What is just so bad about the European Union?

[TAE]

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.

Indeed. The EU is run by democratically elected governments, but I would like to see (and believe we will see) a directly elected european parliament with full decision making powers.

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.

You recall correctly.

And amongst other things the Constitution specifically gave more power to EU institutions reducing the role of national governments.

Amoungst many many other things.

vote 'no' they did and still it marches on regardless.

Pushed by national governments.

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.

National government. I see a recurring theme here.

"..." Peter Thorneycroft, a Tory, some years before we joined the Common Market.

Tories are deceitful - who would have thought?!

 

[laptop]

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.

And your experience and account of the 1975 referendum is what?

And you have been a member or supporter of UKIP since when?

 

[Gmart]

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.
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.

You may indeed disagree with my view of the British system, but in order to not be distracted by this i have started another thread on whether we should have a Written Constitution.

You don't believe in law making at a European level? Do you feel that all issues can be dealt with at such a small level? There are global issues such as pollution control and Multinational control which work better as a European Bloc working together surely?

I appreciate that Europe has made too many laws recently, and needs to make everything more simple through more cooperation. That's what they were trying to do with the European Constitution. What problems did you have with that document?

Your view that Europe are not to be trusted is based on some valid issues but these need to be dealt with by the member through negotiation. The whole basis of the European Experiment is that we are ALL THE SAME with the same needs and wishes and wants etc. Thus it makes sense to align our policies so that companies and others cannot play off one system against another. For example we all have a law against murder. That is therefore a European consistency (and a world one at that). By collating all the existing laws and rights of the Europeans we can look at the discrepancies and learn what is needed, and what the best system is. There is a problem with the UK because it has no constitution, but it is hoped that in time both systems will learn from each other and find a consensus that will unify Europeans.

Why do you have a problem with this? You say you want a decent debate over and over, but i would say it's already being had. No one will deny that we need a liberalism of the red tape of Europe (and the UK probably too). No one will also deny that it could do with the European Parliament being given more powers. But what is actually needed is people stopping with the extreme examples about bad things in Europe and engaging with the European wide debate about how to align all the systems, united in our common humanity and our common need. I honestly don't see what you're afraid of especially in comparison with the UK system which is worse.

 

[goneforlunch]

You don't believe in law making at a European level? Do you feel that all issues can be dealt with at such a small level? There are global issues such as pollution control and Multinational control which work better as a European Bloc working together surely?

I don't think all issues can be dealt with on a national level, but there are international organisations that have a much better chance of bringing about necessary changes, particularly on pollution issues, and most politicians and EU institutions are too close to the multinationals. It's not the EU or bust. Its rhetoric all too often doesn't live up to its actions. and I don't believe it works in the British people's interests (or in the interests of the peoples of the other member states but that's a matter for them) in its dealings.

I appreciate that Europe has made too many laws recently, and needs to make everything more simple through more cooperation. That's what they were trying to do with the European Constitution. What problems did you have with that document?

My problem with the EU Constitution was that it gave yet more powers to corrupt, fraudulent, undemocratic EU institutions and made it almost impossible for a member state to ever leave. I am also concerned with Article I-8, part of which states that "The currency of the Union shall be the euro." This means that we will be bound to accept the euro as our currency. IMO the EU would not have been simplified in a good way, and still wouldn't have been a good EU.

Your view that Europe are not to be trusted is based on some valid issues but these need to be dealt with by the member through negotiation. The whole basis of the European Experiment is that we are ALL THE SAME with the same needs and wishes and wants etc. Thus it makes sense to align our policies so that companies and others cannot play off one system against another. For example we all have a law against murder. That is therefore a European consistency (and a world one at that). By collating all the existing laws and rights of the Europeans we can look at the discrepancies and learn what is needed, and what the best system is. There is a problem with the UK because it has no constitution, but it is hoped that in time both systems will learn from each other and find a consensus that will unify Europeans.

Most of us have broadly the same needs and wishes, ie living peaceful, happy and prosperous lives in friendship with our fellow citizens, but even within individual countries there are different ideas about how best to achieve those wishes. This is magnified even more across a population of half a billion people, and one set of policies will not suit all countries - WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. I agree that companies should not play one country off against another, but there will still be ways that countries will sweeten deals to attract investment making a mockery of EU rules. The EU is riven with nationalistic interests and whilst this might change in the future and make a fair union possible one day, that day will not arrive for many, many years, and when it does it will be with the informed consent of the majority of the people.

Why do you have a problem with this? You say you want a decent debate over and over, but i would say it's already being had. No one will deny that we need a liberalism of the red tape of Europe (and the UK probably too). No one will also deny that it could do with the European Parliament being given more powers. But what is actually needed is people stopping with the extreme examples about bad things in Europe and engaging with the European wide debate about how to align all the systems, united in our common humanity and our common need. I honestly don't see what you're afraid of especially in comparison with the UK debate,

Unlike you I don't think we have had an informed debate except in more informed circles like this one. What government has even won power saying it will give power over our affairs to the EU? Never. What does the general public know about our relationship with the EU? The difference between a "directive" and an "opinion", or what the Council of the European Union does, for instance? Not much. How much effort have those who should have informed them made to correct this? As little as they can get away with. In the last GE "Europe" was not considered worthy of debate and when the EU makes most of our laws with all that that implies, how acceptable is that? And I'm not afraid of the EU!

I think it's important that people know about the bad things in the EU, as well as the good, particularly that civil liberties are under threat from the EU as well as our own politicians. Such things are an important part of an informed debate, just as the best way to move forward is. And we should have the referendums that we have been promised because not everyone wants to go foward with the EU.

Please note, when I mean the EU that's what I say. If I mean Europe, I'll say "Europe". Pedantic you might think, but I'm quite sure you understand the difference, so please indulge me and get it right, even if you don't care about the the distinction!

 

[goneforlunch]

No I didn't.

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.

I didn't say that direct democracy EU style would make me happy. Any system of direct democracy that the EU allowed would probably be a fudge because the people who run the EU institutions would not give up their power. And because it isn't on offer anyway, I think we'd be better off leaving.

Amoungst many many other things.

But those other things didn't make the deepening of the EU's powers acceptable, not even close!

vote 'no' they did and still it marches on regardless.

Pushed by national governments.

Quite.

National government. I see a recurring theme here.

But our government is not doing what we, the people, want in following EU policies. The dissatisfaction with the Blair government is a good indication of that. And the recurring theme is probably because neither of us is wants to change our position and is unwilling to let the other side have the last word.

Tories are deceitful - who would have thought?!

Well I would. And all the mainstream parties have joined in the deceit and have worked together down the years to take us deeper into the EU. The last decent leader any party had was Labour's Hugh Gaitskill, and to a lesser extent Michael Foot. I wish Gaitskill hadn't died prematurely, and then things might have been different.

 

[Gmart]

My problem with the EU Constitution was that it gave yet more powers to corrupt, fraudulent, undemocratic EU institutions and made it almost impossible for a member state to ever leave.

Of course we can leave, what makes you think we can't? No government has the power to commit a future government.

I am also concerned with Article I-8, part of which states that "The currency of the Union shall be the euro." This means that we will be bound to accept the euro as our currency.

Why not? A currency covering the whole of Europe will be stronger than Sterling and will put us into a better position to negotiate over trade issues worldwide, therefore creating more jobs.

IMO the EU would not have been simplified in a good way, and still wouldn't have been a good EU.

I get the feeling that nothing Europe does would ever be enough for you.

Most of us have broadly the same needs and wishes, ie living peaceful, happy and prosperous lives in friendship with our fellow citizens, but even within individual countries there are different ideas about how best to achieve those wishes. This is magnified even more across a population of half a billion people, and one set of policies will not suit all countries - WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

They all shit, shag and drink the same as us. Give an example of a difference which will prove significant if you think you can.

In the last GE "Europe" was not considered worthy of debate and when the EU makes most of our laws with all that that implies, how acceptable is that? And I'm not afraid of the EU!

Yes you are or you wouldn't fight so hard. The EU was not considered worthy because it does not impact on life enough.

I think it's important that people know about the bad things in the EU, as well as the good, particularly that civil liberties are under threat from the EU as well as our own politicians.

More the latter than the former i think you'll find. The EU wants us to have a constitution which enshrines laws we should have got years ago (see the Constitution thread)

I suspect we will never get very far on this. I choose not to be scared of greater cooperation with Europe based on the fact that we share the same biology. I feel that the democratic issues will be dealt with sooner or later and with more and more countries being in the EU, this becomes more and more certain. I appreciate that with globalisation we cannot be Isolationist anymore.

You meanwhile though keen to emphasise that you recognise the British problems which are evident from a short walk in any street, you are also against the EU. You can find example after example of inefficiencies in the EU, and use them as the reason for Isolationism. Are you FOR anything? Do you need everything to be perfect before you take a chance. Do you deny that cooperation is an evolutionary advantage? No you just fear change. I wonder what Europe could do to allay your fears? Nothing i suppose.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

I believe that the concept of a unified Europe as a decentralised federal state is a beautiful one. It's a shame that the reality has turned out somewhat...'different.'

Given where the world currently is at present, the strongest arguement for having a decentralised federal Europe with the relevant institutions (nice bland caveat there) is this:

If your firms are multinational, so too must your regulator be.

Boris Johnson presented a very interesting programme about the Roman Empire and how they ran Europe. Fascinating viewing, even if he is a Tory.

 

[TAE]

And the recurring theme is probably because neither of us is wants to change our position and is unwilling to let the other side have the last word.

On that note - I think it is simply because in the end the democratically elected national governments do actually run the EU.

But please, go ahead and respond in whatever way you wish, I shall not say any more.

 

[hrdtc]

Just a few questions

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,

So how many pages of UK laws do we have on our statute books?

"quite zealously implemented"? How do you know that?!

What you consider "masses of red tape", someone else might well consider to be protection for workers. (But don't ask me to come up with an example because, like any normal member of the public, I don't monitor laws that are being passed - wherever they have originated from.)

Can you tell us how the UK is aligning our systems to match the EU vision of government, and what the EU vision of government is?

Finally, can you explain how you have arrived at the figure of £78bn please. Also, what percentage is that of total government spending over the same period (whatever that period is).

 

[Gmart]

No matter what, Isolationism is NOT the way forward. Cooperation is the key, and no matter what anyone says here we ARE all the same so it makes sense to cooperate.

 

[Gmart]

With subsidiarity Europe has the capacity to reverse the centralism which saps everywhere in the UK except London.

But when it comes down to it people can be anti-Europe quite easily because we have such a tradition of blaming those in charge - which highlights the difference between the systems. What intrigues me is that some here are anti EVERYTHING. That's useless. We've got to try and look forward and not blame Europe for the problems of the UK system.

 

[Mallard]

With subsidiarity Europe has the capacity to reverse the centralism which saps everywhere in the UK except London.

But when it comes down to it people can be anti-Europe quite easily because we have such a tradition of blaming those in charge - which highlights the difference between the systems. What intrigues me is that some here are anti EVERYTHING. That's useless. We've got to try and look forward and not blame Europe for the problems of the UK system.

Interesting thoughts! There's a tradition of blaming those in charge for a good reason. The EU is another tier of distant, unrepresentative government rightly viewed with suspicion by many. Whilst some good things have come out like some social legislation the institution is not needed in it's current for by anyone other than right wing careerist politicians and those interested in a larger market and fortress europe policy.

 

[TAE]

I think it is useful to separate the IF from the HOW when it comes to the EU.

I'm not entirely happy about how the EU is run, but I'm very much in favour of us being in the EU.

 

[laptop]

the institution is not needed in it's current for[m] by anyone other than right wing careerist politicians and those interested in a larger market and fortress europe policy.

Whereas most of those who oppose the EU want only to further the careers of right wing British careerist politicians and those interested in becoming part of the US "free" market and a fortress Britain policy.

The biggest exception is the minority who have fantasies about the careers of authoritarian Leninist British politicians... such as themselves...

 

[goneforlunch]

So how many pages of UK laws do we have on our statute books?

I have no idea, and no particular wish to find out because British laws can be overturned by British politicians. EU laws cannot.

quite zealously implemented"? How do you know that?!

Because I have done my research.

What you consider "masses of red tape", someone else might well consider to be protection for workers.

I support protection for workers, provided it is sensible and fair to both workers and employers, but red tape from both the EU and Whitehall, goes far beyond that. Multinationals and other large firms can cope with it, but small businesses particularly find it becomes a large part of their costs.

Can you tell us how the UK is aligning our systems to match the EU vision of government, and what the EU vision of government is?

Regions deal direct with Brussels, bypassing national parliaments, and it's not for me to say what the EU's vision of government is.

Finally, can you explain how you have arrived at the figure of £78bn please.

The figure came from HM Treasury. What does the percentage have to do with it? That this is a very small fraction of overall government spending perhaps? That's quite true, but it's still a great deal of money that should be spent in Britain, not given to corrupt, fraudulent EU institutions. (I do however support the government when it donates money to overseas aid charities and gives poorer countries money to spend on improving their people's lives though.)

 

[laptop]

So how many pages of UK laws do we have on our statute books?

What you consider "masses of red tape", someone else might well consider to be protection for workers.

etc... etc...
None of the above

So much for your "research".

It wouldn't just consist of stereotyping your opponents and pasting from UKIP, would it?

 

[goneforlunch]

Of course we can leave, what makes you think we can't?

This from the Constitution "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

As I said earlier in the thread: "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."

A currency covering the whole of Europe will be stronger than Sterling and will put us into a better position to negotiate over trade issues worldwide, therefore creating more jobs.

Before any discussion on the merits or otherwise of the euro, don't forget that the previous government and this one were forced into allowing the people a say on whether they wanted the euro to be our currency, so when the other countries signed the Constitution the British government had no democratic mandate to do so because it says that "the currency of the union shall be the euro."
You are free to hope for good things as a result of joining the euro, but on the basis of the facts things look less rosy for its future. It hasn't helped the member states in the eurozone in the way that you have suggested at all. Some countries are booming and some are not and they need different interest rates to manage their economies. How do you know it will be right for us? The ERM, the forerunner to the euro, was a complete disaster for Britain and we lost thousands of homes, jobs and businesses as a result.

I get the feeling that nothing Europe does would ever be enough for you.

In the years to come a single state covering the EU's expanding empire might work, but that time is not now imo. The project has been rushed and the groundwork has not been done properly, and nor would I ever support a system of government that was not democratic, not even in the hope improvements. But as I have said, several times, I have no problem with Europe!

They all shit, shag and drink the same as us. Give an example of a difference which will prove significant if you think you can.

Chew on the euro for a while.

In the last GE "Europe" was not considered worthy of debate and when the EU makes most of our laws with all that that implies, how acceptable is that?

The EU was not considered worthy because it does not impact on life enough.

The EU has an enormous impact on life. "... like an invisible hand it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still there, but they have all become agents of the European Union." From a very honest, informed Mark Leonard in his book "Why Europe" [sic] "will run the 21st Century". Please also see the long list of policies the EU impacts on (in post #34 I think.)

particularly that civil liberties are under threat from the EU as well as our own politicians.

More the latter than the former i think you'll find. The EU wants us to have a constitution which enshrines laws we should have got years ago (see the Constitution thread)

What I find is that what the latter has done, it has done with the full approval of the EU. If the EU is so concerned about our rights why do you think it is giving its officials so much power over EU citizens? Have you read the Constitution for yourself? Specifically, what attracts you to support it? I am especially curious about this after having read your New Constitution thread.

I choose not to be scared of greater cooperation with Europe based on the fact that we share the same biology. I feel that the democratic issues will be dealt with sooner or later and with more and more countries being in the EU, this becomes more and more certain. I appreciate that with globalisation we cannot be Isolationist anymore.

But we are talking about rule under a system of qualified majority voting, which you might think this is a good thing, but let's not pretend that we are talking co-operation here. Independent states may co-operate as may EU member states, but under QMV co-operation is not required, whilst compliance is. I choose not to be "scared" of living outside of the EU. And we share the same biology with Fred West, George Bush and Kim Jong-il of North Korea. So biology counts for little.

You meanwhile though keen to emphasise that you recognise the British problems which are evident from a short walk in any street, you are also against the EU. You can find example after example of inefficiencies in the EU, and use them as the reason for Isolationism. Are you FOR anything? Do you need everything to be perfect before you take a chance. I wonder what Europe could do to allay your fears? Nothing i suppose.

Everything does not need to be perfect for me to take a chance; I want to leave the EU remember! I don't support isolationism in the slightest, but that's something the EU could be accused of by the wider world, so protectionist are its policies. You are pro-EU, but have you considered how EU policies will actually help to solve our problems? Every possible advantage I can think of comes with significant disadvantages.

The EU could allay my fears by becoming a genuine free trade agreement like the British people thought they had signed on for in the first place. And if you have read my posts in this thread, you will surely know what I support: democratic rule, global trade within free trade agreements, and the independent national state. I also happen to be right wing, but I want to leave the EU so that the Left and Right once again are able to lay their policies out for the people's inspection in an effort to gain the right to govern us. Oh and I am for consigning New Labour and Blue Labour to the history books.

You are pro-EU, does that mean you are afraid of Britain? I imagine not. I think that you are probably still fighting the class war though, but I could be wrong, and I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you what you think anyway. Please try to extend the same courtesy to me by not telling me what I think because it won't get us anywhere, and you're wrong anyway.

With subsidiarity Europe has the capacity to reverse the centralism which saps everywhere in the UK except London.

The EU has its friend Ken Livingstone in charge of its London Region, and he has said he wants to see the end of the nation state and he's happily implementing EU policies, so London is going the way the EU wants it to. And subsidiarity will not reverse centralism.

 

[goneforlunch]

Laptop

Your post did not reveal too much. In what context was the quote made? And sterotyping my opponents? That's a good one!

 

[laptop]

Your post did not reveal too much.

It's perfectly clear to those who understand the importace of paying attention when you read.

 

[goneforlunch]

I see.


And btw, no it wouldn't consist of pasting from UKIP. UKIP is unfortunately not that good a source of information.

 

[Gmart]

This from the Constitution "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It’s a matter of sovereignty; all sovereign countries have the right to pass a law immediately countering any agreement previously made. It would be a matter of convenience to gradually mediate the shock to the economic sector and the evident loss of jobs.

You are free to hope for good things as a result of joining the euro, but on the basis of the facts things look less rosy for its future. It hasn't helped the member states in the Euro zone in the way that you have suggested at all. Some countries are booming and some are not and they need different interest rates to manage their economies. How do you know it will be right for us?

And you are free to look on the dark side of everything. The system does have some problems, but a currency covering half a billion people is needed in the globalised world. There is strength in standing together, rather than competing with each other.

Independent states may co-operate as may EU member states, but under QMV co-operation is not required, whilst compliance is. I choose not to be "scared" of living outside of the EU. And we share the same biology with Fred West, George Bush and Kim Jong-il of North Korea. So biology counts for little.

Using extreme examples is not a good discussion tactic. A stopped clock might be right twice a day, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be persuaded to use it to tell the time.
Actually on a very basic level we ARE all the same and your attempt to create an artificial ‘Us and Them’ issue does you no favours.

particularly that civil liberties are under threat from the EU as well as our own politicians.

These civil liberties would be shared with all other Europeans too. Do you think that they would be happy with this? In fact the Europeans are much keener on rights than the British System which doesn’t even enshrine our rights, leading to the treatment of Brian Law as a criminal rather than a citizen with the right to demonstrate.

Have you read the Constitution for yourself? Specifically, what attracts you to support it?

I have read it, and don’t find it as scary as you seem to. I also know that with a quick act of parliament we could get out, so I am keen to be part of the debate. I especially liked the principle of subsidiarity. I am also keen on us finally getting a constitution, which I am pleased to note a majority agree with me on the other thread. 

But we are talking about rule under a system of qualified majority voting, which you might think this is a good thing, but let's not pretend that we are talking co-operation here. Independent states may co-operate as may EU member states, but under QMV co-operation is not required, whilst compliance is. I choose not to be "scared" of living outside of the EU.

I accept that there might be fear in both directions. However we live in a globalising world. Would you countenance London becoming independent? Or Cornwall? Well the World is getting smaller and the time for Isolationism has gone. If we leave the EU we will be in NATO, but actually we will be a really small country, with less and less influence, being undercut by cheaper countries and competing with other marginal countries to see how much business we can attract through how badly we can get away with treating our population.

As part of the EU we will be able to be a part of a stronger whole, for the same reason as London doesn’t want to be independent despite its wealth. QMV will not be a problem because why would other human beings vote for something bad? Unless they all decide to put all the rubbish in the UK or something stupid like that. Hardly likely! And anyway we could just leave. I fully expect the European Parliament to gain more power as well, making this event even less likely.

I don't support isolationism in the slightest, but that's something the EU could be accused of by the wider world, so protectionist are its policies.

Your words may support Isolationism, even if you claim not to do so. Strength in numbers is key here. If we were out of Europe our trade issues would be ignored because who are we? A failing power with barely 60 million people.

The EU could allay my fears by becoming a genuine free trade agreement like the British people thought they had signed on for in the first place. And if you have read my posts in this thread, you will surely know what I support: democratic rule, global trade within free trade agreements, and the independent national state. I also happen to be right wing, but I want to leave the EU so that the Left and Right once again are able to lay their policies out for the people's inspection in an effort to gain the right to govern us.

I agree with much of this but I am not keen on Isolationism, which is what this is. In what way are you right wing? Fascist? In other words aspiring to some bygone era, or are you just pro-market. What limits on the abuse of the poor by the rich do you accept? None? Ok, you’re indeed right wing. How about you go to PoliticalCompass.org and we’ll find out?

You are pro-EU, does that mean you are afraid of Britain? I imagine not. I think that you are probably still fighting the class war though, but I could be wrong, and I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you what you think anyway.

I’m sorry if I did that. For an answer, I don’t like certain aspects of the British System, especially the entrenched class system which the education system perpetuates without any attempt at equality of opportunity, and with great harm to the country. Apathy is one of the greatest problems in our society and supporting entrenched privilege above a meritocracy makes our society a worse place, especially in comparison with Europe. A quick trip to Europe shows anyone that their system is better. The UK is ok if you stay away from the poor areas. Unfortunately there are so many of them…

 

[Gmart]

Post 34

Having shared competence means that countries do not compete with each other and cooperate to mutual benefit. For example if employment and social protection were not consistent, then companies would all move to the countries that treat their workers the worst!
What is wrong in having equality between the genders at a European level? You state that they are 'different from us' and so do you feel that equality laws should not exist in some countries?

There are so many issues which need to be addressed at a more global level. We need to cooperate, not retreat into a Isolationist/Competitive historical view with our neighbours in Europe.

What's wrong with?

• a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment
• the raising of the standard of living and quality of life
• visas, asylum, and immigration
• customs cooperation
• the promotion of research and technological development
• a contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection

All these things you mention need to be dealt with at a global level, not on an individual country level.

You also throw scorn on subsidiarity, saying it is too weak, well inevitably it would have been made stronger by the constitution. Even with that dead and buried it remains a basic principle which our European partners all agree on, in time it will become more entrenched and therefore more effective.

I get the feeling that by the time you work out that it is essential to cooperate, you would have pulled us out of Europe, and we would have been cut adrift. Even the US would not be able to support us too much for fear of alienating their European trade partners. Then we would be shown up for the marginal country we are becoming.

 

[goneforlunch]

It’s a matter of sovereignty; all sovereign countries have the right to pass a law immediately countering any agreement previously made. It would be a matter of convenience to gradually mediate the shock to the economic sector and the evident loss of jobs.

Exactly. It is a matter of sovereignty. That's one of the problems with the constitution; member states would no longer be sovereign with virtually eveything coming under QMV, and decisions taken by EU institutions cannot be reversed by British politicians. There is no evidence to suggest that leaving would mean a loss of jobs (apart from those employed directly doing the EU's bidding). The government's own figure of 3 million lost jobs was based on information taken selecively from a study that was flawed anyway. If the case for us being in the EU is so clear cut, why then do its supporters in politics not make the case properly instead of merely resorting to playground insults to put down dissenters?

A currency covering such a hugely diverse area is not a good thing, especially one where its members ignore the rules that underpin its stability Uniting member states fiscal systems under one currency is a political ambition before it's anything else. For that to be a good thing, one would have to believe that politicians are acting in the interests of the people of the EU, which you do and I don't.

You brought biology into it, not me. I just illustrated that we share the same biology with bad people as well as good, so shared biology does not mean we are all the same. The differences between you and I for instance are no more artificial than those that exist on the larger stage. Pretending otherwise does you no favours. "Them" and "us", if they exist at all, are the "political elite" and the "people".

We are not happy with the erosion of our civil liberties. Do you suppose the people of the other member states will have more influence? This threat to civil liberties comes as a result of decisions taken by the EU institutions. Other European peoples have not enjoyed the rights in law that we have, and thus have less to lose, but even the more limited protection that they have enjoyed is being threatened. The same excuses are being used on other European peoples as are being used to justify changes in Britain, like being required to carry biometric ID cards, which are to be standardised across the EU.

As Mr Leonard has said the EU is "like an invisible hand it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still there, but they have all become agents of the European Union." He also said that "By keeping a low profile at home and working through national structures Europe [sic] has managed to spread its wings without attracting much hostility." In other words national governments get the blame for EU policies. Or what interpretation would you put on his words? (Leonard is a director of the pro-EU Centre for European Reform.)

So you have read the Constitution for yourself. In that case ...

Specifically, what attracts you to support it?

I also know that with a quick act of parliament we could get out, so I am keen to be part of the debate. I especially liked the principle of subsidiarity. I am also keen on us finally getting a constitution, which I am pleased to note a majority agree with me on the other thread.

Gmarthews, you repeated my quote from the Constitution stating the steps that would be needed in order to leave, so you must know that an Act of Parliament would not do, not even a quick one. In your "new constitution" thread, you did not make it clear as to whether this constitution should be the EU version or a British version. Congratulations on winning majority support over there. Perhaps that means those people would agree with you on this thread too, but the public at large do not want the EU version. You are in favour of EU institutions taking control over our affairs, so naturally you are in favour of subsidiarity. I am also a keen participant in the debate.

We do live in a globalising world and I think we should be getting the best out of that world. But I'll give you this from Lord Stoddart, an independent Labour peer.

"Virtually every serious review of the costs and benefits of the EU show that Britain would be better off out of the organisation in most, if not all, respects but political elite in all political parties will simply not listen to the facts. Those who believe that the European Union can be reformed from within are deluding themselves. Its very nature demands that, ever more power must be conceded to the EU institutions and, consequently, that of the nations be reduced.

I do not support isolationism. Just how does entering into free trade agreements, freed of EU strictures, support isolationism? I am not in anyway against co-operation with our European partners and freed from QMV our trade issues would not be ignored half as much as they are now!

In what way are you right wing? Fascist?

I'm not a facist or any other kind of extremist any more I suppose you are.

For an answer, I don’t like certain aspects of the British System, especially the entrenched class system which the education system perpetuates without any attempt at equality of opportunity, and with great harm to the country. Apathy is one of the greatest problems in our society and supporting entrenched privilege above a meritocracy makes our society a worse place, especially in comparison with Europe. A quick trip to Europe shows anyone that their system is better. The UK is ok if you stay away from the poor areas. Unfortunately there are so many of them…

I don't like aspects of the British system either, but don't see the EU as the answer to our problems, and the class system exists everywhere in different forms, and all the sizeable European countries have poor areas just like we do and for all the EU's fine words all too often they fly in the face of its actions.

 

[goneforlunch]

Having shared competence means that countries do not compete with each other and cooperate to mutual benefit. For example if employment and social protection were not consistent, then companies would all move to the countries that treat their workers the worst! What is wrong in having equality between the genders at a European level? You state that they are 'different from us' and so do you feel that equality laws should not exist in some countries?

Mutual benefit? A nice cliche, but it doesn't work in practice. Countries still compete against each other, and companies move production to where its cheapest and the grants are most generous, usually the new member states. I never said there was anything wrong with equality between the genders or any other group, and I didn't say that 'they' are different from 'us', rather that we are all different. An EU competence means that the EU decides.

What's wrong with?
a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment
the raising of the standard of living and quality of life
visas, asylum, and immigration
customs cooperation
the promotion of research and technological development
a contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection

Who could possibly disagree with any of that? However policies are still down to political interpretation and should not be left to QMV, unless politicians win a political mandate from the people to make them so.

You also throw scorn on subsidiarity, saying it is too weak, well inevitably it would have been made stronger by the constitution. Even with that dead and buried it remains a basic principle which our European partners all agree on, in time it will become more entrenched and therefore more effective.

The Constitution takes more issues under QMV and doesn't strengthen subsidiarity, and if you have taken any interest in EU politics you will know that it isn't dead. Some politicians even want an EU wide referendum on the issue.

I get the feeling that by the time you work out that it is essential to cooperate, you would have pulled us out of Europe, and we would have been cut adrift. Even the US would not be able to support us too much for fear of alienating their European trade partners. Then we would be shown up for the marginal country we are becoming.

I am very much in favour of co-operation, but that's not what the EU's about. QMV, remember? You don't seem to be able to grasp this fundamental problem, and by the time you do the Constitution will be long ratified. We would not become a marginal country because we are still, despite being members of the EU, one of the world's largest economies.

 

[Gmart]

We are about the size of a state in America, so considering that many decisions have to be made at a global level, i do not care that QMV, voted by my brother Europeans should take precedence. It is only our Isolationist history which is getting in the way of this essential cooperation. If things go completely wrong then we can get out based on our sovereignty.

A currency covering half a billion people is bad eh? Obviously I disagree. It puts us as Europeans into a stronger position in world trade, and it enables integration which is economically beneficial.

We are indeed unhappy with the abuse of our so-called unwritten constitution. See here for more New Labour abuse. This merely shows that our system has come to the end of its natural life and needs to be overhauled. We can do this as a part of Europe.

Quoting other Anti-europeans, who are scared of the 'evil conspiracy of them Europeans' does not convince me. They are our brothers and we need to get away from fighting amongst ourselves and learn to cooperate.

I don't care if the constitution is EU or British as we are IN Europe, so taking into account our European brothers would seem to make sense.

Your peer, who feels that the UK would be better off without the EU, is living in the past. We have to deal with China, Russia and the Americas on a daily basis. If we compete with each other they will play one European country off against another. As would the multinationals. This is the main reason for harmonising our economies.

You keep worrying about ceding power to them, but these issues need to be dealt with at a more global level. With subsidiarity enshrined, individual states should be able to argue for a local solution if it is viable or relevant. It is the Anti-Europeans who are holding this back, and thus portraying the EU as evil when indeed it has stated that subsidiarity is the principle it wishes to enshrine if only it were allowed by the existing governments.

Just having a free trade agreement is wanting your cake and eating it. We need to harmonise our economies or else the other countries and multinationals will play us off against each other.

YOU stated that you were right wing, i merely pointed out that that usually means fascist. If you are pro-market that just makes you middle of the road, as i am. What was your score on politicalcompass.org?

Class system is unavoidable, as are countries competing? With this attitude things will never change.

We are of course all different at a DNA level, but actually we all share in basic needs. Food, shelter etc. This is the basic reason for cooperation.

"An EU competence means that the EU decides."

Yes and we are part of the EU. They are our brothers. You can't seem to get away from you basic 'They're different from us' attitude. Very unhealthy, and slightly worrying.

You are hoping that fear of cooperation will eventually swing in your favour. Maybe it will but it will be a sad day and we will lose out eventually, as the slide into marginality will be speeded up.

We won't be one of the largest economies forever.

Basically you see all the things about the EU that could go wrong if 'they' were evil. I see us all as humans. I suspect that you are not easily persuaded and that with most other people in the UK you are in the ascendence. The Conservatives are anti-Europe and will eventually slime their way back into power because people will have forgotten the Eighties.

I personally see nothing wrong with a bit of vision, and moving forward not backward. We are a small country and even if we have a currently large economy, this is by no means guaranteed not to be undercut by the emerging economies. As part of Europe we have strength in numbers and area. Cooperation would seem key, as it always has been. Competing just because that's how we have always done things may get you merit at the local Conservative club, but it seems very old-fashioned and not very visionary to me.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . If we were out of Europe our trade issues would be ignored because who are we? A failing power with barely 60 million people.

Er, ballpark the worls'd fourth largest economy (measured by total GDP) and a nuclear power?

(small point, but never let realpolitk get in the way of a good theory eh!)

 

[goneforlunch]

Many decisions are taken a global level on a co-operative basis, and if politicians/negotiators have sensible regard for the people they represent, that’s good news. But co-operation on the basis QMV, of having just 29 votes out of 321 (as have France, Germany and Italy) is an intricate system of bartering, a kind of sophisticated “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. A poor model of co-operation and not a good way to run people’s lives.

Leaving the EU post Constitution was discussed at least twice earlier in this thread. The chances of getting out before that are remote when the establishment doesn’t want to and has the population cowed into believing that it’s a non-starter. Does the Euro put the EU into a stronger position in anything, even world trade? The economies of the EU members are mostly stagnant and those in the eurozone are no better off.

I am in no doubt about Labour's abuses of power and am under no illusions about the lack of opposition from the other parliamentary parties, BUT Labour is doing it with the full approval of the EU. For example, just Google Biometric ID cards and add the country of your choice to see how widely these cards are being introduced. The EU agreed version far exceeds that required by internationally agreed standards. The mainstream media is not a very good source of information.

Of course we are IN EUROPE but we don’t have to be in the EUROPEAN UNION. Portraying Stoddart as “anti-European” shows how badly informed you are. He’s not anti-European any more than I or most supporters of an independent country are; he's anti-EU. Do you understand the difference between the EU and Europe? I really am beginning to wonder! Stoddart’s actually looking to the future instead of being hung up on an old fashioned ideal. We will deal with other trading blocs in or out of the EU just as countries not in the EU do.

Germany has recently negotiated an energy deal with Russia, stabbing Poland and the Ukraine in the backs to do it, despite having promised that they would not. Great co-operation, huh? The Commission meanwhile, though critical, does nothing. Yet another ‘extreme’ example?

You keep worrying about ceding power to them, but these issues need to be dealt with at a more global level. With subsidiarity enshrined, individual states should be able to argue for a local solution if it is viable or relevant. It is the Anti-Europeans who are holding this back, and thus portraying the EU as evil when indeed it has stated that subsidiarity is the principle it wishes to enshrine if only it were allowed by the existing governments.

You might as well talk about world government on a global decision making basis. And again, you seem strangely confident that politicians across the EU are acting in the interests of the people. Yet again, I have nothing against co-operation and I’m not anti-European. And we’ve been through the myth that subsidiarity actually means local decisions before. It doesn’t. The fact that it doesn't has nothing to do with "anti-Europeans". NOTHING.

Just having a free trade agreement is wanting your cake and eating it. We need to harmonise our economies or else the other countries and multinationals will play us off against each other.

Whereas the EU way, it’s the multinationals that get to have their cake and eat it. If other countries playing us off against each other means that we have to up our game to live in a democracy, so be it. Better that than expecting a navel gazing "Europe" to sort it out.

YOU stated that you were right wing, i merely pointed out that that usually means fascist.

You are right about the first part, but as to the rest of this remark, absolute bollocks! I am pro free trade, not pro-EU, and on the basis of what you have chosen to tell me not much like you at all. I will tell you what my Political Compass score is when you have answered my questions, particularly ...

Specifically, what attracts you to support it? [the EU Constitution]

… with direct quotes from the document, please. (As I did to illustrate why I am unhappy with it.)

Perhaps you could also answer this question too ...

The EU is "like an invisible hand it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still there, but they have all become agents of the European Union." He also said that "By keeping a low profile at home and working through national structures Europe [sic] has managed to spread its wings without attracting much hostility." In other words national governments get the blame for EU policies. Or what interpretation would you put on his words? This is from a pro EU source, you'll remember.

The class system is unavoidable, it exists in all countries, and even in the EU, and it always will. Utopia doesn’t exist, but independent countries will compete more co-operatively at European level without QMV.

We are of course all different at a DNA level, but actually we all share in basic needs. Food, shelter etc. This is the basic reason for cooperation.

But how we meet those needs, basic and otherwise, is very much a political decision. I want politicians with different polices instead of towing the EU line to the extent that hardly anyone is happy with the choice on offer.

Yes and we are part of the EU. They are our brothers. You can't seem to get away from you basic 'They're different from us' attitude. Very unhealthy, and slightly worrying.

Will you ever listen? I don’t think ‘they’ are different to ‘us’ because we are all different. I did say ‘they’ are the political elite and ‘us’ is the people. I find your naivety rather touching, or I would if this discussion didn't go to the very heart of how we are governed!

Basically you see all the things about the EU that could go wrong if 'they' were evil. I see us all as humans. I suspect that you are not easily persuaded and that with most other people in the UK you are in the ascendence. The Conservatives are anti-Europe and will eventually slime their way back into power because people will have forgotten the Eighties.

Yes, we are all humans. There is something we agree on! The Conservatives are NOT anti-EU. They just know that most of their grass roots members are and have conned them into believing that that they are representing them, even Thatcher played her part in the deceit until she wised up, and then got dumped for it. The Tories have signed or supported every EU treaty and even wanted monetary union. I am not a Tory, and I won’t support them or any other mainstream party, ever. And please stop telling me how I see things, because you invariably get it wrong.

I personally see nothing wrong with a bit of vision, and moving forward not backward. We are a small country and even if we have a currently large economy,

So you think your/what you see as the EU vision is the only vision? It's not. (And doubt it's your vision anyway; more a parotted EU vision that you have picked up on.) Size hardly matters as big and small countries do very well outside the EU, and our economy has a much better chance of prospering outside the EU, free of its restrictive regulations, directives and laws and petty interferences, as will the people of the other member states, but that’s a matter for them.

 

[Gmart]

I wanted to answer this thread specifically, but the time needed to go through the entire European Constitution just never came along. In fact i DID do it once, and then my computer crashed just at the moment I was going to post (same old story i suppose).

Since then i have not been too concerned about this debate except that we are left with a European experiment which is not organised as well as it could be and so it is not an optimal situation.

I also have the same problem with Europe as I do with the British Government. Too much moralism telling people how they 'should' be and not enough vision or courage.

That said i can readily understand the huge fear that many here feel. Some of the criticisms i understand, though the argument that:

But co-operation on the basis QMV... is an intricate system of bartering, a kind of sophisticated “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. A poor model of co-operation and not a good way to run people’s lives.

Seems a bit strange. Isn't that just politics? I suppose that ideally there are better systems though.

Still, recently there was an article which talked about Europe, and which was interesting, so i thought i would continue this debate.

The head of the Open Society Institute (a George Soros, remember him?) wrote an article about Europe, see here

If you are uncertain as to what an Open Society might be etc then see a short summary here.

 

[goneforlunch]

That said i can readily understand the huge fear that many here feel. Some of the criticisms i understand, though the argument that:

But co-operation on the basis QMV... is an intricate system of bartering, a kind of sophisticated “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. A poor model of co-operation and not a good way to run people’s lives.

Seems a bit strange. Isn't that just politics? I suppose that ideally there are better systems though.

The difference being that in any democracy, the people have influence over politicians - under the EU system our influence is very muted. Democracy is always the better option, despite its flaws.

The head of the Open Society Institute (a George Soros, remember him?) wrote an article about Europe, see here

I remember Mr Soros, but I can't understand his view of the EU. How can it possibly embody the principles of an open society when so many of its laws are made in secret, it represses free speech, it gives Europol officers (both serving and retired) immunity from prosecution, it has the right to suspend any of our so called "rights", its agencies can by-pass data protection laws without a court order, etc, etc?

It is difficult to equate Mr Soros' EU with what your Wiki article describes as an 'open society'. It really is.

To imply that many are afraid of the EU suggests that our concerns are irrational. They are not. You are asking that we give up our independence because they all, to use your words, "shit shag and drink the same as us" as if somehow politicians become more trustworthy when they act on the EU stage! I need concrete evidence that EU systems of government are an improvement on what we have already. The EU, for all its fine words, won't do as it stands, and I don't think the elite has any desire to make the necessary changes.

 

[gosub]

Not sure that EU Commission is that committed to subsidiarity either http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story_open.asp?storyname=25680