What is just so bad about the European Union?

[Gmart]

OK, I accept what you're saying and would agree that the article is idealistic.

What concrete evidence would persuade you on your last point?

I personally feel that having an additional level, which can be improved as we go along, might add a dimension for change that our system does not seem to have.

I appreciate the 'independence' we have, but this is the same country which is once again going to spend 25 billion on a nuclear weapon that we don't need, and which we can't stop our representatives from buying.

We also have a system which has all the institutions in London and which seems to have no intention of localising power to any degree. Europe at least has a basic principle of such localisation and should be supported for it.

It may not be representative enough, but they ARE all the same as us, and are unlikely to vote for something which is a bad idea. We DO still vote in the European elections and thus have representation. The British system is not really a good example of decent representation itself. The Elite you talk about would hate to have to compromise on the European stage. They want to maintain their control.

With the world as it is, it will not pay to be a small country. Many of the problems we face need to be faced collectively, NOT only as a small island of little importance. Business WANTS us to be divided so that it can play us off against each other. We need to cooperate, that would be to our advantage.

Europe could learn a lot from us, but also we could learn a lot from Europe. They have a quality of life which is admirable, and with a bit of vision we could create something worthwhile.

 

[goneforlunch]

OK, I accept what you're saying and would agree that the article is idealistic. What concrete evidence would persuade you on your last point?

The EU system is not better than our democratic system (or the democratic systems of the other member states for that matter) and as such it is not possible to provide any evidence to persuade me. I wish it was because I would love to believe in the EU's public face.

I personally feel that having an additional level, which can be improved as we go along, might add a dimension for change that our system does not seem to have.

The EU is only an additional level in the transitory period as power over policies is handed over to its institutions. It might be improved, but it was never designed to be democratic so it's unlikely to ever have anything like enough democratic controls.

I appreciate the 'independence' we have, but this is the same country which is once again going to spend 25 billion on a nuclear weapon that we don't need, and which we can't stop our representatives from buying.

But you can if you persuade enough people to vote for a party that doesn't support nuclear weapons. Unlikely, I know, as people don't "waste" their votes on small parties, but that's the people's failing. If something is being done as a result of EU policies that you don't like (PFI for instance?) you have no democratic method of influence. The only option is direct action .... now there's something we could certainly learn from the French!

We also have a system which has all the institutions in London and which seems to have no intention of localising power to any degree. Europe at least has a basic principle of such localisation and should be supported for it.

"Europe" as you will insist on calling it pays no more than lip-service to local democratic control, and its main institutions are even further away. Agencies which are located in member states (like the European Police Office in The Hague, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna!, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Coordination at the External Borders of the Member States of the EU in Warsaw, the European Medicines Agency in London, and the European Police College in Bramshill) are still implementing centrally agreed EU rules.

It may not be representative enough, but they ARE all the same as us, and are unlikely to vote for something which is a bad idea. We DO still vote in the European elections and thus have representation. The British system is not really a good example of decent representation itself. The Elite you talk about would hate to have to compromise on the European stage. They want to maintain their control.

Who are "they"? If you mean the ordinary people of the EU's member states, they as much influence over the EU's policies as we do, ie not enough. As to the representation resulting from EU elections, do you know which grouping the MEPs of the party you voted for sit with, and what that group stands for, or how 'your' MEPs vote? If you do you are one of a small minority of British people. The "elite" is all national leaders and ministers and EU Commissioners.

With the world as it is, it will not pay to be a small country. Many of the problems we face need to be faced collectively, NOT only as a small island of little importance. Business WANTS us to be divided so that it can play us off against each other. We need to cooperate, that would be to our advantage. Europe could learn a lot from us, but also we could learn a lot from Europe. They have a quality of life which is admirable, and with a bit of vision we could create something worthwhile.

Countries, small and large, do very well outside the EU, even those who have turned down membership of it. It would appear that business WANTS us to be in the EU. (Why else do you think the general public knows so little about it?) Britain will not be a small island of little importance as it is one of the world's largest trading nations despite being members of the EU, and even if did somehow become small and insignificant, it would still be better than having a 1 in 25+ share of any vote. I am more than happy to cooperate, and learn from others to the point of copying their good policies where possible, but not as a part of the EU.

Co-operating on issues like the environment has meant that the Commission is able to interfere in the pettiest of ways (most recently in banning the use of methyl bromide in cheddar cheese making) on environmental grounds whilst allowing the continued operation of much bigger polluters like coal fired power stations. The WWF has produced a list of Europe's dirtiest power stations. You will note that not one in the UK comes into the top 10. Co-operation is so often a farce.

Learning from others is good, but if handing over our independence to the EU is good for the people, no one has managed to explain why. I'm very much in favour of vision, but I don't share your vision of the EU.

 

[Gmart]

I'm not sure about that power station thing. I mean the list includes:

UK
Spain
Portugal 1
Poland
Italy
Greece
Germany
Czech 1

So forgetting the Portuguese and Czechs as they only have one, we are in a group of 6 out of the rest of Europe who have 4 or more in the top 30 dirtiest. The rest haven't got any, so it depends how you look at it. You put it forward as an example about how good we are, but i don't see it that way.

Your argument that we are not small made me laugh. We are indeed 'quite' big, but from a worldwide POV that's not necessarily relevant. China has just over taken us (see here) and as the world globalises our relative size will obviously count against us. (Apologies for the GDP figures, i spent ages looking for the superior NNP figures but they are not available). At the same link, the EU is greater than the US together, but if we stand alone then our collective power is diminished. I find it difficult to understand why you won't even accept this, but of course you seem unable to be positive even slightly about Europe because you want us to get out! I would suggest that you underestimate the power of globalisation. It used to be that there were many communist economies but they have mostly failed now due to their inability to raise the living standards of their population adequately to prevent an uncomfortable comparison with capitalist countries.

I get the feeling you see this issue as a glass half empty POV. You mistrust the rest of Europe. No real reason except that you want 'us' to be independent. Do you agree with Scottish/Welsh and Irish independence I wonder? What about Catalonia? I am free to believe and you are free not to. Both of us probably see the evidence with bias, highlighting the good and covering the bad (as you did with the power stations).

I appreciate your lack of faith in Europe, and I hope you will be proved wrong. However I am not going to let your lack of belief persuade me to go with the status quo which is so bankrupt. Do we have a second chamber? NO! The election system is suspect too. You say that we should vote for a party which is against nuclear, but is it too much to expect the existing system to reflect the needs of the country and to NOT pay for the missiles and instead to channel the resources into things which are more obviously needed like energy efficient housing, health care, schools, hospitals, etc. The shortcomings of the British system and huge and obvious, but still the suggestion that we are wrong seems difficult to accept for some.

What on Earth do you think would happen with the EU even if we went steaming in? Do you think that any institution could abuse 25 different countries and maintain the union? Surely not! And so in time all the issues would be solved. Further than that the Nation States would always have the capacity to withdraw, thus ensuring power to the individual countries. Which is what you want!

 

[goneforlunch]

I'm not sure about that power station thing. I mean the list includes:

UK
Spain
Portugal 1
Poland
Italy
Greece
Germany
Czech 1

So forgetting the Portuguese and Czechs as they only have one, we are in a group of 6 out of the rest of Europe who have 4 or more in the top 30 dirtiest. The rest haven't got any, so it depends how you look at it. You put it forward as an example about how good we are, but i don't see it that way.

First of all I did not use this information to show how good we are, but to illustrate just how the realities of the EU's environmental policy, although it has promised tougher action in the future. (I'll wait and see on that.) I'll forget the Czechs if you like as they have only been in the EU for a very short time, but I won't forget Portugal as they are amongst the EU-15 countries and amongst the worst for drifting from their Kyoto targets, and conveniently you did not highlight Germany's five of the top 10 dirtiest. (And you say I cover the bad!) Significantly some countries, particularly France, rely on nuclear power and Finland has just approved the building of a fifth nuclear power plant. I imagine you don't approve of nuclear power?

Your argument that we are not small made me laugh. We are indeed 'quite' big, but from a worldwide POV that's not necessarily relevant. China has just over taken us (see here) and as the world globalises our relative size will obviously count against us. (Apologies for the GDP figures, i spent ages looking for the superior NNP figures but they are not available). At the same link, the EU is greater than the US together, but if we stand alone then our collective power is diminished. I find it difficult to understand why you won't even accept this, but of course you seem unable to be positive even slightly about Europe because you want us to get out! I would suggest that you underestimate the power of globalisation. It used to be that there were many communist economies but they have mostly failed now due to their inability to raise the living standards of their population adequately to prevent an uncomfortable comparison with capitalist countries.

But, again, countries large and small do very well outside the EU! You'd have to show that we are better off being a member, as opposed to negotiating a free trade agreement with it, possibly as a member of EFTA, to back up your argument. (EFTA countries have access to the single market and the free movement of goods and services.) Our collective power means nothing unless we agree with the collective line. I had mixed feelings about the invasion of Iraq, but voted for a party that was anti-war anyway, but also disagree with the EU's navel gazing. France and Germany had very lucrative relationships with Saddam Hussein.

I don't underestimate the power of globalisation at all.

I get the feeling you see this issue as a glass half empty POV. You mistrust the rest of Europe. No real reason except that you want 'us' to be independent. Do you agree with Scottish/Welsh and Irish independence I wonder? What about Catalonia? I am free to believe and you are free not to. Both of us probably see the evidence with bias, highlighting the good and covering the bad (as you did with the power stations).

I do not mistrust the rest of Europe, OK? I think I have made it quite clear that I don't trust the EU for the reasons stated in this thread. Independence, which is a farcical term to use whilst they remain EU regions, is a matter for the Scots, Welsh and Irish, preferably after a full and candid public debate. And I have great reasons for wanting us to be independent. And of course you're free to believe what you want to.

I appreciate your lack of faith in Europe, and I hope you will be proved wrong. However I am not going to let your lack of belief persuade me to go with the status quo which is so bankrupt. Do we have a second chamber? NO! The election system is suspect too. You say that we should vote for a party which is against nuclear, but is it too much to expect the existing system to reflect the needs of the country and to NOT pay for the missiles and instead to channel the resources into things which are more obviously needed like energy efficient housing, health care, schools, hospitals, etc. The shortcomings of the British system and huge and obvious, but still the suggestion that we are wrong seems difficult to accept for some.

I don't have a lack of faith in the people of the other European peoples, but their politicians are another matter! I hope that my lack of faith in the institutions of the EU will be proved wrong, since I am apparently stuck with it. A second elected British chamber is as about as likely to respond to your wishes and our current elected chamber and one stuffed with appointees will be useless. They'd still be following EU policies, anyway. As huge and obvious as the shortcomings of the British system are, the shortcomings of the EU system are even more huge, though apparently not obvious to some.

What on Earth do you think would happen with the EU even if we went steaming in? Do you think that any institution could abuse 25 different countries and maintain the union? Surely not! And so in time all the issues would be solved. Further than that the Nation States would always have the capacity to withdraw, thus ensuring power to the individual countries. Which is what you want!

We are not short of steaming in now, with just the euro separating us. (Our government's signature on the Constitution should remove any doubts.) Our lack of participation in the Schengen system makes very little practical difference. A lot of the 25 countries are net recipients of funds from the richer members, and they understandably see the EU differently, but the EU has not benefitted Britain in any way that could not have been achieved without membership. As for the continuation of the Union, that's for the people to decide, not that the European elite worry about that too much.

As for the nation states and their capacity to withdraw, the issue has come up in this thread more than once ...

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.

Please review the thread for further comments.

 

[Gmart]

We can leave whenever we like. Just announce it. What do you think they would do?
I would love to see us in the Euro.
I would rather have two systems than one tho i share your cynicism about a possible second chamber.
I doubt that you could really believe that we get nothing from Europe. The trade with them makes up something like 50% of our exports.
I'm not happy with the weakness of our democracy and am happy that we have a layer of idealism from Europe. It makes sense to cooperate.
I get the feeling that your reaction is because it is the Elite who want this and thus you don't.
You don't seem to notice that as a bloc Europe can address the multinational problem much more effectively. Or is this just inconvenient?
I appreciate that Germany have a bad record on your chart but that is an argument against the Germans, NOT against Europe.
Your whole argument is that small countries can succeed without cooperating beyond the free trade level. I'm not sure. I would suggest that with globalisation the power of smaller countries gets progressively less. But you seem unable or unwilling to accept this. I hope you are right, logically you are not IMHO.
I would love to see independence for as many regions as possible throughout Europe, with cooperation on an economic level. But what degree of cooperation?

I suppose the big difference between us is that I don't have any problem with a vast level of cooperation on all levels, where you want the minimum and seem unhappy with the fact that logically you have to accept that.

So the discussion is more about how much cooperation is optimal?

Here in Italy i would like to see (for example) the same road signs on the road so that I can follow them. Is that unreasonable? I would also like to have the same markings for where to park.
But that said Italy could maybe have a lower tax for business to attract all the business in their direction. Now the UK would not gain from this, so should Italy have this freedom (which benefits business) or should Italy and the UK organise a common tax rate so that business cannot play us off against each other with this EFTA?

 

[Gmart]

Perhaps someone else can give an answer?

They're all crooks etc but i'd rather have two sets of crooks checking on each other, and both imperfectly voted for by us.

I certainly accept that Europe is not always good, but i'd rather stand together with them, rather than let big business play us off against each other for their gain. Why shouldn't we all have the same tax rate for business? If we don't then business will just make us compete against each other for their business, so it is in our interest to cooperate.

 

[gosub]

Because you spent most of this thread after you were pulled up on business going on about subsidiarity but a local decision isn't a local decision without the budget to back it up (I take it you now going back to the link where the Swiss Canton model was deamed unEUropean), it will be a decision in real terms by whoever has control of the purse strings. Taking that further probably a good point to bring up that the EU accounts haven't been signed off for over ten years./ Under the 2002 Finacial Services act, the UK government , one of the largest contributers (net and gross) is breaking its own laws giving taxpayers money to them.

 

[kyser_soze]

I really can't be arsed to read the whole thread here, so can someone let me know if the following points have been addressed?

1. The democratic deficit implicit in the EU's structure
2. The failure to reform the CAP and CFP to both ensure food security within the EU whilst ensuring that developing world farmers have even and equal access to EU markets, tackling the disasterous overfishing problems
3. Endemic corruption and the persecution of whistleblowers
4. The problems associated with an organisation that was basically built around the Franco-German axis but has expanded into a sprawling mess of contradictory and competing visions of where it should go now

?

 

[goneforlunch]

We can leave whenever we like. Just announce it. What do you think they would do?

We can leave whenever we like now, but not once the Constitution that you like so much has come into force. We would be treaty bound to honour our obligation to negotiate withdrawal which I think our EU 'partners' would make as unfavourable to us as it suited them to do so, although some of their politicians would probably prefer us to leave.

I would love to see us in the Euro.

And so would a lot of powerful politicians. Unfortunately for them, they have promised a referendum on it.

I doubt that you could really believe that we get nothing from Europe. The trade with them makes up something like 50% of our exports.

Trade in no way makes up 50% of our exports, nothing like. Anything we get from the EU would not be lost as we could negotiate better terms for our 'partnership' from the outside.

I'm not happy with the weakness of our democracy and am happy that we have a layer of idealism from Europe. It makes sense to cooperate.

If you are not happy with the weakness in our democracy, I can't understand why would you possibly think that the EU would serve us better. EU idealism is mixed with a very unhelpful amount of nationalistic cynicism and of course corruption and its innocent sounding democratic deficit. And we are not co-operating with the EU, because so many decisions are made under QMV. We are effectively being ruled by it. Our own politicians sit on its committees but even if they are acting in our interests they can still be very easily outvoted. I have no reason to trust the politicians of other member states more.

I get the feeling that your reaction is because it is the Elite who want this and thus you don't.

Not that simple. The interests of the British people are not the same as the interests of the elite. I am in favour of withdrawal from the EU because the EU does not, imo, serve the interests of the people.

You don't seem to notice that as a bloc Europe can address the multinational problem much more effectively. Or is this just inconvenient?

Perhaps what you find inconvenient is the fact that we have only a 1 in 25 share of the vote and our interests are not necessarily the same as the majority decision? I don't accept that the EU addresses British interests more effectively than Britain can. The CAP (which takes up almost half the entire EU budget) is a very good example of this point. Can you provide an example to illustrate your view that allowing the the EU to speak for us at trade talks (in the guise of our very own Peter Mandelson) is good for us? EU state aid rules also mean that it decides whether its member states are allowed to subsidise industries, and funds given to poorer member states give them a huge advantage and mean they can attract manufacturing companies in a way that richer states cannot. It means that we pay to subsidise jobs in other states. That's not much of an ideal for British workers. Multinational problems can be addressed effectively without political union.

I appreciate that Germany have a bad record on your chart but that is an argument against the Germans, NOT against Europe. Your whole argument is that small countries can succeed without cooperating beyond the free trade level. I'm not sure. I would suggest that with globalisation the power of smaller countries gets progressively less. But you seem unable or unwilling to accept this. I hope you are right, logically you are not IMHO.

The realities of environmental policies in EU member states show the ineffectiveness of the Commission in dealing with countries that choose to put national interests before EU policy. If the EU can better represent individual countries, even small ones, it is an argument that appears lost on them. Iceland, for example, won't even consider joining the EU unless the CFP is repatriated.

I would love to see independence for as many regions as possible throughout Europe, with cooperation on an economic level. But what degree of cooperation?

No EU region will be independent. How can it be when all of them will be subject to the thousands of EU directives which are decided by Brussels? All leaders have already signed the Constitution which takes even more aspects of government policy under QMV. So how does that leave your admiration for it?

I suppose the big difference between us is that I don't have any problem with a vast level of cooperation on all levels, where you want the minimum and seem unhappy with the fact that logically you have to accept that.

And once again, we are not talking co-operation. Once the people have given informed approval to making our country a part of the plan to federalise the EU, I will accept it, and I'll accept it with good grace, but not until. The big difference between us is that I have looked beyond the propaganda, but your insistence on seeing the EU as a body of co-operation, amongst other things, strongly suggests that you have not.

Here in Italy i would like to see (for example) the same road signs on the road so that I can follow them. Is that unreasonable? I would also like to have the same markings for where to park.

Fine, we can co-operate on that, as we can co-operate on anything else. But EU laws have primacy over national laws on much, much more than parking issues! It depends on whether you regard EU diktats which might or might not be in our interests, enforceable under law, as matters of co-operation!

But that said Italy could maybe have a lower tax for business to attract all the business in their direction. Now the UK would not gain from this, so should Italy have this freedom (which benefits business) or should Italy and the UK organise a common tax rate so that business cannot play us off against each other with this EFTA?

If any state can attract business and the jobs that go with it, that is surely a good thing, is it not? Putting up corporate taxes to avoid one member state being played off against another does not allow for most countries not being members of the EU and therefore able to attract business with an "unfair" tax regime.

EFTA members have access to the Single Market, and the free movement of goods, services and people, so what do we get out of being members of the EU?

Can we at least agree that we are talking about the EU, not Europe? I might sound pedantic, but substituting "EU" for "Europe" is wrong, and insulting to European countries which have rejected EU membership!

 

[voiceofreason]

There's an argument that a united Europe could be a saner and more stable counterweight to an all powerful USA which has a habit of throwing its power around in a dangerous way. It can be a seductive argument, but I don't buy it. Leaving aside the usual questions about accountability and national sovereignty, I just don't think that creating another military superpower is the best way to go about making the world a safer place. It's going to take mass movements around the globe, built from the grassroots up, to stop the drive to militarism and war.

 

[Gmart]

I accept a lot of what's being said here, but i can't help but notice that it seems to be that either we are in the thrall of an imperfectly democratic institution (the EU) or we are sold down the river to the multinationals in the global competition as to who can treat their population the worst so as to get a few jobs.

 

[gosub]

Except that economies of scale mean that EU regulation impacts harder on smaller companies

 

[Gmart]

I haven't got a problem with preferential treatment for small companies. I would even suggest that they pay no VAT and that they pay no tax up to a certain level.

 

[gosub]

Is that EU policy ?

 

[laptop]

Is that EU policy ?

If the Commission proposed it, then the anti-EU types would be yelling about them interfering in national tax policy...

In the UK, businesses with a turnover below £60,000 do not need to do VAT accounting.

Which for many businesses translates into a benefits-level income...

 

[gosub]

You only don't have to do VAT accounting if you are not VAT registered which its not cost effective to do under 50k. If you are not registered you cannot claim the VAT back.

EUropean Union already dictates VAT policy which is why we know have it on things like baby clothes.

 

[laptop]

You only don't have to do VAT accounting if you are not VAT registered which its not cost effective to do under 50k. If you are not registered you cannot claim the VAT back.

I know. What I said, rephrased, was that over £60k, you have to register in the UK.

European Union already dictates VAT policy

Not entirely. For example the 0% rate on books and newspapers in the UK - whereas in (for example) Ireland they carry VAT.

 

[gosub]

doublepost

 

[gosub]

I know. What I said, rephrased, was that over £60k, you have to register in the UK.

But unless you are providing goods and or services out of thin air that's an additional 17.5% on a small companies costs - for resources

Not entirely. For example the 0% rate on books and newspapers in the UK - whereas in (for example) Ireland they carry VAT.

Didn't know that, presume thats down to the media being more important to the country than children

 

[A Dashing Blade]

But unless you are providing goods and or services out of thin air that's an additional 17.5% on a small companies costs - for resources

VAT is only paid for by the final purchaser of a good or service.

Eg Company A is supplied (good or service) by Company B & pays VATto B.

That VAT paid is then offset against any VAT charged by Company A to a third party.

 

[gosub]

VAT is only paid for by the final purchaser of a good or service.

Eg Company A is supplied (good or service) by Company B & pays VATto B.

That VAT paid is then offset against any VAT charged by Company A to a third party.

Bollocks - you have to be VAT registered for that to happen.


Its a derail anyway or rather a derail of a derail given that the thread is about whats wrong with the EU not what would be wrong with EU if it was doing different things than it is.
Have the EUrophilliacs decided that as they don't appear to being too welll they will turn the discussion towards something even duller than the EU.

 

[Gmart]

Nah, we won tho you haven't noticed!

Anyway, it is obvious because of the choice i highlighted.

Now we are getting down to real politics within the EU, rather than dreaming of politics without it.

 

[gosub]

What a curious statement.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Bollocks - you have to be VAT registered for that to happen.

True. Apols, misinterpreted post. My Bad

 

[Gmart]

What a curious statement.

The curious thing is why you seem to be supporting the multinationals in their attempt to dissuade us from working together? Is there any reason why you trust them NOT to play one nation up against another in the way described?

Or do you (finally) accept that trusting an imperfect, localised, democratic EU state, covering 490 million people and 27 countries who have all decided to cooperate on a few issues which need to be dealt with on a bigger scale.

Anyone can get out at a moment's notice, with a vote in their national government. What do you think Brussels would do? Invade?!!

I might add that many of your issues were effectively addressed on the first page by Cadmus and Hrdtc.

I fully support QMV bcos the fight against crime on EU level has to become more efficient. As the situation stands now, borders are open to criminals but closed to prosecutors. The single market is criminogenic and there's no other way to fight it. 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.

Curious indeed!

 

[gosub]

The curious thing is why you seem to be supporting the multinationals in their attempt to dissuade us from working together? Is there any reason why you trust them NOT to play one nation up against another in the way described?

Nope as I said before economies of scale mean that EUropean regulation imp[acts harder on smaller companies than larger ones. You don't reduce the influence of multinationals by wiping out small business.

Or do you (finally) accept that trusting an imperfect, localised, democratic EU state, covering 490 million people and 27 countries who have all decided to cooperate on a few issues which need to be dealt with on a bigger scale.

Nope. There are lot of words in that sentence, imperfect is alright, the other adjectives I do not recognize in context of EU. Trusting a state is a definite nono.When was this democratic decision in which 490 million agreed, is that the thing you(?) won

Anyone can get out at a moment's notice, with a vote in their national government. What do you think Brussels would do? Invade?!!

Nah try and bounce through a constitution that made makes it a lot harder to leave for a start.

I might add that many of your issues were effectively addressed on the first page by Cadmus and Hrdtc.!

I think gonetolunch handled himself pretty well, but I don't agree with him on everything, I'm not a fan of UKIP for a start but what the hey (People's Front of Judea is not just a Left thing). That's democracy for you - I think I'll still be voting the same way come a referendum (thank you EUroskeptics) that we have been promised for ten years. Ten years, christ where does the time go?

 

[gosub]

Sorry, the quote didn't show up when I quoted you. Not a fan myself, just sets alarm bells ringing in my head, but maybe that's just my outlook on life. Who knows maybe somebody will twig that its would be cheaper to ship all the criminals east to where they can be dealt with more discreetly and cost effectively Swapping cattle trucks for Gulfstream V's is not my idea of progress.


This database of DNA the Home Office have dubiously built, are they handing out access to it through EUropol?

 

[goneforlunch]

The curious thing is why you seem to be supporting the multinationals in their attempt to dissuade us from working together? Is there any reason why you trust them NOT to play one nation up against another in the way described?

I find it curious that you think the EU is protecting us from multinationals. They appear satisfied with the EU. Do you think the integration project would ever have got this far without multinational support? Its privatisation of state owned industries, for example, served their interests well. They have no loyalty to any one country, not even the evolving EU state, and will move production to countries with cheaper costs, ie eastern European members and non-EU states as and when it suits them. What can the EU do to stop them?

Or do you (finally) accept that trusting an imperfect, localised, democratic EU state, covering 490 million people and 27 countries who have all decided to cooperate on a few issues which need to be dealt with on a bigger scale.

Anyone can get out at a moment's notice, with a vote in their national government. What do you think Brussels would do? Invade?!!

The EU is imperfect at best, but it's not localised, it's barely democratic, and its reach covers much, much more than a few issues, but we've been through all that! As for getting out of the EU pre-Constitution, that would pre-suppose a government that had its own people's interests at heart, and I don't think we could put any of our mainstream parties in that category. And post-Constitution, we've been through that too, and well you should know anyway, you've read it!

I might add that many of your issues were effectively addressed on the first page by Cadmus and Hrdtc.

Cadmus and Hrdtc put forward their views, and I have particular respect for Cadmus, but in no way were my issues effectively addressed by them.

I think gonetolunch handled himself pretty well, but I don't agree with him on everything, I'm not a fan of UKIP for a start but what the hey (People's Front of Judea is not just a Left thing). That's democracy for you - I think I'll still be voting the same way come a referendum (thank you EUroskeptics) that we have been promised for ten years. Ten years, christ where does the time go?

I'm not a big fan of UKIP myself, but they are at least a vehicle for leaving the EU, and I can't see a better one. But a vote for almost any party [BNP apart] is better than voting for any of the big 3, imho.

As for that referendum, “Given the recent experience in France and the Netherlands concerning referendums, we would not advise anyone to organise one,” said a commission official, [on the issue of a Polish referendum on joining the euro.]

EU fears Polish euro vote

Euro membership is a condition of Poland's EU membership, so I can sort of understand the Commission's annoyance.

 

[gosub]

I'm not a big fan of UKIP myself, but they are at least a vehicle for leaving the EU, and I can't see a better one. But a vote for almost any party [BNP apart] is better than voting for any of the big 3, imho.

Certainly not a fan of the BNP, did get quite involved with the RP, since then though been leaning towards Groucho Marxism. Finally putting Farage in charge of UKIP is a step in the right direction -he has noone now to to carrythe can for his actions

 

[Gmart]

I think we all understand each other and I suppose we just see things differently. I would be much happier with more democracy, but barely democratic is better than none, with the Multinationals (in my view) much happier with us fighting each other over stupid stuff while not cooperating. (I thought the example was good).

Nonetheless, I understand your knee jerk reaction against everyone with any power. No belief in anything is much safer. It is this animalistic, fear-based reaction which would still have us in a swamp evolutionarily and which leads the Elite to justify their actions on 'our' behalf. Maybe they have a point!! We ARE too stupid and scared to cooperate and thus need to be controlled. I have never agreed with this view, but you are persuading me.

As far as democracy goes we are lucky to have any! But then again we have one of the worst in Europe (see here), so one wonders what you are defending (if anything).

It's always so much easier to be against 'them' rather than for anything.

*sigh*