Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What is just so bad about the European Union?

Eu

goneforlunch said:
There is no opposition in the EU in the parliamentary democractic sense either, and certainly nothing effective for those opposed to a federalised EU.
But it still sounds like you expect that half of the people who stand as candidates to serve in an organisation would want the overthrow of that organisation. How many MPs elected to the House of Commons want the disbandment of the UK? And, in fact, you actually do get MEPs who want the UK to leave the EU - the UK Independence Party. It's just that not many people choose to vote for them, as is their right.

goneforlunch said:
hrdtc said:
goneforlunch said:
The EU is an evolving single state, supported by the mainstream political parties, most of the media, and the multinational corporations.
Yes, the EU is gradually evolving, and is supported by the mainstream parties, but so what? They obviously must think that it is a good thing. And most of the media? How do you figure? Most papers don't support it.
So part of your reasoning for thinking the evolving EU is good is because most politicians support it?
No, I was merely responding to what you had previously posted. You implied that, because the mainstream parties support the evolving EU, it is a bad thing, and so I just pointed out that they would think the opposite.

goneforlunch said:
Why not try doing a little independent research, using critical sources as well as mainstream ones, and make up your own mind? And most of the mass circulation papers have done little to inform their readers of the true nature of the EU. To read them you would think that the EU is no more than an irritant in our lives, either that or our politicians are somehow fighting an oppressive interloper. The general public hardly understands at all just how complicit our political elite have been in allowing our integration into a federalised EU to happen. The press is as responsible for this sad state of affairs as the politicians are, and have de facto supported the EU in their mostly uncritical acceptance of government policy down the years.
Firstly, if I did my own research, then there would be no point in me coming on a message board to argue it out. I've heard people say that before to do with other things like the BBC. They say, "just do a search on Google", and I say, "why should I have to, either you have the links or you don't". Quite often I don't hear anything back from them after that. And like I said before, you must know that it would be virtually impossible to find a genuinely neutral source on a topic like this.

Also, I really don't see how you can say that the press has been mostly uncritical of what the Government does, especially now under Labour from the right-wing papers. As I was saying to someone on another board who was claiming that the BBC doesn't provide a "right of centre" viewpoint, I pointed out that in a debate on Newsnight just the previous night, some of the participants were not just right of centre, but were in fact right-wing.



PS: apologies if the quotes aren't quite right, they got quite complicated.
 
Trustworthiness / EU

goneforlunch said:
And I know Corbett didn't make up the 9% figure - but he got it from offical sources which imo are no more trustworthy than the European Movement. I'm sure the government wouldn't actually make the figures up either, but they have to have been very creative with the facts to whittle the figure down to a mere 9%.
But how do you know that they had to be "very creative with the facts"? How do you know that it's not the truth? (And please don't accuse me of believing everything the Government says, because I don't.)

goneforlunch said:
Given how governments over the last decades misled, and are still misleading, the voters, I know which sources I would rather trust. :)
So one group of Labour politicians is trustworthy, and another is untrustworthy. How is that in any way consistent? What intrinsic thing would you say makes the Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign trustworthy? How do you know that you're not just being naive by believing them? After all, they are part of Labour.

It seems to me that the only reason you trust the above group of Labour politicians is because they are anti-EU. They are merely saying what you want to hear. And the only reason that you don't trust the European Movement or the Labour government is because they are pro-EU. Simple as that.
 
hrdtc said:
Hello! I've just discovered this site, so I thought I would post a slightly random question to do with politics to see what sort of a reaction I get! :)

But I will just mention that I'm not new to the world of Internet message boards, so don't you go thinking that I'm going to be all submissive! :p

Anyway, down to business.

Some people always seem to be moaning about the EU, but what is just so bad about it? For example, it might be said or implied that the EU is foreign, except that the UK is a part of it, and we (the British people) elect MEPs to represent us and the UK government has representatives of itself.

Or what do we get out of it? Lots of influence, as the UK is a major part of the EU.

It seems to me that the people who moan most are right-wingers who read the anti-EU papers: the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun, and, of course, the Daily Mail. These papers are only concerned about whether we are financially gaining or not, and who all give the impression that the EU costs us a lot.

Well I copied down these figures from Newsnight last year - yes, it does show that we are net contributors, but the sums are really not that big.

€14.6bn is paid in to the EU.
We get €5.3bn back in the rebate.

So the UK contribution is €9.3bn.
And of that, we get €7bn back to spend.

Which leaves a net UK contribution of €2.3bn.
(£1.59bn at exchange rate of €1.45/£)

Now I think that the rebate will be cut by 20%. That would leave a net UK contribution of €3.6bn (£2.48bn).

But! Total UK government spending for this year is £552bn, which means that only 0.29%, or 0.45% (depending on which net figure you use), of government spending is going to other states in the EU. So even if all you care about is money, there really is nothing to get worked up about!

The last thing that I can think to mention for now is this: it is said that a lot of legislation is formed at the European level, but like a lot of other Euro-myths, this ain't true - only around 9% of UK legislation is from the EU level. (I shall provide links if you really want them.)

Well, I think that will do for now! :D

I think its a lot more to do with the fact that it wastes a colossal amount of money, is almost entirely unaccountable for instance I don't think their OWN audit office has accepted their accounts for the past 5 years because they are just not of a reasonable standard.

They don't follow their own rules, each MEP is supposed, like our MPs are, to record all of their dealings, but they don't, and nothing is done about it.

They abuse their power, as in the case of the Reporters who have had their homes invaded by the police, their computers taken away and telephones monitored because they dared to speak against the EU.

They are terrible with whistle blowers, they even created a dept to make it better, but one of their most famous whistle blowers is still treated like crap.

It's a shitty beaucracy that is out of control because no one seems to be able to control it.
 
hrdct said:
But how do you know that they had to be "very creative with the facts"? How do you know that it's not the truth?

The clearest source I can find for information about the areas that the EU can legislate in comes from:

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.com/jkcm/default.aspx?pg=138&path=293

The areas over which the EU assumes exclusive competence are

  • the Common Commercial policy
  • the Common Agricultural policy
  • Fisheries policy
  • Transport policy
  • Competition rules
  • Rules governing the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

Member states can only legislate in a very limited way in areas where the EU has exclusive competence

The EU has shared competence in the following:

  • to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities,
  • a high level of employment and of social protection,
  • equality between men and women,
  • sustainable and non-inflationary growth,
  • a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance,
  • a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment,
  • the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and
  • economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.”
  • The defined limits in which the EU governments have agreed that the EU may legislate, and over which they do not have exclusive competence are,
  • the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the functioning of the common market
  • the promotion of coordination between employment policies of the Member States with a view to enhancing their effectiveness by developing a coordinated strategy for employment
  • a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund
  • the strengthening of economic and social cohesion
  • a policy in the sphere of the environment
  • visas, asylum, and immigration
  • economic and monetary policy
  • customs cooperation
  • the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry
  • the promotion of research and technological development
  • the encouragement for the establishment and development of trans-European networks
  • a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection
  • a contribution to education and training of quality and to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States
  • a policy in the sphere of development cooperation
  • the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and promote jointly economic and social development
  • a contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection
  • measures in the spheres of energy, civil protection and tourism.
In areas of shared competence, both the EU and member states can legislate, and the principle of subsidiarity was thought by many to mean that decisions would be taken by member states "close to the citizen" if the desired objectives could be achieved in that way. But the definition as used in the Maastricht Treaty was too vaguely defined in the legal sense and no protection against rulings in the ECJ. EU law is supreme over national law [in these areas] if the Court says it is.

"British negotiators were well aware that subsidiarity ... equalled federation, and were content that it be so, provided the sceptics back home did not hear about it." German Ambassador to Britain, Dr Jurgen Oesterholt, 1996.

That's why I don't believe any source that tells me that only 9% of legislation comes from the EU.


Edited to add [in these areas].
 
From an entirely uneducated perspective, it seems to me that the purpose of the EU is to overrule incredibly stupid descisions made by our own government.

Little I hear about the EU in this thread seems good, and yet whenever the EU is mentioned on the news I seem to feel this wave of relief because it always seems to be to do with stopping the British government (or judicial system) from doing something that's unfair, immoral or just plain stupid.

I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
 
I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

That's exactly the impression the elite want you to get! You don't hear about the bad stuff. Like the fact that a great deal of what Labour is doing is being done to harmonise our systems with the EU's. This is not just happening with us, but to all the other member states too.
 
goneforlunch said:
It is not a proper democracy, although Europhiles prefer the harmless sounding "democratic deficit". The EU has no "opposition"; we cannot vote it out. If we don't like its policies, tough.
Of course you can. If, for example, the populations of europe were all to vote for socialist governments in their own countries, then the commissioners which those countries send to brussels will change EU policy.

I really don't understand this accusation that the EU's population cannot change EU policy. They can!

Now, as a brit, you don't get to vote in Germany and France etc. But so what?
One could argue that is exactly the same situation as we have in the UK for Westminster elections:
First-past-the-post means you can only vote for your own local MP. Your vote has absolutely no impact on the rest of the UK's MPs.

Personally I'd rather see a directly elected european parliament with decision making powers, and proportional representaion in the UK, but I suspect that many right-wing people who anti-EU would oppose both of these.
 
The other grave (but uneducated) misgiving I have about the anti-eu lobby is... well, the anti-eu lobby.

Lieing tabloid scum in a nutshell. Anything that the Sun advocates has me reflexively moving in the opposite direction.
 
TAE said:
If, for example, the populations of europe were all to vote for socialist governments in their own countries, then the commissioners which those countries send to brussels will change EU policy.

Back in the real world, what socialist party has a chance of power in this country? All mainstream parties here support the EU line. I'm not sure how common this in in the rest of the EU, but I have Dutch friends, supporters of EU membership, who have told me they feel 'politcally homeless' and don't feel represented by domestic politicians. Mainstream Dutch politicians support the EU line. The same is true of mainstream Irish politicians.

TAE said:
Personally I'd rather see a directly elected european parliament with decision making powers, and proportional representaion in the UK, but I suspect that many right-wing people who anti-EU would oppose both of these.

That isn't likely to happen with an unenlighted voting public. The EU was not designed to be a democracy. Turning it into one would mean the elite giving up control, with more parties like UKIP gaining more influence. Even the recent moves towards democracy were very limited. Even if the EU did became a true democracy, how could policies applied accross the EU's 450 million people with numerous different languages (and set to grow the once the accession countries are finally accepted) suit everyone? The EU is to big to work.

Nick1181 said:
The other grave (but uneducated) misgiving I have about the anti-eu lobby is... well, the anti-eu lobby. Lieing tabloid scum in a nutshell. Anything that the Sun advocates has me reflexively moving in the opposite direction.

That's a very sweeping generalisation. Straight banana stories? Or did you have something more specific in mind? I'm not a great fan of the newspaper industry either and even the so called quality press is poor source of information most of the time.
 
goneforlunch said:
Back in the real world, what socialist party has a chance of power in this country? All mainstream parties here support the EU line. I'm not sure how common this in in the rest of the EU, but I have Dutch friends, supporters of EU membership, who have told me they feel 'politcally homeless' and don't feel represented by domestic politicians. Mainstream Dutch politicians support the EU line. The same is true of mainstream Irish politicians.
Making the EU a direct democracy would not solve any of those issues.

You'd just have the same parties fielding the same kinds of candidates for the EU elections.
 
TAE said:
Making the EU a direct democracy would not solve any of those issues.

You'd just have the same parties fielding the same kinds of candidates for the EU elections.

I know, and I wasn't advocating that. We would be better off leaving altogether imo.
 
hrdtc said:
But it still sounds like you expect that half of the people who stand as candidates to serve in an organisation would want the overthrow of that organisation. How many MPs elected to the House of Commons want the disbandment of the UK? And, in fact, you actually do get MEPs who want the UK to leave the EU - the UK Independence Party. It's just that not many people choose to vote for them, as is their right.

Most MEPs do support the EU and support the federalist agenda. UKIP and the other anti EU MEPs have nothing like enough MEPs to form a proper opposition, although they contribute as effectively to debates as it's possible to do in the few minutes per week they are allowed to speak in the chamber. (MEPs are allotted a certain amount of time to speak depending on how many MEPs they have.)

How many people do you think would vote for Tory MEPs if they knew that they sat in the most federalist grouping in the EP, and understood what this meant? It is the voters right to vote for whichever party they wish, but most of them are not voting from an informed position. If they were, I would support their right to vote for federalists even though I don't agree with federalism.


hrdct said:
No, I was merely responding to what you had previously posted. You implied that, because the mainstream parties support the evolving EU, it is a bad thing, and so I just pointed out that they would think the opposite.

I didn't mean to imply that, rather that support of the mainstream parties does alone make membership of the EU a good idea, anymore than opposition from anti EU parties alone makes membership a bad idea either.

hrdtc said:
Firstly, if I did my own research, then there would be no point in me coming on a message board to argue it out. I've heard people say that before to do with other things like the BBC. They say, "just do a search on Google", and I say, "why should I have to, either you have the links or you don't". Quite often I don't hear anything back from them after that. And like I said before, you must know that it would be virtually impossible to find a genuinely neutral source on a topic like this.

Fair enough, but you are basing you arguments on what a few people choose to tell you. And you will hear back from me. I'm not an expert, but I have done quite a lot of research, and I don't think that the EU is a boring subject at all. However, it's quite complex, so I'm always glad of corrections or a different perspective.

hrdtc said:
Also, I really don't see how you can say that the press has been mostly uncritical of what the Government does, especially now under Labour from the right-wing papers. As I was saying to someone on another board who was claiming that the BBC doesn't provide a "right of centre" viewpoint, I pointed out that in a debate on Newsnight just the previous night, some of the participants were not just right of centre, but were in fact right-wing.

EU membership is not really a classic right or left wing debate as it crosses the political divide. Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Enoch Powell and later Margaret Thatcher were/are anti EU, Tony Blair (once anti) and David Cameron are both pro EU. (Although neither could really be said to be very right or left wing, both occupying the fabled centre ground.) But the press is not nearly informative enough about the EU or successive governments handing over power to it. How many people know just how much legislative power the EU has over us? It's a fairly basic, but very important issue. The media have failed to inform, fostering the 'irritant' belief I mentioned earlier.

The BBC is especially responsible as a state funded broadcaster with a duty to report the news impartially. A recent report commissioned by its own governors said that it had unintenionally shown bias towards the EU. (It might be unintentional on the part of some less experienced reporters, but not as an organisation.)

You only mixed up one quote I think, it's easily done. With apologies for not replying earlier.
 
TAE said:
Personally I'd rather see a directly elected european parliament with decision making powers, and proportional representaion in the UK

But the EU parliament is directly elected; and the UK MEPs are elected by proportional representation.

One problem has been the lack of power of the EU parliament.

It's an indictment of UK media coverage of the EU that it's constantly necessary to explain that any EU legislation has to get through three separate and very different bodies:

  • The Commission - the Civil Service, but the only one of the three that can propose new legislation;
  • The Parliament - more in a moment; and
  • The Council (of Europe). Its members are government ministers from the member states so perhaps it's the "indirect" bit you're thinking of. This is where the member states exercise their veto.

Quick guide to their relative importance ten years ago, when I went on a meet-the-EU trip.

Lunch
  • The Commission - silver service, more cutlery and different glasses than I've ever seen;
  • The Council generic, if high-quality, business nibbles; and
  • The Parliament - bad Italian restaurant round the corner.

This is changing, and quite fast. The Parliament has gained a lot of power in the past few years.

(For example, the Services Directive is not dead. The Commission and the Council have, I am told, accepted a huge number of the amendments the Parliament passed. The "country of origin principle" - the favourite tool of companies that want to move their business to the place with the least regulation - is out. It goes back to the Parliament in November.)

The monopoly the Commission has on proposing legislation is indeed strange.

It was, however, probably the only way the thing could get off the ground.

There've always been UKIP-style nutters; and mad Catholic parties; and so on. Letting them all propose laws... maybe it'll be grown-up enough to handle the cacophony of full parliamentary "democracy" soon.

But that - like any conceivable move to make the EU more democratic - is fundamentally Federalist. None of its opponents want it to be more democratic; they want to snipe at its lack of legitimacy but they're scared shitless of what would happen if it gained a smidgen of legitimacy.

And I think the motive of opponents from right and left is the same: they resent the fact that the EU (and the Council of Europe, the entirely separate organisation that handles the Human Rights thing) stand in the way of their fantasies of revolution-in-one-country.

The EU stands in the way of right-authoritarian fantasies of, say, a Britain closed to "outsiders" with US-style hire-and-fire-at-will policies; and it stands in the way of, say, left-authoritarian fantasies of nationalising the banks and imposing tariffs on imports of goods.

Please, no-one think that because I'm answering its opponents I think it's perfect. This isn't football.
 
laptop said:
But the EU parliament is directly elected; and the UK MEPs are elected by proportional representation.

One problem has been the lack of power of the EU parliament.

It's an indictment of UK media coverage of the EU that it's constantly necessary to explain that any EU legislation has to get through three separate and very different bodies:

  • The Commission - the Civil Service, but the only one of the three that can propose new legislation;
  • The Parliament - more in a moment; and
  • The Council (of Europe). Its members are government ministers from the member states so perhaps it's the "indirect" bit you're thinking of. This is where the member states exercise their veto.

Quick guide to their relative importance ten years ago, when I went on a meet-the-EU trip.

Lunch
  • The Commission - silver service, more cutlery and different glasses than I've ever seen;
  • The Council generic, if high-quality, business nibbles; and
  • The Parliament - bad Italian restaurant round the corner.

This is changing, and quite fast. The Parliament has gained a lot of power in the past few years.

(For example, the Services Directive is not dead. The Commission and the Council have, I am told, accepted a huge number of the amendments the Parliament passed. The "country of origin principle" - the favourite tool of companies that want to move their business to the place with the least regulation - is out. It goes back to the Parliament in November.)

The monopoly the Commission has on proposing legislation is indeed strange.

It was, however, probably the only way the thing could get off the ground.

There've always been UKIP-style nutters; and mad Catholic parties; and so on. Letting them all propose laws... maybe it'll be grown-up enough to handle the cacophony of full parliamentary "democracy" soon.

But that - like any conceivable move to make the EU more democratic - is fundamentally Federalist. None of its opponents want it to be more democratic; they want to snipe at its lack of legitimacy but they're scared shitless of what would happen if it gained a smidgen of legitimacy.

And I think the motive of opponents from right and left is the same: they resent the fact that the EU (and the Council of Europe, the entirely separate organisation that handles the Human Rights thing) stand in the way of their fantasies of revolution-in-one-country.

The EU stands in the way of right-authoritarian fantasies of, say, a Britain closed to "outsiders" with US-style hire-and-fire-at-will policies; and it stands in the way of, say, left-authoritarian fantasies of nationalising the banks and imposing tariffs on imports of goods.

Please, no-one think that because I'm answering its opponents I think it's perfect. This isn't football.

All very interesting, but it still doesn't deal with the corruption in the EU, the back-slapping, the wasted money, the almost incestual nature of it all and the blatant disregard for their own rules and regulations.

Personally my problem isn't Brussels making decisions, since if its Westminster of Brussels who really cares.

My problem has always been the place is a hotbed of nepotism surrounded by corruption and an ignorance of their own standards.
 
Fong said:
My problem has always been the place is a hotbed of nepotism surrounded by corruption and an ignorance of their own standards.

Your comment smacks of swallowing selective reporting by newspapers hostile to the EU.

And why are they hostile? Because their owners fear regulation of any kind. Murdoch, especially. Restrictions on advertising junk-food to children could cost him billions...

Yes, there is corruption - though I believe financially the most significant part takes place in the local offices of the Mediterranean nations' agriculture ministries.

But I don't believe there's more corruption than in Westminster. It's just more deeply entrenched, better hidden and less investigated in Westminster. The revolving door from Cabinet and Civil Service to privatised industries, anyone? Taking us into a fucking stupid war?
 
laptop said:
But the EU parliament is directly elected; and the UK MEPs are elected by proportional representation. This is changing, and quite fast. The Parliament has gained a lot of power in the past few years.

True, MEPs are directly elected by PR, but once elected they have to sit in cross country groupings in order to qualify for funds, with one MEP per about 600,000 people and hardly representative on that ratio. (Incidentally, the EU wants EU funded parties with only those that support it benefitting.) Necessary changes are tied to the federalising Constitution and don't come close to making it a democracy. The Commission owes its allegiance to the EU and the EP is stuffed with federalists, so its gaining power does not help imo.

The 'country of origin principle' allows businesses to operate in a country under the regulations of its home country, and seems certain to be abused. And it was watered down after thousands of people demonstrated on the streets. It mattered so much to them that even the EU couldn't ignore the protests. There are many amendments and it remains to be seen how it will work out in practical terms ... this measure is important to the federalists.

It shows that if our interests are shared by people across the Union, we have a chance of stopping or delaying bad legislation, but if legislation is bad for the UK alone we have almost no chance.


There've always been UKIP-style nutters

But that - like any conceivable move to make the EU more democratic - is fundamentally Federalist. None of its opponents want it to be more democratic; they want to snipe at its lack of legitimacy but they're scared shitless of what would happen if it gained a smidgen of legitimacy.

And I think the motive of opponents from right and left is the same: they resent the fact that the EU (and the Council of Europe, the entirely separate organisation that handles the Human Rights thing) stand in the way of their fantasies of revolution-in-one-country.

The EU stands in the way of right-authoritarian fantasies of, say, a Britain closed to "outsiders" with US-style hire-and-fire-at-will policies; and it stands in the way of, say, left-authoritarian fantasies of nationalising the banks and imposing tariffs on imports of goods.


Every party has its nutters, but can you explain why you see leaving the EU as bad idea? What do we gain from staying in? Why are you in favour of federalism?

I don't resent the EU. I certainly don't want a revolution, at least not until democracy is dead. The Council of Europe (not to be confused with the Council of the European Union) drew up the European Convention on Human Rights as adopted by the EU. But the EU definitely "handles the human rights thing". But of course if we must stay in, I want it to be democratic; to suggest otherwise is an unfounded cheap shot.

Who wants to close Britain to outsiders, the BNP apart? Not UKIP that's for sure. The EU with its protectionist policies is standing in the way of international trade. African countries are deeply damaged by the CAP for instance. And we cannot even negotiate trade policies on our own behalf because our very membership of the EU denies us that right.

The Council of the European Union is hard to figure. Why have ministers from national governments given up vetoes on so many areas (over 30 in the Treaty of Nice alone) and most of what is left will go when the Constitution comes into force. They seem to be up to their necks in the federalisation project. When the UK had the presidency, ministers pushed biometric ID cards across the EU and they now being planned EU wide. Our National ID register is likely to become a part of the creepy Schengen Information System. The Council's ministers from the UK are not kept in check by the Conservatives.

The darker side of the EU is hidden under the propaganda. Do the people want to live in a federalist state paying lip service to democracy? I don't think so, but we'll never know for certain because they have never been given the full facts and then asked.


laptop said:
Your comment smacks of swallowing selective reporting by newspapers hostile to the EU.

I think newspapers in the UK are a bad source of information, particularly about politics. What does that make my comments?


fong said:
Personally my problem isn't Brussels making decisions, since if its Westminster of Brussels who really cares.

Some of us care. We want politicians that we can vote out of office every four years if they don't govern the country in a way that the majority wants. Voting out Labour and installing another pro EU party will not bring about real change, not enough vetoes. But if we leave the EU, politics is back in business.
 
goneforlunch said:
True, MEPs are directly elected by PR, but once elected they have to sit in cross country groupings in order to qualify for funds,

I know of nothing that stops a party that doesn't want to join a multinational group simply forgoing the funds.

goneforlunch said:
The 'country of origin principle' allows businesses to operate in a country under the regulations of its home country, and seems certain to be abused. And it was watered down after thousands of people demonstrated on the streets.

As reported to me, it's effectively abandoned. The phrase used was that it is replaced with the "freedom to provide services"... which would allow national regulation. For the avoidance of doubt: this is a preliminary report from a close observer.

The protests had an effect, and the Parliament had an effect. The EU still has a "democratic deficit". But the Council and the Commission have in fact been swayed by the will of the people on the streets and in the Parliament, which rather weakens your argument.

goneforlunch said:
It shows that if our interests are shared by people across the Union, we have a chance of stopping or delaying bad legislation, but if legislation is bad for the UK alone we have almost no chance.

What is there that the EU is empowered to do under the acquis communitaire that would be "bad for Britain alone"? Demander que t'apprends Français? :)

goneforlunch said:
Every party has its nutters, but can you explain why you see leaving the EU as bad idea? What do we gain from staying in?

On a purely selfish basis, as a trade unionist in the UK, I'd see the Working Time Directive and other labour market regulation as giving improvements in our working lives here that could only have been achieved through the EU. To take one example.

The EU has been a civilising influence on the Tory governments we've suffered in the UK for the past 25 years. I'm afraid I don't see a probability of that position changing in the next 10. In fact I fear that it will be the more needed in the next 5.

goneforlunch said:
Why are you in favour of federalism?

I did not say I was. To clarify: I don't know. I was merely pointing out the contradiction in positions of the antis, including you: you can't logically complain about lack of democracy and oppose federalism (even if only federalism for those still in). You see?

goneforlunch said:
The Council of the European Union is hard to figure. Why have ministers from national governments given up vetoes on so many areas (over 30 in the Treaty of Nice alone) and most of what is left will go when the Constitution comes into force.

As I analyse it, the veto was always a transitional provision to make it possible for governments to sign up. I'd love to see an analysis of its use: I predict that it would be found to have been used more often in the interests of members states' governments and parties than in the interests of the people (any of the peoples).

goneforlunch said:
But if we leave the EU, politics is back in business.

Is it? Would it be?

I see a strong feeling among many Europeans that it is important that there be somewhere else that is not the USA. (What I mean by somewhere else is that, for all the awfulness of the Soviet Union, its existence enlivened politics outside its sphere because it demonstrated the existence of at least one alternative).

So now it's an aspiring, flawed, broadly social-democrat alternative. But still... the least bad we have.

I am 98% sure that if the UK were to leave the EU it would become purely and unambiguously a vassal state of the US. That is precisely what some anti-EU Tories have called for. Teddy Taylor even suggested in an Evening Standard article that the UK should join NAFTA and aspire to be Mexico.
 
There was an interesting thing on Norway and the EU last night. The conclusions were that if the EU is your largest market, then you're subject to it's laws whether you're a member or not. If you are a member though, you aren't automatically hit with non-member tarrifs, and you do get a say as to how it's run.

Anyway, I'm pro EU because every time I hear of the EU over-rulling "our democratically elected leaders" it seems to over something really fucking irresponsible that our democratically elected leaders would like to do.

I don't really know that much about the EU, but I definately don't trust our own leaders - and don't have much faith in UK democracy generally as the two UK parties are just two different flavours of Tory.
 
laptop said:
I know of nothing that stops a party that doesn't want to join a multinational group simply forgoing the funds.

Not having any money is a pretty big problem in politics. The multinationals are pro EU, so any anti EU party would struggle to find financial backing to match state funding. And denying state funds to opponents? How democratic is that?!


laptop said:
As reported to me, it's effectively abandoned. The phrase used was that it is replaced with the "freedom to provide services"... which would allow national regulation. For the avoidance of doubt: this is a preliminary report from a close observer.

This is probably no more than a delay inkeeping with the usual EU method of taking the line of least resistance to get its way. It remains to be seen by how much this directive will be abused and how the ammendments work out. As to its being effectively abandoned, it's not dead then like the Constitution was said to be?

laptop said:
The protests had an effect, and the Parliament had an effect. The EU still has a "democratic deficit". But the Council and the Commission have in fact been swayed by the will of the people on the streets and in the Parliament, which rather weakens your argument.

Not really Laptop. If our interests don't coincide with enough member states, we are virtually powerless. Direct action should not be necessary in a democracy, and certainly not on something as basic as workers' rights.


laptop said:
What is there that the EU is empowered to do under the acquis communitaire that would be "bad for Britain alone"? Demander que t'apprends Français? :)

Enforce its competition rules for one. Britain requested permission from Brussels to put in a grant of £14,000,000 to the Peugeot factory at Ryton to encourage Peugeot to make a major investment there to produce a new model. No answer was received for two years and meanwhile Slovakia joined the EU and £78,000,000 in aid was given to them to facilitate the investment by Peugeot there. The new model will be made there.

So, the British taxpayers (including those at Ryton and its suppliers workforce in the UK) helped to pay for a factory in Slovakia, resulting in the closure of Ryton. The majority of suppliers to Ryton were French firms which continue to supply the factory in Slovakia and are therefore largely unaffected by all this.

Game set and match to Chirac and the French, and "bad for Britain".



laptop said:
On a purely selfish basis, as a trade unionist in the UK, I'd see the Working Time Directive and other labour market regulation as giving improvements in our working lives here that could only have been achieved through the EU. To take one example.

Isn't it the Working Time Directive that limits the hours an employee may work? If a worker chooses to work long hours, that should be between him or her and the employer. What if someone has a large family, or an expensive dream, or large debts? Other labour market regulations are very damaging to small businesses, and businesses in the EU are over regulated; we can't compete on costs with those outside the EU. That cannot help employment rates in the long term. If labour reforms are a good idea, the politicians ought to be able to justify them to the majority of voters, in or out of the EU.

laptop said:
The EU has been a civilising influence on the Tory governments we've suffered in the UK for the past 25 years.

How? Any future British government elected on a mandate of say overturning the Working Time Directive, or re-nationalising railways or utility companies, would find that it would need the agreement a majority of the other member states. I'm not a Tory. But no government in the last 30+ years has been elected on a platform of turning control of our country over to a bureacracy covering over 400 million people and counting, let alone that has always had a "democratic deficit". How is doing that in such an underhanded way in anyway democratic?


laptop said:
I did not say I was. To clarify: I don't know. I was merely pointing out the contradiction in positions of the antis, including you: you can't logically complain about lack of democracy and oppose federalism (even if only federalism for those still in). You see?

Yes I can. The EU version of federalism will not be democratic. Do you see?


laptop said:
As I analyse it, the veto was always a transitional provision to make it possible for governments to sign up. I'd love to see an analysis of its use: I predict that it would be found to have been used more often in the interests of members states' governments and parties than in the interests of the people (any of the peoples).

I'd like to see an analysis too, but I can't see how taking away a member states right to a veto works in the interests of that state. What's the point of voting for domestic politicians if they have no right to veto?


goneforlunch said:
But if we leave the EU, politics is back in business.
laptop said:
Is it? Would it be?

Of course it would. Our politicians sound more like bureacrats than politicians because most issues are just not worth debating in a domestic setting because policies are decided by QMV at a European level.

laptop said:
I see a strong feeling among many Europeans that it is important that there be somewhere else that is not the USA. (What I mean by somewhere else is that, for all the awfulness of the Soviet Union, its existence enlivened politics outside its sphere because it demonstrated the existence of at least one alternative).

The EU wants to rival US in terms of status and power, but it has a very long way to go for that to happen.

laptop said:
So now it's an aspiring, flawed, broadly social-democrat alternative. But still... the least bad we haveI am 98% sure that if the UK were to leave the EU it would become purely and unambiguously a vassal state of the US. That is precisely what some anti-EU Tories have called for. Teddy Taylor even suggested in an Evening Standard article that the UK should join NAFTA and aspire to be Mexico.

It depends on which party forms the government. Not all EU opponents are Tories, and most serious ones have no time for the Tories anyway. [UKIP was against the War without a mandate from the UN.] If the EU is the least bad, we are well and truly screwed. We were actually offered talks on joining NAFTA by a US senator, who was rebuffed by the FO because we can't join other trade agreements; we are part of the EU. Silly senator. The merits of such an offer should have been debated at Westminster at least.
 
nick1181 said:
There was an interesting thing on Norway and the EU last night. The conclusions were that if the EU is your largest market, then you're subject to it's laws whether you're a member or not. If you are a member though, you aren't automatically hit with non-member tarrifs, and you do get a say as to how it's run.

All EFTA countries trade on better terms with the EU than we do, and implement far less of its directives. Their people are periodically asked by their politicians to vote on joining the EU, but sensibly, they keep turning membership diown. Were you told stuff like that?

Leaving would mean that we could trade on our own terms with markets in growing economies. Maybe you just need to have more faith in the British to see it though.

nick1181 said:
Anyway, I'm pro EU because every time I hear of the EU over-rulling "our democratically elected leaders" it seems to over something really fucking irresponsible that our democratically elected leaders would like to do.

Example please?

nick1181 said:
I don't really know that much about the EU, but I definately don't trust our own leaders - and don't have much faith in UK democracy generally as the two UK parties are just two different flavours of Tory.

Exactly (well sort of: I would have said that the two parties are veer more towards being flavours of Labour. :p ) There's no difference between Labour and the Tories because they are both pro-EU and are implementing/supporting EU policies too often. It's that simple. (Apart from the War, which they both supported for other reasons.) I think you are quite right not to trust our leaders.
 
No copy n paste here -I did postgrad research on the EU some time ago ..and I cant remember any of it to be honest...BUT a good rule of thumb - anything that gets the established rich & powefuls backs up AND avoid our patently self serving politicians doing anything too obviously knee jerk isnt a bad thing in my book...and having one currency and no internal borders if FAB for the travel addicts like meself.

I can overlook the petty critisisms & inefficiencies inherent within a monolitjic structure like the EU & see the benefits....
 
goneforlunch said:
Example please?

The thing that I'm involved with at the moment is to do with waste management in East Sussex. The EU Landfill directive sets targets for reducing biodegradeable waste going to landfill.

Oh that's ok, sayeth our local councillors, we'll just burn it then. So they've made a deal with a private company without doing proper consultation etc to build a massive incinerator - apparently costing the tax-payers about 300 million quid.

I'm not sure where this one is going to go - but one of the options is to take it to the European courts.

Other things tend to turn up every couple of weeks or so - generally human rights, pollution etc etc.



The EU wants to rival US in terms of status and power, but it has a very long way to go for that to happen.

"The EU wants"?

What exactly is this entity that's "wanting" in this context. Who exactly are you talking about?

The type of power that the EU does have is often more effective than the mere physical force that the US weilds. The European approach tends to see everyone in the world as a potential friend. The American approach - particularly under Bush tends to see the whole world as a potential enemy. As a result, Europe has transformed and assimilated it's neighbours... What's happening in the Southern American continent appears to be the opposite.


Anyway, that's all from me.
 
zoltan69 said:
I did postgrad research on the EU some time ago ..and I cant remember any of it to be honest..

Rather a shame you, I'd like to see the information you base your views on.

zoltan69 said:
BUT a good rule of thumb - anything that gets the established rich & powefuls backs up AND avoid our patently self serving politicians doing anything too obviously knee jerk isnt a bad thing in my book...and having one currency and no internal borders if FAB for the travel addicts like meself.

The rich and powerful and our self-serving politicians support the EU, why else do you think the public is so in the dark? Your post graduate research, if it looked at both sides of the debate, should have told you that having one currency and no internal borders is not necessarily a good thing at all.


zoltan69 said:
I can overlook the petty critisisms & inefficiencies inherent within a monolitjic structure like the EU & see the benefits....

Which of my criticisms have been petty? As to the benefits ... tell it to the workers of Ryton.
 
goneforlunch said:
Rather a shame you, I'd like to see the information you base your views on.



The rich and powerful and our self-serving politicians support the EU, why else do you think the public is so in the dark? Your post graduate research, if it looked at both sides of the debate, should have told you that having one currency and no internal borders is not necessarily a good thing at all.




Which of my criticisms have been petty? As to the benefits ... tell it to the workers of Ryton.

whos been nipping at your arse today ? :confused:
 
goneforlunch Your post graduate research said:
at all[/I].



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
1. Biggest trading block in the world.
2. A G.D.P. higher than most.
3...Internal tarriff barriers removed.
4. Free movement of people and goods.
5. Potentially the largest currency in the world.
I could go on and on..and there`s that little thing called sub-siduarity which ensures that power flows from the centre to the local.......
 
goneforlunch said:
sn't it the Working Time Directive that limits the hours an employee may work? If a worker chooses to work long hours, that should be between him or her and the employer.

Ah. The flavour of this language implies that you are in favour of US-style so-called "right-to-work" anti-regualation policies.

In which case that would be the underlying difference and all effort put into countering your ostensible arguments would be wasted :(
 
Nick1181 said:
The thing that I'm involved with at the moment is to do with waste management in East Sussex. The EU Landfill directive sets targets for reducing biodegradeable waste going to landfill

Oh that's ok, sayeth our local councillors, we'll just burn it then. So they've made a deal with a private company without doing proper consultation etc to build a massive incinerator - apparently costing the tax-payers about 300 million quid.

I'm not sure where this one is going to go - but one of the options is to take it to the European courts.

As you rightly say the EU has set targets for reducing the amount of waste going to landfill sites. But that leaves too much waste that must be disposed of by other means. It isn't practical or economically possible to recycle enough to meet the target. The incinerators are a result of the landfill directive. The ECJ is very unlikely to stand in the way of incinerator projects provided they are properly regulated for the environment and human health.

People living in E Sx have written thousands of letters in protest and have been ignored. (My house is in East Sussex.) Do you really think local councillors have made this decision? We are not the only country being forced to turn to incinerators in order to comply with this directive.

nick1181 said:
Other things tend to turn up every couple of weeks or so - generally human rights, pollution etc etc.

In what way do you think the EU has enhanced our human rights? As for pollution, most EU countries, but not Britain, failed to meet their Kyoto targets by a long way, and the EU for all its fine words, hasn't had much impact. To read its literature you'd think only the EU cared about the environment. :rolleyes:


nick1181 said:
"The EU wants"?

What exactly is this entity that's "wanting" in this context. Who exactly are you talking about?

The Lisbon agenda specifically, from 2000. Its declared objective was to turn the EU into the world's most competitive, dynamic, knowledge based economy by 2010. That's a very laudable ambition (sincerely) but there has not been the will to meet the objective. More fine words.

nick1181 said:
The type of power that the EU does have is often more effective than the mere physical force that the US weilds. The European approach tends to see everyone in the world as a potential friend. The American approach - particularly under Bush tends to see the whole world as a potential enemy. As a result, Europe has transformed and assimilated it's neighbours... What's happening in the Southern American continent appears to be the opposite.

The European approach to empire building is to entice poor countries on its borders to join. Can you blame them with the money on offer? Not hard to make friends that way. And I heard that the EU had tried to convince South American countries to form a union like the EU, but the South America declined. But please don't think that because I don't like the EU way that I must think the US method is good. I don't think it is much better than the EU. But at least its government didn't deceitfully sell its people out to a foreign politicians.

All questions to Nick1181 are rhetorical as he or she has left the thread, but I couldn't leave them to stand without a reply!


zoltan69 said:
whos been nipping at your arse today ?

Be glad you don't live with me. ;)


laptop said:
Ah. The flavour of this language implies that you are in favour of US-style so-called "right-to-work" anti-regualation policies.

I don't. I do want patronising politiicans to understand that my work/life balance is none of their concern, but at least you didn't imply that because I don't think the EU is good for Britain, that I must want GB to be America's 51st state. I'm grateful for that at least. Just because I think we'd be better off leaving and negotiating a free trade agreement, does not mean that I think the US way of doing things is good either.

Above all else, I want the British people to retain democratic control. You might be happy with the EU now, but what if you are not?

Cemertyone

1. Biggest trading block in the world.

So what? It doesn't benefit Britain

2. A G.D.P. higher than most.

But falling behind the USA and most of Asia

3...Internal tarriff barriers removed.

And replaced with mountains of paperwork and red tape, but the multinationals have benefitted.

4. Free movement of people
Again so what? :people have been living in countries not their own for years before the EU allowed free movement. All this has done has removed the right of national governments to decide who lives in their countries.

5. Potentially the largest currency in the world.
The largest currency in the world is not necessarily good. Roubles anyone?

I could go on and on..and there`s that little thing called sub-siduarity which ensures that power flows from the centre to the local.......

I mentioned subsidiarity earlier in post #34, but here it is again ...

In areas of shared competence, both the EU and member states can legislate, and the principle of subsidiarity was thought by many to mean that decisions would be taken by member states "close to the citizen" if the desired objectives could be achieved in that way. But the definition as used in the Maastricht Treaty was too vaguely defined in the legal sense and no protection against rulings in the ECJ. EU law is supreme over national law [in these areas] if the Court says it is.

"British negotiators were well aware that subsidiarity ... equalled federation, and were content that it be so, provided the sceptics back home did not hear about it." German Ambassador to Britain, Dr Jurgen Oesterholt, 1996.

Federation, EU style does not = democracy.
 
goneforlunch said:
Again so what? :people have been living in countries not their own for years before the EU allowed free movement. All this has done has removed the right of national governments to decide who lives in their countries.

So now everyone in the EU has free movement within it. Before, national governments could pick and choose the wealthiest, or the most skilled. There are many things wrong with the EU, but this is a very good thing.
 
Tokyo said:
So now everyone in the EU has free movement within it. Before, national governments could pick and choose the wealthiest, or the most skilled.

Asylum seekers who are truly afraid of persecution or torture in their own countries should of couse be welcome to claim asylum here. However our immigration and asylum policy is controlled by the EU, and the EU is barely accountable to British voters.

Tokyo said:
There are many things wrong with the EU, but this is a very good thing.

That lack of democratic accountability is not a good thing at all imo.

Cadmus said:
Although you cannot "vote it out", the proposed Constitution tried to introduce (for the first time) the option to leave the EU which currently doesn't exist under the Treaties.

(I didn't reply to this earlier to avoid hideousness.) The Constitution allowed for member states to negotitate withdrawal which could take years, and during the negotiating period, the member state would take no part in the decision making process. We have always had the option to leave by the repeal of the 1972 Communities Act. Post Constitution ... a member will need permission from the other states before withdrawal.
 
Back
Top Bottom