaving aside the economic rules (the first pillar of the EU - the Community), that leaves us with Justice and Home Affairs (police/judicial cooperation) and Foreign Policy. We shall also ignore Foreign Policy as this is currently, and probably always will, be in the hands of nation states - not the "EU".

You are being very flippant if you think those policies will probably always be in the hands of the nation states. They form part of Gordon Brown's red lines, and Barroso has already stated that our red lines are safe "for the time being". UKIP proposes that we make our own laws concerning everything, whilst having due regard for international agreements.

Of course not. They know what the arrangement is and what it involves. They are obviously happy to go along with any economical laws imposed on them by the EU and have no influence on those laws. But the whole point of UKIP is that they DON'T like ANY laws being imposed on us (even tho we have a huge influence on those laws currently). So the stupid UKIP comment still stands because they propose having EU laws imposed on us, but removing our right to influence those laws...

UKIP has said it wants a free trade agreement with the EU. Naturally it will involve rules on both sides, and would be beneficial to both parties, and we don't have "huge influence" currently ... as explained above. It's not UKIP that's stupid.

 

[CyberRose]

Once again, it is NOT your call to decide whether the treaty answers my concerns. I have very clear-sighted reasons for my opposition to the EU.

Fair enough but you did give me a number of concerns of yours and the Treaty does address those concerns

Good for you too! A large part of thatcherism was the privatisation of state owned industries which has been taken up enthusiastically be the EU, and overturning that policy will not happen in the EU. However it might in an independent country. Multinationals appear to be very happy with the EU's right to govern, and I don't want my life run for the benefit of them. Do you agree with the privatisation of the PO despite the rising costs and likely reduced services for people in outlying areas?

You're not wriggling out of this one! UKIP support privatisation and they would have supported the privitisation of the Post Office if they hadn't seen the opportunity to knock the EU. This is why people don't take them seriously (well, that and Godfrey Bloom) because their principles fly out the window as soon as it comes to the EU. They are a right-wing (politically and economically) single issue party with a few extras thrown in to put us off the scent.

And STILL it suits Norway and Switzerland!

My mistake. I should never have brought Switzerland up as they are a complete anomoly. They can, in no way, be used as an example of success outside the EU that can compare with the UK. The Swiss economy is unique and is built up due to their financial services sector, smallish population and pretty much zero-tax. That simply does not and cannot apply to the UK.

But taking Norway, they are required to adopt ANY laws passed in the EU in the first pillar - social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. They have NO say in their implementation. None whatsoever. Yet they HAVE to adopt these laws. The same would apply to the UK.

And in what sense do we get to "set the rules"? We have a tiny fraction of the vote in the EP, and 29 of 321 votes under the QMV system!

That's the biggest share of votes there is! The Treaty will also link the size of population to voting power in the Council meaning the UK's voting strength is increased - why would you be opposed to that?!

By being on the inside, we get to decide what goes into laws, and we have the chance to ally ourselves with others to get a better deal. You seem to think that the EU is made up of two entities - the UK and the rest in one anti-UK bloc. Complete paranoia.

And you are supposing that we would not be able to negotiate a better deal. Even if we could not, it suits other countries. WHY NOT US? And please not the "influence" argument.

What kind of deal exactly do you think the UK will get? You seem to be living in the dream world where the EU would accept a deal that gives the UK an economic advantage over everyone else! Any deal would involve accepting ALL EU laws in the fields mentioned above, and we would have no say whatsoever in them

You are being very flippant if you think those policies will probably always be in the hands of the nation states. They form part of Gordon Brown's red lines, and Barroso has already stated that our red lines are safe "for the time being". UKIP proposes that we make our own laws concerning everything, whilst having due regard for international agreements.

The Treaty STATES that Foreign Policy is for the nation states - it's not a "UK" red line, it's EU policy. How exactly could the EU take control of foreign affairs without the permission of the UK? (altho given your knowledge of the EU is poor I fully expect you believe it can...)

UKIP has said it wants a free trade agreement with the EU. Naturally it will involve rules on both sides, and would be beneficial to both parties, and we don't have "huge influence" currently ... as explained above. It's not UKIP that's stupid.

Yes. The agreement would be the UK had to adopt EVERY EU law passed in the fields above, otherwise it would have an unfair advantage over EU states, and such a deal would be REJECTED out of hand by the EU...

 

[goneforlunch]

Fair enough but you did give me a number of concerns of yours and the Treaty does address those concerns

You just don't get it do you? IT'S NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE. You might choose to tell yourself that it answers my concerns, but you're flat out wrong.

You're not wriggling out of this one! UKIP support privatisation and they would have supported the privitisation of the Post Office if they hadn't seen the opportunity to knock the EU. This is why people don't take them seriously (well, that and Godfrey Bloom) because their principles fly out the window as soon as it comes to the EU. They are a right-wing (politically and economically) single issue party with a few extras thrown in to put us off the scent.

What, like you wriggled out of your false claim that UKIP MEPs sit with a far right grouping in the EP, you mean? UKIP wants democracy to be returned to the UK. That means the people would have influence over their elected officials. We have very little influence over the government when it is a part of the EU. (And you cannot possibly know UKIP would have done at all but you can suspect all you want. UKIP is right wing but they are most definitely not a single issue party. On the contrary, it is the mainstream parties which are single issue in that their reason for being is to front for the EU.) And there are left wing organisations opposed to the EU, ie it is not a left/right issue. And btw:

Do you agree with the privatisation of the PO despite the rising costs and likely reduced services for people in outlying areas?

My mistake. I should never have brought Switzerland up as they are a complete anomoly. They can, in no way, be used as an example of success outside the EU that can compare with the UK. The Swiss economy is unique and is built up due to their financial services sector, smallish population and pretty much zero-tax. That simply does not and cannot apply to the UK.

Switzerland is different but the UK has one of the world's premier financial centres nevertheless, and countries large and small can prosper outside the EU. That's a fact. And as for tax, lower tax is never going to be possible as things stand, but lower taxes are on the outside, and we might even get decent public services in return too, though a lot of managers might lose their non-jobs.

But taking Norway, they are required to adopt ANY laws passed in the EU in the first pillar - social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. They have NO say in their implementation. None whatsoever. Yet they HAVE to adopt these laws. The same would apply to the UK.

And STILL Norway, one of the most prosperous countries in Europe with a generous welfare system, rejects membership!

That's the biggest share of votes there is! The Treaty will also link the size of population to voting power in the Council meaning the UK's voting strength is increased - why would you be opposed to that?!

By being on the inside, we get to decide what goes into laws, and we have the chance to ally ourselves with others to get a better deal. You seem to think that the EU is made up of two entities - the UK and the rest in one anti-UK bloc. Complete paranoia.

The Treaty does not in anyway increase the UK's voting strength by enough to allow us to "set the rules" and nor should it. "We" don't decide anything because the EU and its institutions are not a democracy. You seem to be under the misapprehension that government ministers working "on the inside" are actually working in our interests. The condition of the country and the secrecy with which they work in EU circles suggest they are not!

What kind of deal exactly do you think the UK will get? You seem to be living in the dream world where the EU would accept a deal that gives the UK an economic advantage over everyone else! Any deal would involve accepting ALL EU laws in the fields mentioned above, and we would have no say whatsoever in them

I don't want an economic advantage over anyone beyond what our own hard work and enterprise gets us. A mutually beneficial deal could be struck by politicians determined to act in the interests of the people. It would be in the other EU member states interests too as they sell so many of their goods to us. We run a large trade deficit with the EU and that means that we'd have a very strong negotiating position. It is strange that you should think we should be so disadvantaged by exerting our independence. We know that many countries actually do prosper outside of the EU, some of them are actually in Europe!

The Treaty STATES that Foreign Policy is for the nation states - it's not a "UK" red line, it's EU policy. How exactly could the EU take control of foreign affairs without the permission of the UK? (altho given your knowledge of the EU is poor I fully expect you believe it can...)

Where does the treaty STATE that? If my knowledge is so poor, put me straight! The Constitution says in the section dealing with CFSP ...

"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

Numerous sources show this to be but one of Brown's weak red lines. You seem to be under another misapprehension, that the UK is being dragged into the integration process. It's politicians are not!

Yes. The agreement would be the UK had to adopt EVERY EU law passed in the fields above, otherwise it would have an unfair advantage over EU states, and such a deal would be REJECTED out of hand by the EU...

CyberRose, that's something else you just don't know! The EU already allows some non-EU countries to trade with it on better terms than it allows us. It would be extremely foolish to reject a free trade agreement out of hand. And if it's that foolish, what are we doing as members anyway?

Edit: typo

 

[gosub]

Well if people are genuinly sceptic about the EU then this answers a lot of their questions. Goneforlunch realed off a big list of criticisms she had of the EU and, hilariously, the Treaty sought to rectify ALL her concerns.

The problem is that eurosceptics are not against this Treaty, they are against the EU. That is what they base their arguments on and this is why people like Gosub feel they can claim they are against this Treaty and not give any explanation as to why.

They support UKIP's policies, but these policies are just madness. Forgetting the "other" policies UKIP has come up with to prove they aren't a single-issue party (which, incidently, is pure Thatcherism), they claim that we can leave the EU yet still remain part of the free-trade zone. That's true - Norway and Switzerland do. But what they fail to mention (or are too stupid to work out) is that the UK would STILL have to pay contributions to the EU budget but get NOTHING back. They would also be subjected to EU laws but they would give up their right to have any influence over them. For whatever reasons this arrangement suits Norway and Switzerland but no way would it suit the UK.

I find it extremely hypocritical (or more likely, stupid) that UKIP don't like foreigners telling us what to do, but propose exactly that whilst taking away the UK's right to influence other nations...

As big an open goal as calling anyone with a concern for democracy "anti European" is, I can't take it, it is a wide of the mark as the Sun jibe, the illiteracy jibe, the misquote accusation...and I'm not a member of UKIP nor have I ever even voted for them.
There were pro EUropeans involved in the Referendum Party and I caused a certain amount of internal antagonism standing up for them. Their current absence for the debate combined with less moderate sceptics (nationally not specifically urban) propels the debate away from any chance of genuine reform and re engagement with the electorate, but it is early days yet but I assue you the politics are far more complex than a single plebiscite "In or Out"

Look the EU is a body that can save us from right-wing 'British' governance. The European Union enshrines a load of dignified and progressive principles, whereas Britain enshrines a load of imperialism, racism, right-wing newspapers and hating foreigners.

We must do all we can to try and better understand the EU and present it as an alternative sphere of ideas and policies, than Westminster. Where this treaty fits in with that, I have no idea.

I'm not so sure, ignoring the referendum results of both France and Denmark shows a wilful disregard the the current constitutional arrangements and the protection they afford minority groups. Fundamental rights as they stand seem to be able to come and go by decree of an unelected EUrocrats; and the current report of the EUropean Scrutiny committee reckons they contain mechanisms to circumvent democracy to allow Commission agendas to be rammed through the ECJ.
As to "right-wing 'British' governance," I never have comprehended the need to reference everything as if were in post revolutionary France but are you talking economically, socially or with regards to authority of the state?
I think I have tried to assist with " We must do all we can to try and better understand the EU and present it as an alternative sphere of ideas and policies" ... not all the links are to massive pdf files best used for reference than reading: the two of latest Observer and De Spiegel certainly make for informative if not alarming reading.
I know that with regards to aviation the De Spiegel rings true, everything is currently being driven by the speed at which new regulation can be adopted, which is demoralizing civil servants we deal with, not least because whole rafts of regulation aren't given the chance to bed down before they are replaced.

 

[CyberRose]

You just don't get it do you? IT'S NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE. You might choose to tell yourself that it answers my concerns, but you're flat out wrong.

You said you were critical of the EU because the Parliament was weak and the Council meets in secret. But the Parliament has equal powers to the Council in all areas other than foreign policy (which is the domain of the nation state, not the EU). The Treaty also requires the Council to meet in public.

What, like you wriggled out of your false claim that UKIP MEPs sit with a far right grouping in the EP, you mean?

UKIP MEPs do not sit in the far right group, why would I make that claim? I said that Mote shows what kind of political views UKIP members really have when they are free from the constraints of public relations...

UKIP wants democracy to be returned to the UK. That means the people would have influence over their elected officials. We have very little influence over the government when it is a part of the EU. (And you cannot possibly know UKIP would have done at all but you can suspect all you want. UKIP is right wing but they are most definitely not a single issue party. On the contrary, it is the mainstream parties which are single issue in that their reason for being is to front for the EU.) And there are left wing organisations opposed to the EU, ie it is not a left/right issue. And btw:

No, UKIP want a right-wing Thatcherite Britain free from foreign "interference". They also seem quite nostalgic about the Empire given their desire to replace the EU with the Commonwealth. They are the simply the stomachable face of British nationalists. And of course there are left-wing criticisms of the EU, I have a number myself, as is natural for any political system.

Do you agree with the privatisation of the PO despite the rising costs and likely reduced services for people in outlying areas?

I have no problem with business deliveries being privatised but not public deliveries (which is what we have right now). By the way, the decision to privatise other industries is the decision of individual member states, not EU law...

Switzerland is different but the UK has one of the world's premier financial centres nevertheless, and countries large and small can prosper outside the EU. That's a fact. And as for tax, lower tax is never going to be possible as things stand, but lower taxes are on the outside, and we might even get decent public services in return too, though a lot of managers might lose their non-jobs.

Yes but the UK isn't London is it? If London were a country it would be equivalent to Switzerland, but its not, and the rest of the country renders them incomparable. And I'm not trying to say its not possible to be successful outside the EU, of course it is. But I'm not sure that we can be successful in our geographical region without being members of the EEA like Norway, and then every law in the First Pillar would apply to us just the same. That would fly in the face of UKIP's principles because they don't like the EU telling us what to do, yet if we were in Norway's boots then it'd just be the same minus our current influence

And STILL Norway, one of the most prosperous countries in Europe with a generous welfare system, rejects membership!

Tell me, do UKIP propose a Norwegian economic model for the UK? If so where do I sign up?!

The Treaty does not in anyway increase the UK's voting strength by enough to allow us to "set the rules" and nor should it. "We" don't decide anything because the EU and its institutions are not a democracy. You seem to be under the misapprehension that government ministers working "on the inside" are actually working in our interests. The condition of the country and the secrecy with which they work in EU circles suggest they are not!

I simply said it increases our voting strength - which it does. You've combined two of my points together to mis-represent what I said. By setting the rules I mean we have the power to have our say in how laws are written and implemented. We have the biggest voting bloc meaning we have a very string voice in this respect. What you are proposing is that we lose this strength - yet we still have to abide by these laws that are set

I don't want an economic advantage over anyone beyond what our own hard work and enterprise gets us. A mutually beneficial deal could be struck by politicians determined to act in the interests of the people. It would be in the other EU member states interests too as they sell so many of their goods to us. We run a large trade deficit with the EU and that means that we'd have a very strong negotiating position. It is strange that you should think we should be so disadvantaged by exerting our independence. We know that many countries actually do prosper outside of the EU, some of them are actually in Europe!

Explain to me exactly what this deal would entail...

Where does the treaty STATE that? If my knowledge is so poor, put me straight! The Constitution says in the section dealing with CFSP ...

"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

Numerous sources show this to be but one of Brown's weak red lines. You seem to be under another misapprehension, that the UK is being dragged into the integration process. It's politicians are not!

If you weren't so sucked into UKIP's fear spreading machine, you wouldn't be commenting on the contents of the Constitution but on the contents of the Treaty - two different documents remember? The Treaty contains a signed declaration from all member states confirming that foreign policy is the sole remit of the nation state (and that quote is from the original treaties and does not, in anyway, give the EU any powers in foreign policy, but I don't expect somebody who gets their EU "information" from UKIP to be able to fathom that)

CyberRose, that's something else you just don't know! The EU already allows some non-EU countries to trade with it on better terms than it allows us. It would be extremely foolish to reject a free trade agreement out of hand. And if it's that foolish, what are we doing as members anyway?

Again, I'm interested to know what exactly these agreements are

 

[goneforlunch]

You said you were critical of the EU because the Parliament was weak and the Council meets in secret. But the Parliament has equal powers to the Council in all areas other than foreign policy (which is the domain of the nation state, not the EU). The Treaty also requires the Council to meet in public.

That's great (for those who trust a majority of MEPs) but it still leaves stuff like passports, ID cards and residence permits as measures on which the EP need only be "consulted" and as to whether foreign policy is the domain of the nation states, see below. And the Council will do everything it can to make sure the public doesn't get in the way. The treaty does NOT answer my concerns.

Pro-EU Europolitics (link given earlier) admits that the treaty was written to disguise its intent. "Of course the mandate given to the intergovermental conference may have seemed obscure and complex. Make no mistake about; that was its main objective. Without a smoke screen, how could Eurosceptics and federalists, proponents of and opponents to the Constitution ever have been reconciled? The talent of the politcal leaders and legal experts who worked on the text consisted in makng extremely discreet the fact that the new treaty and the draft Constitution are like two peas in a pod." Though it goes onto claim the Lisbon treaty is better.

Please, don't insult me by saying that's irrelevant.

UKIP MEPs do not sit in the far right group, why would I make that claim? I said that Mote shows what kind of political views UKIP members really have when they are free from the constraints of public relations...

"Heh and the UKIP member of that group is in jail!" you said. Your claim is ambiguous at best, and seemed like a deliberate attempt to smear UKIP by association. One man does not show what kind of political views UKIP members have, anymore than it does in any other party. And as for Mote, given that he'd been kicked out of the EDD, he didn't really have much choice unless he'd sat with a pro-EU group. As a convicted criminal he should have been kicked out of the EP altogether, but that's not the EU way, is it?

No, UKIP want a right-wing Thatcherite Britain free from foreign "interference". They also seem quite nostalgic about the Empire given their desire to replace the EU with the Commonwealth. They are the simply the stomachable face of British nationalists. And of course there are left-wing criticisms of the EU, I have a number myself, as is natural for any political system.

Being an EU supporter, it's hardly surprising that you're not representing UKIP's views accurately. UKIP wants to trade as democratically and freely as it is possible to do with the world outside the EU including the growing markets of the Commonwealth countries. It has sod all to do with the empire. I'm pleased to see that we agree that this is not a right/left issue.

I have no problem with business deliveries being privatised but not public deliveries (which is what we have right now). By the way, the decision to privatise other industries is the decision of individual member states, not EU law...

The thatcherite privatisations were a British innovation, but other EU states are following EU law in privatising their state owned industries, making any reversal in the process in Britain unlikely. And the PO is cutting services in order to make itself competitive in the privatised markets now that it must stand without state subsidies in compliance in the privatised market under EU rules. Are there no Post Offices near you slated for closure? Your area must be unique if that's the case.

Yes but the UK isn't London is it? If London were a country it would be equivalent to Switzerland, but its not, and the rest of the country renders them incomparable. And I'm not trying to say its not possible to be successful outside the EU, of course it is. But I'm not sure that we can be successful in our geographical region without being members of the EEA like Norway, and then every law in the First Pillar would apply to us just the same. That would fly in the face of UKIP's principles because they don't like the EU telling us what to do, yet if we were in Norway's boots then it'd just be the same minus our current influence

I never said London is the UK, but it would nevertheless remain a part of the UK, contributing to the whole country's prosperity. I'm glad we're clear on the prospects for prosperity outside the EU, even though you still insist that EU laws would still apply to us, when as a sizeable trading bloc in our own right with a 60 million strong population we would have a strong negotiating position in any trade talks.

Tell me, do UKIP propose a Norwegian economic model for the UK? If so where do I sign up?!

Hardly! UKIP is right wing, as we both know. The EU doesn't propose a Norweigan economic model for the EU either, but a government in an independent state could. I would expect and wholeheartedly welcome a real opposition party in an independent UK. I want real choice in elections, not the crap on offer now from the only parties with any chance of forming a government.

 

[CyberRose]

passports, ID cards and residence permits as measures on which the EP need only be "consulted"

UKIP lies and scaremongering. The EP has NO say over these issues WHATSOEVER as they are purely a matter for national governments and therefore NOTHING to do with the EU

foreign policy is the domain of the nation states, see below. And the Council will do everything it can to make sure the public doesn't get in the way. The treaty does NOT answer my concerns.

It answers some of your concerns, you're even admitting it now by continuing to complain about the Council meeting in secret - something the Treaty will end

Pro-EU Europolitics (link given earlier) admits that the treaty was written to disguise its intent. "Of course the mandate given to the intergovermental conference may have seemed obscure and complex. Make no mistake about; that was its main objective. Without a smoke screen, how could Eurosceptics and federalists, proponents of and opponents to the Constitution ever have been reconciled? The talent of the politcal leaders and legal experts who worked on the text consisted in makng extremely discreet the fact that the new treaty and the draft Constitution are like two peas in a pod." Though it goes onto claim the Lisbon treaty is better.

Please, don't insult me by saying that's irrelevant.

What's irrelevant? That the Treaty and Constitution are the same? I don't get your point, we're arguing whether or not the Treaty is a good thing...

"Heh and the UKIP member of that group is in jail!" you said. Your claim is ambiguous at best, and seemed like a deliberate attempt to smear UKIP by association. One man does not show what kind of political views UKIP members have, anymore than it does in any other party. And as for Mote, given that he'd been kicked out of the EDD, he didn't really have much choice unless he'd sat with a pro-EU group. As a convicted criminal he should have been kicked out of the EP altogether, but that's not the EU way, is it?

No, it's the BRITISH way! More UKIP lies and scaremongering. The laws governing Mote and whether he can keep his seat and still get paid are BRITISH laws - stop trying to blame Brussels. And it's not just Mote who shows fascist and far-right wing views, just look at the other idiots in UKIP. I'm interested to hear you views, as a woman, on Godfrey Bloom? Would you vote for him? And what have you got to say about the BNP stating that UKIP are their ideological counterparts?

Being an EU supporter, it's hardly surprising that you're not representing UKIP's views accurately. UKIP wants to trade as democratically and freely as it is possible to do with the world outside the EU including the growing markets of the Commonwealth countries. It has sod all to do with the empire. I'm pleased to see that we agree that this is not a right/left issue.

"Trade democratically"?! You just made that term up!

And look at the people in UKIP, throwbacks from the upper class Tory ranks, and you're tryin to tell me they aren't nostalgic for the good old days of the empire?! Pull the other one!

The thatcherite privatisations were a British innovation, but other EU states are following EU law in privatising their state owned industries, making any reversal in the process in Britain unlikely.

UKIP lies and scaremongering. There are no EU laws stating industries must be privatised. That is the sole decision of nation states. EU law merely says that IF an industry is privatised, then the state owned company must play by the same rules.

And the PO is cutting services in order to make itself competitive in the privatised markets now that it must stand without state subsidies in compliance in the privatised market under EU rules. Are there no Post Offices near you slated for closure? Your area must be unique if that's the case.

There is no privatised market for public post delivery

I never said London is the UK, but it would nevertheless remain a part of the UK, contributing to the whole country's prosperity. I'm glad we're clear on the prospects for prosperity outside the EU, even though you still insist that EU laws would still apply to us, when as a sizeable trading bloc in our own right with a 60 million strong population we would have a strong negotiating position in any trade talks.

How could we enter into a free trade deal with the EU and not have their laws apply to us?! Is this really what they teach you at UKIP? Are you incapable of seeing through that stupid lie? How on Earth could we possibly enter into a free trade agreement with the EU and not play by the rules that effect EU businesses?

Hardly! UKIP is right wing, as we both know. The EU doesn't propose a Norweigan economic model for the EU either, but a government in an independent state could.

Like Sweden?

I would expect and wholeheartedly welcome a real opposition party in an independent UK. I want real choice in elections, not the crap on offer now from the only parties with any chance of forming a government.

Well while ever UKIP keep putting forward posh upper class sexist fascists up for elections I don't think any of us have to worry about UKIP forming that "real opposition" do we?

 

[goneforlunch]

UKIP lies and scaremongering. The EP has NO say over these issues WHATSOEVER as they are purely a matter for national governments and therefore NOTHING to do with the EU

Rubbish. The Council of the European Union takes Justice and Home Affairs policy under qualified majority voting under the treaty and it is one of Brown's porous red lines. The EU has been working towards "ever closer union" right from the start before it even called itself the EU. Just what do you suppose ever closer union meant? That there'd be lots of happy co-operation?

It answers some of your concerns, you're even admitting it now by continuing to complain about the Council meeting in secret - something the Treaty will end

Foreign policy is only under the domain of the nation states whilst it suits the EU (and there are other methods of meeting that are no more subject to public scrutiny. See this Statewatch paper on Secret Trilogues and the Democratic Deficit.)
The treaty does nothing at all to inspire trust and that is what's missing, so it does NOT answer my concerns. I will tell you if and when my concerns are answered.

What's irrelevant? That the Treaty and Constitution are the same? I don't get your point, we're arguing whether or not the Treaty is a good thing...

You have argued that Brown does not need to honour Labour's commitment to hold a referendum because the treaty and the Constitution are different. Even pro-EU sources say they are the same. I think the fact that national ministers, including Britain's, deliberately chose to hide the true nature of the treaty says a lot about whether they are worthy of my trust.

No, it's the BRITISH way! More UKIP lies and scaremongering. The laws governing Mote and whether he can keep his seat and still get paid are BRITISH laws - stop trying to blame Brussels. And it's not just Mote who shows fascist and far-right wing views, just look at the other idiots in UKIP. I'm interested to hear you views on Godfrey Bloom? Would you vote for him? And what have you got to say about the BNP stating that UKIP are their ideological counterparts?

Mote sits in the EP, not Westminster. Who controls that? The EU should have kicked him out, it would have had my backing. (Has any convicted criminal continued to sit as an MP in Westminster? Serious question.) And are you seriously suggesting that the EU model of government is more trustworthy than the albeit flawed British model?

Bloom is not a slick professional politician and his "clean behind the fridge" remarks were ill-advised and silly brought some very unwelcome publicity, playing into the hands of his opponents, but he wasn't being entirely serious. He was right in that small businesses are reluctant to employ younger women because of the employment rights they get in relation to maternity issues. Voters vote for party lists, not individuals, for elections to the EP. And that's my view, as a woman, and as the mother of 2 daughters. I can't think of any UKIP MEP who is either far right or a fascist, but you can quote these people if you wish.

I have no comment to make about the BNP beyond that I have never even come close to considering supporting them, and I wouldn't support UKIP if I thought it was working in anyway with the BNP. I'm certainly not responsible for anything the BNP says.

UKIP lies and scaremongering. There are no EU laws stating industries must be privatised. That is the sole decision of nation states. EU law merely says that IF an industry is privatised, then the state owned company must play by the same rules.

A joke, right? Here's some background to the postal services privatisation, or liberalisation, as it's called in EU circles.

Directive 2002/39/EC, amending Directive 97/67/EC, aims to fulfil the latter Directive's mandate to provide for a further gradual and controlled liberalisation of postal services, to take effect from 1 January 2003 and to set out a timetable for further liberalisation.

All designed to open up "Community postal services" to competition. It's happened with railways, with gas, with electricity, with telemcommunications, and other formerly public opererations. Some countries are yet to catch up.

There is no privatised market for public post delivery

Oh well that's ok if you say so. We'll just put up with a declining service then. Taking away the business bulk mail leaves the post office with the less profitable public sector, hence the need to cut costs.

How could we enter into a free trade deal with the EU and not have their laws apply to us?! Is this really what they teach you at UKIP? Are you incapable of seeing through that stupid lie? How on Earth could we possibly enter into a free trade agreement with the EU and not play by the rules that effect EU businesses?

Because a new deal would be struck and no government with the interests of those it is meant to serve would accept such disadvantageous terms. Are you incapable of seeing that? It could even bring about some much needed relief for small and medium sized mainland European companies. But if not, it is still preferable to full EU membership. Non-EU countries are happy on those terms. Britain could be too.

Like Sweden?

Do you see ANY British politcal party offering a Swedish model of government? Sweden is one of the most eurosceptic countries, and still retains its currency in defiance of the EU, and no wonder!

Well while ever UKIP keep putting forward posh upper class sexist fascists up for elections I don't think any of us have to worry about UKIP forming that "real opposition" do we?

I'm not interested in arguing class, sex or race wars with you. You're not a UKIP supporter, but you're so vehemently anti-UKIP, I'm curious about which party you actually do vote for. Lib Dems? And any of us who are not supporters of the present policies need to worry about the lack of "real opposition" on offer.

 

[CyberRose]

Rubbish. The Council of the European Union takes Justice and Home Affairs policy under qualified majority voting under the treaty and it is one of Brown's porous red lines. The EU has been working towards "ever closer union" right from the start before it even called itself the EU. Just what do you suppose ever closer union meant? That there'd be lots of happy co-operation?

At first you said the Parliament only gets consulted on ID cards, passports and residency permits. This is just not true as these issues are solely for each individual member state to decide on with no outside pressure. Now that you have realised you were regurgitating UKIP scare stories you're now trying to make the same point on a hypothetical future that does not exist.

Foreign policy is only under the domain of the nation states whilst it suits the EU

I fail to see how somebody who doesn't even know what "the EU" or how it operates can lecture me about EU policies. Foreign policy has never been something "the EU" has any competency over. It always has been in the hands of the national governments. Sure there are instruments in which member states can work together when they have all agreed a common position but each member state is free to pursue its own foreign policy (and the Treaty reaffirms that). But please explain to me the legality of the claim you made: "whilst it suits the EU". I want you to direct me to the relevant EU laws and also to define what you mean by "EU"

The treaty does nothing at all to inspire trust and that is what's missing, so it does NOT answer my concerns. I will tell you if and when my concerns are answered.

Does it concern you that the Council meets in secret?

You have argued that Brown does not need to honour Labour's commitment to hold a referendum because the treaty and the Constitution are different. Even pro-EU sources say they are the same. I think the fact that national ministers, including Britain's, deliberately chose to hide the true nature of the treaty says a lot about whether they are worthy of my trust.

No my argument was that their should never have been a referendum promised full stop. Therefore, even if they are identical is irrelevant if you wanna discuss the issue with me

Mote sits in the EP, not Westminster. Who controls that? The EU should have kicked him out, it would have had my backing. (Has any convicted criminal continued to sit as an MP in Westminster? Serious question.) And are you seriously suggesting that the EU model of government is more trustworthy than the albeit flawed British model?

Erm it's actually the British government that decide who can be a British MEP, not the Parliament. Mote kept his salary because BRITISH law says he can

Bloom is not a slick professional politician and his "clean behind the fridge" remarks were ill-advised and silly brought some very unwelcome publicity, playing into the hands of his opponents, but he wasn't being entirely serious. He was right in that small businesses are reluctant to employ younger women because of the employment rights they get in relation to maternity issues. Voters vote for party lists, not individuals, for elections to the EP. And that's my view, as a woman, and as the mother of 2 daughters. I can't think of any UKIP MEP who is either far right or a fascist, but you can quote these people if you wish.

Mote obviously harboured fascist views when he was selected to represent UKIP, didn't he?

I have no comment to make about the BNP beyond that I have never even come close to considering supporting them, and I wouldn't support UKIP if I thought it was working in anyway with the BNP. I'm certainly not responsible for anything the BNP says.

Not saying you are, just that the BNP consider UKIP to be their ideological counterparts.

A joke, right? Here's some background to the postal services privatisation, or liberalisation, as it's called in EU circles.

Directive 2002/39/EC, amending Directive 97/67/EC, aims to fulfil the latter Directive's mandate to provide for a further gradual and controlled liberalisation of postal services, to take effect from 1 January 2003 and to set out a timetable for further liberalisation.

All designed to open up "Community postal services" to competition. It's happened with railways, with gas, with electricity, with telemcommunications, and other formerly public opererations. Some countries are yet to catch up.

My personal belief is that natural monopolies and vital public industries should be nationalised. So like I said, I don't mind business post being privatised but not public post. The EU Postal Services Directive accommodates just that and therefore, the Post Office is still a national industry.

There are no other EU laws, however, that compel any state to privatise any industry. That is the sole decision of individual member states. The only laws in this area state that if a state does privatise an industry it cannot give preferential treatment to the public owned company.

Are you telling me that the decision by the UK to privatise industries was because of EU laws?

And anyway, how could you possibly complain about this when you believe in privatised industries?

Because a new deal would be struck and no government with the interests of those it is meant to serve would accept such disadvantageous terms. Are you incapable of seeing that? It could even bring about some much needed relief for small and medium sized mainland European companies. But if not, it is still preferable to full EU membership. Non-EU countries are happy on those terms. Britain could be too.

But what IS this magical deal?! You keep telling me we can get a deal better than we have now, but I could tell you I'm the tooth fairy and without any backup you won't believe me! What exactly is the deal that the EU will agree to?

Do you see ANY British politcal party offering a Swedish model of government? Sweden is one of the most eurosceptic countries, and still retains its currency in defiance of the EU, and no wonder!

Erm I think you've confused yourself there. You were telling me that the EU did not offer a Norwegian economic model, and insinuated that if we left the EU we would be able to pursue one if e chose to. I then replied "like Sweden" as they also operate a Scandinavian economic model yet are members of the EU...

I'm not interested in arguing class, sex or race wars with you. You're not a UKIP supporter, but you're so vehemently anti-UKIP, I'm curious about which party you actually do vote for. Lib Dems? And any of us who are not supporters of the present policies need to worry about the lack of "real opposition" on offer.

I vote Labour fyi. They're the closest option I have at the polling station to a party that matches my opinions (altho obviously there is a shit load I do not agree with them about)

 

[goneforlunch]

At first you said the Parliament only gets consulted on ID cards, passports and residency permits. This is just not true as these issues are solely for each individual member state to decide on with no outside pressure. Now that you have realised you were regurgitating UKIP scare stories you're now trying to make the same point on a hypothetical future that does not exist.

I have quoted Europolitics, the Campaign for European Reform and Statewatch in regard to the treaty, all of which give weight to eurosceptic beliefs, and all three are entirely separate to UKIP, and at least two are EU supporting organisations. There are plenty of organisations which are very sceptical about the EU. I've also told you that I have read widely on both sides of the argument, and yet you still obsess over UKIP. I am ALWAYS willing to be informed by anyone else who has also read widely, but that does not include you because I don't believe YOU have.

I fail to see how somebody who doesn't even know what "the EU" or how it operates can lecture me about EU policies. Foreign policy has never been something "the EU" has any competency over. It always has been in the hands of the national governments.

I'm well aware of what the EU is I understand how it operates. Foreign policy and justice and home affairs have been until now under the control of member states, but the the treaty allows for that to change. And I'm not lecturing you any more than you are lecturing me.

Sure there are instruments in which member states can work together when they have all agreed a common position but each member state is free to pursue its own foreign policy (and the Treaty reaffirms that).

We've been through that.

But please explain to me the legality of the claim you made: "whilst it suits the EU". I want you to direct me to the relevant EU laws and also to define what you mean by "EU"

"Whilst it suits the EU" or the ECJ. The ECJ interprets EU treaties and decides whether national laws are compatible with EC law. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what is meant by the "EU". I'm not sure in what terms you would like me to define it?

Does it concern you that the Council meets in secret?

Well of course it does! But as I've already said, the treaty does nothing to inspire the necessary trust.

No my argument was that their should never have been a referendum promised full stop. Therefore, even if they are identical is irrelevant if you wanna discuss the issue with me

My mistake, you thought the government should never have offered a referendum in the first place because there was nothing significant to vote on I think you said. I disagree, but the government did offer a referendum and it should honour that, and the changes are very significant.

Erm it's actually the British government that decide who can be a British MEP, not the Parliament. Mote kept his salary because BRITISH law says he can

Yes, but EU law SHOULD say he can't. It is an EU institution. I can't find a case of a British MP keeping his seat at Westminster after a criminal conviction. But I can find cases of other MEPs and a commissioner who have been convicted and who have also retained their jobs, salaries and benefits.

Mote obviously harboured fascist views when he was selected to represent UKIP, didn't he?

Not as far as I know he didn't. He's quite a prolific writer, patriotic or even nationalistic, but fascist? I'm not sure. Mote should be barred from being an MEP because he's a fraudster. Some people think the EU itself is shows a fascist side in seeking to prevent criticism of itself.

Not saying you are, just that the BNP consider UKIP to be their ideological counterparts.

The BNP is free to consider anything it wants to. UKIP does not share any ideology with the BNP apart from the need to leave the EU if ever it wants to put its policies into place. But "right wing Thatcherites" they are not! Have you ever thought that the BNP might have a motive for saying this? Playing party politics, perhaps?

My personal belief is that natural monopolies and vital public industries should be nationalised. So like I said, I don't mind business post being privatised but not public post. The EU Postal Services Directive accommodates just that and therefore, the Post Office is still a national industry.

The PO is a national industry in that all that is left are the parts private industry is not interested in, leaving a poorer service for the public.

There are no other EU laws, however, that compel any state to privatise any industry. That is the sole decision of individual member states. The only laws in this area state that if a state does privatise an industry it cannot give preferential treatment to the public owned company.

Liberalisation has occurred or is in the pipeline in the gas, electricity and water markets in and in the public procurement sector, all in compliance with EU policy, in every EU member state.

See
this for example, from the European Commission, on legislation in the electricity market.

Are you telling me that the decision by the UK to privatise industries was because of EU laws?

I didn't say UK industries were privatised due to EU laws. See earlier posts. I don't think Thatcher ever thought privatisation would see the state owned industries she privatised in the hands of foreign companies. She was really naive in that.

And anyway, how could you possibly complain about this when you believe in privatised industries?

I actually believe some former state owned industries should be state owned, but re-nationalising them would be prohibitively expensive, and should be approached carefully when the country is able to pay for it. Like you and Labour policies, there are things about UKIP policy I would change if I could.

But what IS this magical deal?! You keep telling me we can get a deal better than we have now, but I could tell you I'm the tooth fairy and without any backup you won't believe me! What exactly is the deal that the EU will agree to?

As I said earlier, there is no deal yet. But there's nothing magical about a free trade deal. To put it crudely, we say we want better terms and the EU agrees or loses a lucrative market. The key is in the trade balance. It should at least be a topic for a national debate, instead all we get is pathetic, childish insults from easily the majority of our parliamentarians IF they can bring themselves to discuss it at all.

Erm I think you've confused yourself there. You were telling me that the EU did not offer a Norwegian economic model, and insinuated that if we left the EU we would be able to pursue one if e chose to. I then replied "like Sweden" as they also operate a Scandinavian economic model yet are members of the EU...

I'm not confused. No British party is offering a Scandinavian style welfare state, but the Scandinavians feel they are under pressure to scale back theirs, and that's one reason for the Swedish people's unwillingness to join the eurozone though they have no opt out as Britain and Denmark do. They run a generous welfare state in spite of EU membership, not because of it.

I vote Labour fyi. They're the closest option I have at the polling station to a party that matches my opinions (altho obviously there is a shit load I do not agree with them about)

OK, but do you know which policies in that shit load are actually EU inspired?

What did you think of the government's decision to approve the Galileo satellite project at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds (17% of the total cost) to Britain, making the final decision almost unanimous with only Spain holding out? Naturally once the system is up and running "a private group is still likely to be asked to operate the network" according to this rather one sided report from the BBC.

 

[CyberRose]

I have quoted Europolitics, the Campaign for European Reform and Statewatch in regard to the treaty, all of which give weight to eurosceptic beliefs, and all three are entirely separate to UKIP, and at least two are EU supporting organisations. There are plenty of organisations which are very sceptical about the EU. I've also told you that I have read widely on both sides of the argument, and yet you still obsess over UKIP. I am ALWAYS willing to be informed by anyone else who has also read widely, but that does not include you because I don't believe YOU have.

My quote was specifically in response to your claims that the EU will have any say over the UK's policies on ID cards, residence permits and passports. This is a blatant UKIP scare story. Please don't try and change the subject.

I'm well aware of what the EU is I understand how it operates. Foreign policy and justice and home affairs have been until now under the control of member states, but the the treaty allows for that to change. And I'm not lecturing you any more than you are lecturing me.

Honestly, I don't think you do know fully what the EU is or how it opperates. I think you've seen the myths and scare stories and that's what you base your opinions on. The fact that you cannot give me a definition of "the EU" in the context of foreign policy shows this. You've also shown a lack of knowledge in other areas. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising or insulting, it's not intended like that, but it is true.

We've been through that.

Yes we have. But still you fail to comprehend EU foreign policy. You probably think "the EU" will force us to give up our seat on the UN don't you?

"Whilst it suits the EU" or the ECJ. The ECJ interprets EU treaties and decides whether national laws are compatible with EC law. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what is meant by the "EU". I'm not sure in what terms you would like me to define it?

You said "the EU" will start dictating the UK's foreign policy. I want you to tell me who (ie your definition of "the EU") will do that to the UK and for what reason. Also can you tell me how this could ever be forced on the UK (or any other nation)

Well of course it does! But as I've already said, the treaty does nothing to inspire the necessary trust.

You mean apart from answering that particular concern of yours?

My mistake, you thought the government should never have offered a referendum in the first place because there was nothing significant to vote on I think you said. I disagree, but the government did offer a referendum and it should honour that, and the changes are very significant.

Well it is significant, but not in the way I think you mean

Yes, but EU law SHOULD say he can't. It is an EU institution. I can't find a case of a British MP keeping his seat at Westminster after a criminal conviction. But I can find cases of other MEPs and a commissioner who have been convicted and who have also retained their jobs, salaries and benefits.

MEPs are the responsibility of the nation state. Ironic that someone from UKIP is demanding powers should be taken away from the UK and handed to the EU!

Not as far as I know he didn't. He's quite a prolific writer, patriotic or even nationalistic, but fascist? I'm not sure. Mote should be barred from being an MEP because he's a fraudster. Some people think the EU itself is shows a fascist side in seeking to prevent criticism of itself.

Yes but most people probably don't

The BNP is free to consider anything it wants to. UKIP does not share any ideology with the BNP apart from the need to leave the EU if ever it wants to put its policies into place. But "right wing Thatcherites" they are not! Have you ever thought that the BNP might have a motive for saying this? Playing party politics, perhaps?

The two parties certainly share a lot of xenophobic tendancies, that, I don't think, can be denied.

The PO is a national industry in that all that is left are the parts private industry is not interested in, leaving a poorer service for the public.

There's nothing stopping the government investing heavily in the Post Office. It is a national industry and no EU laws prevent the government increasing funding for it. This is not an issue you can blame on the EU. It is entirely up to the UK government.

Liberalisation has occurred or is in the pipeline in the gas, electricity and water markets in and in the public procurement sector, all in compliance with EU policy, in every EU member state.

No. EU laws govern liberalised industries, they don't tend to create them...

I didn't say UK industries were privatised due to EU laws. See earlier posts.

Yes you did, you even said it in the quote above!!

As I said earlier, there is no deal yet. But there's nothing magical about a free trade deal. To put it crudely, we say we want better terms and the EU agrees or loses a lucrative market. The key is in the trade balance. It should at least be a topic for a national debate, instead all we get is pathetic, childish insults from easily the majority of our parliamentarians IF they can bring themselves to discuss it at all.

Don't you understand? We can only have a free-trade-agreement if we adhere to the rules of that market. That's the whole point of free trade - no barriers and no state intervention to give their industries an advantage! Please please please understand that for the UK to be given a free-trade-agreement they would either be fined or kicked out of that agreement should they decide to interfer in the markets to give their economy an unfair advantage - that is exactly what you are proposing!

I'm not confused. No British party is offering a Scandinavian style welfare state, but the Scandinavians feel they are under pressure to scale back theirs, and that's one reason for the Swedish people's unwillingness to join the eurozone though they have no opt out as Britain and Denmark do. They run a generous welfare state in spite of EU membership, not because of it.

The point is, Sweden is free to follow a Scandanavian economic model inside the EU. You were trying to make out that Norway was only able to follow a Scandanavian economic model because it was not a member, and that if the UK ever decided to follow such a model it would need to leave the EU. Sweden proves you were wrong in your assertion.

OK, but do you know which policies in that shit load are actually EU inspired?

No. Because it's just an expression of speech. However, I can tell you quite a few that I disagree with that are opposed to EU legislation - like employment rights.

What did you think of the government's decision to approve the Galileo satellite project at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds (17% of the total cost) to Britain, making the final decision almost unanimous with only Spain holding out? Naturally once the system is up and running "a private group is still likely to be asked to operate the network" according to this rather one sided report from the BBC.

I don't know what your point is. The UK wanted to do something, Spain tried to block us, and all of a sudden the person from UKIP says Spain should be able to block the UK's objectives?

Anyway, on the Gallileo system, I think it's a good idea

 

[gosub]

Its like watching Quentin Willson dancing on the head of a pin.

You can say passports and ID cards are down to member states that's Article 1 of the Chicago convention but that would mean there is conformity to an outside body which you don't think exists. Mind you ICAO guidance is meant primarily to stop JP Herbert type japes.
Pan EUropean conformity was something that the UK pushed for during its Presidency back in 2005 then oddly decided not to involve itself in, as by some strange coincidence during UK Presidency the US reduced their speck to ICAO minimum. Most of EUrope is building to this spec over and beyond the ICAO minima.
US change of tack was due to preferring retinal data which can not be manditorized globally ICAO recognizes not all states can afford the technology or have the infrastructure to operate it securely. So exists like a fast-track lane. Needless to say the US is having a many teething problems as they did with the facial recognition software they bought from UK. We've had pilots presented with the metaphysical dilemma of not being who they are on several occasions.

UK could back the Post Office or other organization up to the point of meeting EU limits on Governmental Budget deficits beyond there are fines payable. Some nations have chosen to factor in the cost of the fines into propping up national industries like previous French administrations (letter / spirit of law Article 87 EC (ex Article 92). ) while the UK has privatised and offset its spending using PFI, though how fucked the country is when minimum never never payment = budget deficit constraint, I'm not looking forward to finding out.

 

[gosub]

Constructive article by Lord Owen in Sunday Times