What is just so bad about the European Union?

[hrdtc]

MEPs

I'm not sure if I replied to this before, so I'm going to reply to it now.

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.)

As I said before, it's not surprising that most MEPs support the EU, because not many people would stand as candidates for an organisation that wanted it overthrown. And as for MEPs who don't support the federalist agenda, the number of them depends on who people vote for, so I don't see what your complaint is.

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.

And what you seem to be saying here is that the voters aren't educated enough. But if the EU is such a bad thing, then it is for parties like UKIP to inform them of that, other parties will respond, and then people will make up their minds who to believe depending on who they trust. You obviously trust UKIP. But other people such as myself don't. This is turning into a slightly rambling point, so to end, it seems that you are perhaps rather arrogant in thinking that you know what the 'real' EU is like.

 

[laptop]

You obviously trust UKIP. But other people such as myself don't.

In particular, I don't trust that UKIP or its supporters oppose the EU for the reasons they offer.

 

[goneforlunch]

it's not surprising that most MEPs support the EU, because not many people would stand as candidates for an organisation that wanted it overthrown. And as for MEPs who don't support the federalist agenda, the number of them depends on who people vote for, so I don't see what your complaint is.

On the contrary, there are good reasons to stand as an MEP whatever your views of the EU. I'm sure pro-EU MEPs really do believe in it, but life is very good on the gravy train and that must help. It also gives anti-EU MEPs a platform from which to campaign, and no doubt they enjoy the good life too. I think I have set out my complaints about MEPs fairly well in this thread.

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.

And what you seem to be saying here is that the voters aren't educated enough. But if the EU is such a bad thing, then it is for parties like UKIP to inform them of that, other parties will respond, and then people will make up their minds who to believe depending on who they trust. You obviously trust UKIP. But other people such as myself don't. This is turning into a slightly rambling point, so to end, it seems that you are perhaps rather arrogant in thinking that you know what the 'real' EU is like.

I'm saying that the political elite have very deliberately misled the voters about the EU and its predecessors for decades. From no "loss of sovereignty" Ted Heath to your source for the 9% figure, Richard Corbett MEP, who says that regional assemblies have "nothing whatsoever to do with the EU", and David Cameron who says that UKIP are "... closet racists, mostly". Tony Blair was at least good enough to admit that we could probably negotiate a free trade agreement if we left, although most voters are unaware of his view. The elite political machine is so keen to keep UKIP down, it would rather promote the BNP. Having said that, UKIP needs to promote itself more effectively.

I take it you'd support a referendum on EU membership? After a fair debate, with both yes and no camps having the same spending limits? (In the Wilson referendum the yes side outvoted the no side by a ratio of around 14 : 1.) I wouldn't say I know what the 'real' EU is like, because the EU means different things depending on your views, but I do know the very considerable downsides that the average voter seems to be unaware of. And I trust UKIP more than I trust mainstream politicians, and more than I trust the EU, that's all. Who do you trust? Do you still trust the official 9% figure for instance?

In particular, I don't trust that UKIP or its supporters oppose the EU for the reasons they offer.

Meaning what? I have stated my reasons honestly.

 

[TAE]

Meaning for instance that you complained about a perceived lack of democracy in the EU and then you said that you were not in fact advocating direct democracy anyway and you thought we should just leave the EU.
(post #8 vs post #41)

 

[laptop]

Meaning for instance that it turns out you're actually opposed to EU workers' rights law and in favour of US hire'n'fire practice.

 

[goneforlunch]

Meaning for instance that you complained about a perceived lack of democracy in the EU and then you said that you were not in fact advocating direct democracy anyway and you thought we should just leave the EU.
(post #8 vs post #41)

Last edited by TAE : 03-06-2006 at 10:55 AM.

I think the EU is too big to ever be properly democratic, and democracy within the EU is not on offer anyway, which is why I think we'd be better off out. And the lack of democracy is not perceived at all. It's a fact. Nothing in any of my posts contradicts that view.

Meaning for instance that it turns out you're actually opposed to EU workers' rights law and in favour of US hire'n'fire practice.

From this ...

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?
At the bottom of post # 58

... you have managed to deduce that I am opposed to EU workers' rights law and in favour of US policies? (Some EU employment laws I am in wholehearted agreement with.)

You might be happy with the EU now, but what if you are not?

For example if the EU takes away those workers' rights, what then? Riots on the streets? And a possible breakdown in society?

 

[TAE]

I think the EU is too big to ever be properly democratic

Too big compared to the US, for instance? Or India? Do you think China could never be democratic?

and democracy within the EU is not on offer anyway, which is why I think we'd be better off out.

Where did that 'which is why' come from again?

When I explained my view that all EU citizens together do have control over what the EU does and that even direct democracy would not change current policy, your response was that you would still want us to leave the EU.

So your problem seems not to be with the EU being undemocratic, but with the democratic will of most EU citizens.

In fact you said in post #41 that you were not advocating direct democracy in the EU.

For example if the EU takes away those workers' rights, what then? Riots on the streets? And a possible breakdown in society?

National election victories in most EU countries for parties which are in favour of workers rights, leading to a reversal of the new EU policy, would be the most likely way of dealing with that. In fact, that is exactly what does happen. Most EU countries elected governments which are in favour of worker's rights, and hence worker's rights are part of EU policy.

 

[goneforlunch]

Too big compared to the US, for instance? Or India? Do you think China could never be democratic?

Your examples are not made up of individual countries, with 20 official languages, riven with nationalistic interests, and many wide cultural differences. Those countries came together as a result of natural progression over time, certainly much longer than 60 years or so. That could hardly be said to the the case with the EU.

and democracy within the EU is not on offer anyway, which is why I think we'd be better off out.

Where did that 'which is why' come from again?

It came from me obviously, and beyond that, I'm sorry but don't understand your question.

When I explained my view that all EU citizens together do have control over what the EU does and that even direct democracy would not change current policy, your response was that you would still want us to leave the EU. So your problem seems not to be with the EU being undemocratic, but with the democratic will of most EU citizens.

I don't agree that EU citizens have anything like enough control over what the EU does to be considered effective. Also, you haven't addressed the lack of candour in the political debate in this country, and therefore the lack of information on which most voters base their decision. But leaving that aside for now, it is clear that the EU ignores the will of its people time after time. If a country's citizens are lucky enough to be able to vote on a treaty and turn it down, they are given another opportunity to vote the 'right' way. The Dutch and French no votes against the Constitution have been brushed aside. Parts of it are being implemented now, and the Austrian government, current holder of the presidency, has made a priority of bringing it back, with support from Germany, the next holders. Some citizens have not even been allowed the courtesy of a vote by their own politicians. The EU, and national governments, only listen when it suits them to do so.

In fact you said in post #41 that you were not advocating direct democracy in the EU.

Because I don't think it will work, and it's not on offer anyway. I think we are going around it circles here! There are moves to turn MEPs party groupings into pan-EU parties though. Even if that happens, it still doesn't mean that the EU will be democratic.

National election victories in most EU countries for parties which are in favour of workers rights, leading to a reversal of the new EU policy, would be the most likely way of dealing with that. In fact, that is exactly what does happen. Most EU countries elected governments which are in favour of worker's rights, and hence worker's rights are part of EU policy.

That is true now. But in the future, with multinational corporations holding so much power, and the police state that is in the making, you have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Edit: And apart from that Common Foreign and Security policy and Justice and Home Affairs policies are decided by national ministers, through the Council of the EU, behind closed doors, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny. Some democracy!

 

[TAE]

Your examples are not made up of individual countries, with 20 official languages, riven with nationalistic interests, and many wide cultural differences. Those countries came together as a result of natural progression over time, certainly much longer than 60 years or so. That could hardly be said to the the case with the EU.

What does all that have to do with voting ?

It came from me obviously, and beyond that, I'm sorry but don't understand your question.

I thought my question was pretty clear.

I don't agree that EU citizens have anything like enough control over what the EU does to be considered effective.

Via our elected governments, I think we do. Whether THEY do what the population want is another matter.

That is true now. But in the future, with multinational corporations holding so much power, and the police state that is in the making, you have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Again, that has nothing to do with the EU.

Edit: And apart from that Common Foreign and Security policy and Justice and Home Affairs policies are decided by national ministers, through the Council of the EU, behind closed doors, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny. Some democracy!

Deals behind closed doors, I'm quite certain that's how Westminster works in reality as well.

 

[goneforlunch]

Your examples are not made up of individual countries, with 20 official languages, riven with nationalistic interests, and many wide cultural differences. Those countries came together as a result of natural progression over time, certainly much longer than 60 years or so. That could hardly be said to the the case with the EU.

What does all that have to do with voting ?

You did not compare like with like. Such an ever expanding diverse group of millions of people can't possibly be ruled successfully under one set of policies with a single currency.

I don't agree that EU citizens have anything like enough control over what the EU does to be considered effective.

Via our elected governments, I think we do. Whether THEY do what the population want is another matter.

But in reality our politicians for over 30 years have arrogantly taken us deeper into the European project. Since they have done this, and continue, without the people's informed consent, they very probably have not done what the population wants, and you don't seem to think that matters. I thought you supported democracy?

That is true now. But in the future, with multinational corporations holding so much power, and the police state that is in the making, you have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Again, that has nothing to do with the EU.

Multinationals have nothing to do with the EU? You are joking, right?

Deals behind closed doors, I'm quite certain that's how Westminster works in reality as well.

You're comparing the EU version of democracy to the British parliamentary system and the EU comes out favourably? TAE, you take my breath away. . Westminster's not perfect, but its major faults are the Labour and Conservative parties who have been effectively operating a one party system for years.

 

[TAE]

You did not compare like with like. Such an ever expanding diverse group of millions of people can't possibly be ruled successfully under one set of policies with a single currency.

So you admit that your problem is not with a lack of democracy but with the fundamental idea of a united europe?

But in reality our politicians for over 30 years have arrogantly taken us deeper into the European project.

Yes, our democratically elected politicians.

Multinationals have nothing to do with the EU? You are joking, right?

I'm saying your argument is not a specific argument against the EU but against the general state of politics in capitalist countries.

You're comparing the EU version of democracy to the British parliamentary system and the EU comes out favourably? TAE, you take my breath away. . Westminster's not perfect, but its major faults are the Labour and Conservative parties who have been effectively operating a one party system for years.

I didn't say anything about one being favourable over the other.

 

[goneforlunch]

So you admit that your problem is not with a lack of democracy but with the fundamental idea of a united europe?

My problem is with the lack of democracy now and its dim prospects in an area so large, with such diversity in population. This why I am fundamentally opposed to a united europe under the EU.

Yes, our democratically elected politicians.

But those democratically elected politicians have been operating on the basis of a lie for decades. In common with most pro-EU supporters, you keep avoiding this particular issue. So unless you can deal with this deceit from our democratically elected politicians, and the way the EU brushes aside votes against its treaties, your argument for democracy doesn't have much credibility as far as I am concerned.

You might say that people have their choice to voice a protest in the MEPs they vote for, but European elections are fought mainly on domestic issues because the public knows little about EU politics. It seems the politicians like it that way.

I'm saying your argument is not a specific argument against the EU but against the general state of politics in capitalist countries.

The multinationals support the EU project. (So does the USA, as it has right from the end of the WW2, and made it a condition of the Marshall Aid plan.) I want capitalism kept in control by the socialists, and socialists kept in control by capitalists, not politicians from both sides giving us the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism. And the balance could easily be tipped either way, but more likely towards even more rampant authoritarian capitalism, but the opposite would be just as bad. It's less likely to happen under a proper parliamentary democracy system.

I didn't say anything about one being favourable over the other.

You can either have rule from by the EU, or rule by national parliaments. You can't have both. National politicians having a representation at the Council of the EU counts for little with qualified majority voting. I assume you prefer rule by the EU, am I right?

 

[TAE]

My problem is with the lack of democracy now and its dim prospects in an area so large, with such diversity in population. This why I am fundamentally opposed to a united europe under the EU.

Once again I ask you what the size and diversity of the EU has to do with being able to hold elections?

It sounds more like you are afraid that other EU citizens would out-vote those who agree with you.

But those democratically elected politicians have been operating on the basis of a lie for decades.

Then your problem is clearly not with the EU institutions but with our elected representatives. Again, nothing to do with EU democracy.

So unless you can deal with this deceit from our democratically elected politicians, and the way the EU brushes aside votes against its treaties, your argument for democracy doesn't have much credibility as far as I am concerned.

You don't want a democratic EU anyway !

You might say that people have their choice to voice a protest in the MEPs they vote for, but European elections are fought mainly on domestic issues because the public knows little about EU politics. It seems the politicians like it that way.

Wrong - we can elect different governments which do what we want them to do. For instance, if the whole of the UK wanted out of the EU, we could elect a government which does that, right?

The multinationals support the EU project. (So does the USA, as it has right from the end of the WW2, and made it a condition of the Marshall Aid plan.) I want capitalism kept in control by the socialists, and socialists kept in control by capitalists, not politicians from both sides giving us the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism. And the balance could easily be tipped either way, but more likely towards even more rampant authoritarian capitalism, but the opposite would be just as bad. It's less likely to happen under a proper parliamentary democracy system.

I have already said that I favour a proper EU parliament which makes all the decision, BUT YOU SAID YOU DON'T WANT THAT !

You can either have rule from by the EU, or rule by national parliaments. You can't have both.

Why not both?

 

[goneforlunch]

Once again I ask you what the size and diversity of the EU has to do with being able to hold elections?

The ability to hold elections is not in question, and never has been. It is the remote likelihood of pan European policies being suitable for a population of over 450 million people, and counting, that I am concerned with. I should obviously have made this clearer.

It sounds more like you are afraid that other EU citizens would out-vote those who agree with you.

Oh really? It seems plenty of EU citizens agreed with me on their referendums on the Constitution at least, and others have been denied referendums altogether. And I think a majority of Britsh citizens would agree with me if the government agreed to hold a free and fair referendum on the euro, the Constition, or even on leaving the EU altogether, which is why the government will never agree to hold these referendums. If they did and my side lost, I'd accept it, absolutely, no quibbling! Your side takes the opposite view. Who is the greater supporter of democracy?

Then your problem is clearly not with the EU institutions but with our elected representatives. Again, nothing to do with EU democracy.

I know what my problem is thank you. Both the EU and our own elected representatives have treated us with contempt, and the EU has also treated a great many of its continental European citizens in the same way.

So unless you can deal with this deceit from our democratically elected politicians, and the way the EU brushes aside votes against its treaties, your argument for democracy doesn't have much credibility as far as I am concerned.

You don't want a democratic EU anyway !

This was covered in post #47 in a reply to Cadmus, thus "But of course if we must stay in, I want it to be democratic; to suggest otherwise is an unfounded cheap shot." And your comment in no way deals with the political deceit.

Wrong - we can elect different governments which do what we want them to do. For instance, if the whole of the UK wanted out of the EU, we could elect a government which does that, right?

We could and we might if we had an informed public. Are you saying that the public is well informed on EU politics?

I have already said that I favour a proper EU parliament which makes all the decision, BUT YOU SAID YOU DON'T WANT THAT !

BUT A PROPER EU PARLIAMENT IS NOT ON OFFER REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU WANT! I DON'T WANT THE PARODY THAT IS THE CURRENT EP.

You can either have rule from by the EU, or rule by national parliaments. You can't have both.

Why not both?

Are you serious? I thought you knew how it worked. Too much is covered by Qualified majority voting (QMV), and Britain gets outvoted unless our interests coincide with the majority, and they rarely do. And EU law is supreme over national law. (see post #27 to Cadmus for more info.) Therefore, we are in effect ruled from the EU.

 

[goneforlunch]

And another thing ...

One of the recent newbies - the European Arrest Warrant - proved extremely beneficial for the UK in its fight against terrorism in the case of Hussain Osman. This would have not been possible without the EU's criminal system.

British divers are threatened with a European Arrest Warrant. More detailed information at http://www.diversintrouble.info./

Still think it's a good idea?

 

[Cadmus]

Absolutely.

I don't share your / the site author's exceptionalistic arrogant views that only british law is proper law while all other continental systems are pure shite with no standards whatsoever. Get used to it, countries function with other legal systems too and you're subject to the laws of a foreign country without the opportunity to "test it before a british court" anytime you travel, with or without the EAW. Same applies to foreigners in the UK.

I promised not to participate in this thread and i broke the promise now, damn you!

but now this is my last post. and i'm gonna stick to it!

 

[goneforlunch]

Absolutely.

I don't share your / the site author's exceptionalistic arrogant views that only british law is proper law while all other continental systems are pure shite with no standards whatsoever.

Hey, it wasn't quite that bad, and no more biased than the pro EU propaganda we hear all the time!

And English Common law offers more protection for the accused than the system under which Spanish law operates. If I were one of these men, I'd be scared on financial grounds alone, and they are facing up to 6 years in jail.

Get used to it, countries function with other legal systems too and you're subject to the laws of a foreign country without the opportunity to "test it before a british court" anytime you travel, with or without the EAW. Same applies to foreigners in the UK.

And I won't 'get used' to it until ...

the government agreed to hold a free and fair referendum on the euro, the Constition, or even on leaving the EU altogether, which is why the government will never agree to hold these referendums. If they did and my side lost, I'd accept it, absolutely, no quibbling!

Other countries legal systems are not the same as the evolving EU system though. Don't you think the evidence on which the EAW has been issued seems very, very flimsy? The artefacts brought up were said to be worthless and a Spanish dive team had said no damage had been caused. And you don't expect your own government to give you up on that kind of evidence either!

I promised not to participate in this thread and i broke the promise now, damn you!

but now this is my last post. and i'm gonna stick to it!

Oh come on Cadmus, issues like this need to be publicly debated, not swept out of sight, especially as the public was led to believe these measures were needed to combat terrorism or organised crime. It's not your responsiblity, but you do seem pretty knowledgeable about it all, so your contributions are welcomed. I admired your resolve btw.



Edit: Our gutless government should tell the Spanish to fuck off.

Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said they hoped to be able to help the divers and he said: "This is really a squabble amongst the Spaniards by the looks of things.

"Government permits and okays have been given, and the national government is getting a share of the finds by agreement. "It looks to me as though it is a local prosecutor having a go. The relationship between national and state prosecutions is not good, and these divers are being used as pawns."

 

[TAE]

Well we really are going round in circles here.

The ability to hold elections is not in question, and never has been. It is the remote likelihood of pan European policies being suitable for a population of over 450 million people, and counting, that I am concerned with. I should obviously have made this clearer.

Right.

Oh really? It seems plenty of EU citizens agreed with me on their referendums on the Constitution at least, and others have been denied referendums altogether.

A 'no' to the constitution is not a 'no' to the EU, take France for example.

And I think a majority of Britsh citizens would agree with me if the government agreed to hold a free and fair referendum on the euro, the Constition, or even on leaving the EU altogether, which is why the government will never agree to hold these referendums. If they did and my side lost, I'd accept it, absolutely, no quibbling! Your side takes the opposite view. Who is the greater supporter of democracy?

My side wins every time a european country votes for a pro-EU government.

 

[goneforlunch]

Well we really are going round in circles here.

I'm so glad we agree on that!

The ability to hold elections is not in question, and never has been. It is the remote likelihood of pan European policies being suitable for a population of over 450 million people, and counting, that I am concerned with. I should obviously have made this clearer.

Right.

So we are in agreement then. Do we also agree that the EU is not going to be democratic in the long term forseeable future? Am I right in thinking that this lack of democracy doesn't bother you because the EU's current thinking suits you enough? And that democracy isn't all that important to you anyway?

A 'no' to the constitution is not a 'no' to the EU, take France for example.

The 'no' vote was a vote against the EU's future plans though.

And taking France as an example; it isn't really surprising that the French are not against the EU having fared much better under it than Britain has. Its attitude of disregarding EU rules as and when it chooses means that it often acts in its own nationalistic interests, and that's before taking into account France's very generous relationship with the CAP. Also in the last 20 years we have contributed 58bn euros to the EU whilst France has contributed only 29bn, according to figures from Gordon Brown in an answer to parliament last year. The 'no' votes in France and The Netherlands have been brushed aside, so, not for the first time, referendums have proved worthless.

My side wins every time a european country votes for a pro-EU government.

But not after free and fair debates, and certainly not in Britain. What party in the last 30 odd years has taken power on the basis that it would be giving EU institutions the right to dictate to us? The pro-EU faction has little to be proud of. Having the three main parties fighting for the EU prescribed policies whilst spinning them as their own, does nothing to enthuse voters, and turnout at the last election was only 61% despite a massive ad campaign. If your side could win power after a free, fair election debate, I would say happily say "well done" ... but it seems it doesn't fancy its chances at free and fair debate.

 

[Gmart]

Fear is the killer

Sometimes i wonder what country people here live in. I like the people in the UK but a quick trip to Europe shows how good life can be, and we shouldn't be scared of them.

I agree that the EU is not democratic enough yet, though it is partially. In time i hope, but the British system has many archaic aspects which need to be changed. The education system, the second chamber in Parliament, a written constitution, proper decentralisation from London, laws which actually reflect reality rather than what the politicians think would be popular, etc, etc.

All round this website there are stories aplenty about all the rubbish that happens in the UK which Politicians should not get away with and that avoids the tricky question of foreign policy. What on Earth could the Europeans do to us which is so bad? We will always be British, and so what if we take advantage of Economies of scale at a European level instead of a UK or English level!

Where's the Vision people?????

 

[goneforlunch]

Sometimes i wonder what country people here live in.

Likewise.

I like the people in the UK but a quick trip to Europe shows how good life can be, and we shouldn't be scared of them.

But I am a European, and happy to be so. Are you? I also know, or know of, and admire many continental Europeans, (but that still doesn't mean I want to be ruled by their politicians.) You should have said that we "shouldn't be scared of the European Union", and I'm not. (The terms ''Europe" and "European Union" are not interchangeable; they mean different things, although it suits some to mix them up.) If the good life other Europeans enjoy is because they are members of the EU, why doesn't it also work for us? We are members too.

I agree that the EU is not democratic enough yet, though it is partially. In time i hope, but the British system has many archaic aspects which need to be changed. The education system, the second chamber in Parliament, a written constitution, proper decentralisation from London, laws which actually reflect reality rather than what the politicians think would be popular, etc, etc.

Partial democracy isn't enough, what's missing is too important to be left to 'hope'. You can place your hope in the EU if you want to.

All round this website there are stories aplenty about all the rubbish that happens in the UK which Politicians should not get away with and that avoids the tricky question of foreign policy. What on Earth could the Europeans do to us which is so bad? We will always be British, and so what if we take advantage of Economies of scale at a European level instead of a UK or English level!

So British politicians are crap, no argument from me. It's EU policies they're following, including a lot that I think they shouldn't get away with. (I posted a list of stuff the EU has power over earlier in this thread.) What we need are more political parties with policies of their own as well as the pro EU parties to give voters a real choice in a free and fair debate.

We simply don't need to be members of the EU to access the Single Market, but I'd like us to be able to take advantage of the global market, which we can't do with the EU dictating trade policies to our disadvantage.

As for 'Europeans' and what they could do to us, there's the stuff I posted in this thread to start with. Perhaps you'd like to defend the EU's role in that? There is no need to remind me of the mess British politicians have made of things, I'd only agree with you if you did anyway. I'm not sure in what sense we can remain 'British' in anything but our sentimentality when we are ruled by EU institutions. At least we still have our own currency, no thanks to our parliamentary politicians for that though.

Where's the Vision people?????

Well I've seen the EU vision, and I don't like it. There are other visions, y'know, and the world would be a dull planet if we all thought the same way.

 

[Gmart]

So you accept that the UK system is rubbish as are the Politicians, but then decide that the Europeans are no better and that you would rather be ruled by the British ones. Better the devil you know maybe, but i would argue that we are no different and that we are just talking about another level of cooperation at a bigger level to deal with issues which are European in scope. Dealing with Multinationals for example or speculaters or the capital markets has to be done at that level, not at a national level.

It should be remembered that one of the founding principles of the EU is Subsidiarity which states that if an issue can be dealt with at a local level it should be. It is this principle which scares them in London because they rather like the London-centric system we have which makes sure that London is always OK at the expense of the rest of the country.

The reason why it doesn't help our lives in the UK is that the British system is not being changed or modernised because of vested interests and a lack of vision politically. We are not even up for the European Constitution even though we haven't got one (a crime in itself) but also because we fall for the 'Don't trust the foreigner' bullshit which is perpetuated by the media. Even on the parliament website it goes on about the Glorious Revolution which was anything but.

I am not denying that some stuff comes over from Brussels which is rubbish and should be kicked back, but that's all part of the process, and considering what Blair has got away with, some limits from Brussels are welcome. 4-500 million plus people are not going to let Europe get away with anything.

What other visions do you prefer to deal with the very obvious problems in the UK? Please note that with 60% of trade going to the EU, we actually cannot afford to lose the jobs we would if we pulled out and anyway cooperation is the key to survival isn't it?

 

[TAE]

So we are in agreement then.

No, I'm glad we've put the myth of your concern for democracy to rest.

Do we also agree that the EU is not going to be democratic in the long term forseeable future? Am I right in thinking that this lack of democracy doesn't bother you because the EU's current thinking suits you enough? And that democracy isn't all that important to you anyway?

Bullshit.

The 'no' vote was a vote against the EU's future plans though.

No it wasn't.

And taking France as an example; it isn't really surprising that the French are not against the EU having fared much better under it than Britain has. Its attitude of disregarding EU rules as and when it chooses means that it often acts in its own nationalistic interests, and that's before taking into account France's very generous relationship with the CAP. Also in the last 20 years we have contributed 58bn euros to the EU whilst France has contributed only 29bn, according to figures from Gordon Brown in an answer to parliament last year. The 'no' votes in France and The Netherlands have been brushed aside, so, not for the first time, referendums have proved worthless.

Was there a point to all that or are you just raging against your own prejudices?

But not after free and fair debates, and certainly not in Britain. What party in the last 30 odd years has taken power on the basis that it would be giving EU institutions the right to dictate to us? The pro-EU faction has little to be proud of. Having the three main parties fighting for the EU prescribed policies whilst spinning them as their own, does nothing to enthuse voters, and turnout at the last election was only 61% despite a massive ad campaign. If your side could win power after a free, fair election debate, I would say happily say "well done" ... but it seems it doesn't fancy its chances at free and fair debate.

I'm getting the feeling you would never accept the will of the people unless they agree with YOU.

 

[goneforlunch]

Gmarthews
Our choice is not between rule by mainstream parties or by EU institutions. I have no objection to co-operating with our European partners, but there is a vast difference between that and being ruled by EU institutions. Other countries exist perfectly happily without the EU.

It should also be noted that not all information about the EU is reliable. This was in post # 34 and again in post # 58 ...

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.

And from post # 27 ...

The ECJ decides on cases where national law conflicts with EU law. Long ago it said its rationale was to allow "community interests enshrined in the Treaty of Rome to prevail over the intertia and resistance of the member states." Its duty is to uphold the treaties and anyone who has read them knows they handed a lot of authority over to Brussels. There are no appeals against its decisions ... and the Constitution enhances its powers.

We have over 100,000 pages of EU laws on our statute books, quite zealously implemented by our own civil servants (including masses of red tape), we are aligning our systems to match the EU vision of government, and we have paid £78bn in direct costs into its fraud ridden EU budget since we joined, we have allowed it to control most areas of government policy including our trade policy, and yet you still think the fact that it is not working for us is somehow our own fault? Also we have a Constitution, it's just not written down in the specific way the US and EU Constitutions are.

The 'stuff' that comes from Brussels is in the form of directives, laws, regulations, which must be implemented into British law. To kick it back would mean breaking EU law and leave us open to action from the ECJ. The ECJ rules in favour of EU institutions. Why would the millions of people that you mention stop the EU from getting away with things? Why should they care, they are not the ones being ruled by the EU.

Politicians working in the interests of the people in the UK would be an improved vision. Please note that the figure of 60% figure is as bogus as the 9% (used earlier in the thread as the percentage of EU law passed into British law last year.) We run a huge trade deficit with the other EU member states. If the EU and an independent British government could not come to an agreement, I think individual countries would tell the EU to stuff its trade policy rather than risk a trade dispute with us.

 

[goneforlunch]

No, I'm glad we've put the myth of your concern for democracy to rest.

My concern for democracy is genuine so 'we' can't possibly have done that.

Bullshit.

Oh, such a winning argument.

The 'no' vote was a vote against the EU's future plans though.

No it wasn't.

Well what was it against then?

Was there a point to all that or are you just raging against your own prejudices?

You said take France as an example which I did in a considered reply. Can you now come up with a more considered answer?

I'm getting the feeling you would never accept the will of the people unless they agree with YOU.

It might satisfy you to think like that, but you are wrong.

 

[TAE]

My concern for democracy is genuine so 'we' can't possibly have done that.

You said you would be against the EU even if you were happy with the democratic process.

Oh, such a winning argument.

I made a statement of fact.

Well what was it against then?

It was against the specifics of the proposed constitution, not against the principle.

It might satisfy you to think like that, but you are wrong.

Well then accept that most people vote for pro-EU governments and stop pretending that this support is down to ignorance.

 

[goneforlunch]

You said you would be against the EU even if you were happy with the democratic process.

No I didn't. If you are going to state my position, please stick to the facts. I said I didn't think there was any prospect that the EU would ever be democratic, and that if we had to stay in of course I want it to be democratic.

Do we also agree that the EU is not going to be democratic in the long term forseeable future? Am I right in thinking that this lack of democracy doesn't bother you because the EU's current thinking suits you enough? And that democracy isn't all that important to you anyway?

Bullshit.

So if 'bullshit' is a statement of fact, you believe that the EU is going to be democratic in the long term forseeable future, and you are concerned about the lack of democracy.

Hmm, I'm not convinced on either count, and won't be unless you debate the facts. I don't recall an opinion from you as to how the EU might become democratic, just that you think people voting for pro-EU governments means that the EU has democratic credibility.

It was against the specifics of the proposed constitution, not against the principle.

And amongst other things the Constitution specifically gave more power to EU institutions reducing the role of national governments. I concede that I don't actually know why a majority of those people voted against the treaty, none of us do, but vote 'no' they did and still it marches on regardless.

Well then accept that most people vote for pro-EU governments and stop pretending that this support is down to ignorance.

I do accept that most people vote for pro-EU governments as the evidence for that is patently obvious. But I am pretending absolutely nothing. We have never had an informed public debate about our relationship with the Common Market, the EEC, the EC or the EU, as per government policy even before we joined and, largely, government policy ever since.

"It is as well to state this at the outset - no government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan for European Union must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked, in advance of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan, to make changes of which they may not at first recognize the advantage to themselves as well as to the rest of the world. No satisfactory economic plan for Europe can be devised without sacrifice of sovereignty by the nations concerned." Peter Thorneycroft, a Tory, some years before we joined the Common Market.

I think it's incredible that this plan worked so well, and is still working. and it's difficult not to feel some admiration for these clever, deceitful politicians. I think it's time you dealt with the the facts as well as the propaganda.

And once again .... "any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan, to make changes of which they may not at first recognize the advantage to themselves and the rest of the world.

A perfect example of the deluded politician.

 

[Gmart]

So yr not for British politicians, are unhappy with Europe too but fall for the Unwritten Constitution bullshit.

What are your solutions?

 

[goneforlunch]

So yr not for British politicians, are unhappy with Europe too but fall for the Unwritten Constitution bullshit.

I am not unhappy with Europe. I love lots of European countries, and I disagree with your view with your view of our unwritten Constitution, especially after reading the EU version.

What are your solutions?

After consigning the mainstream parties to the history books? I don't believe the EU is the answer to our problems if we want to live in a free country and think we should leave, set our own polices with due respect for and co-operation with other nations, in the form with a free trade agreement. But I'd settle for and full and fair public debate before the people vote, instead of the bullshit we get now.

 

[TAE]

No I didn't.

Erm:

Originally Posted by TAE
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.