What is just so bad about the European Union?
- Thread starter hrdtc
- Start date
goneforlunch
Member
gmarthews said:
So where is the EU on the democracy table you supplied? It should figure somewhere as its institutions now make most of our laws and its laws now have supremacy over our own. It appears to pass under Freedom House's (the source for The Economist's table) radar. It would definitely be in the flawed democracies end of the table. You quite clearly don't understand my reaction to politics including EU politics, so please stop trying to second guess me with your simplistic, even childlike, shit, shag and drink style analysis.
Freedom House's criticisms of our democracy are valid, particularly in the government's use of new powers to counter 'terrorism' which it gained as part of its alignment of our justice system with the EU's criminal code. It actually cites the government's power to read our emails, when this is an EU measure enthusiastically supported by the government. This abuse of power is not something that I can see being overturned with deeper EU membership. In fact we must have slipped down the rankings in recent years, due to abuses of power by a politicians committed to EU membership. Ironic, don't you think?
I and most other people are not too stupid or too scared to co-operate, and we most certainly do not need to be controlled, and I am quite happy to be represented in international treaties by a British government (or possibly even a democratic European government in the future) working in the interests of the people who elect them with proper regard for the rest of the world's peoples, but I want the British people to retain the power to change their government until a better system presents itself. The EU is not that system. You (thankfully!) don't speak for everyone despite your use of the word 'we'. You only seem to want democracy if the people want the EU. More irony.
And what has greater 'co-operation' as you will insist on calling it brought us? The disastrous CFP and CAP, an internal (single) market riven with nationalistic self-interest, an environment policy which is routinely sidelined (most EU states failed to meet their Kyoto targets by a wide margin) an open immigration policy, and a whole host of other issues on which we can be easily overuled. And then on top of all that, we have our own zealous officials to deal with.
But, you could just deal with the question ... of how the EU protects people from Corporatism ....
Gmart
Well-Known Member
gosub and gonetolunch said:
I have stated that corporatism causes countries to compete with each other with the winner being the one who treats their population the worst. I certainly don't like it, but am arguing that marginalising ourselves out of Europe would make us MORE at risk from this threat.
You argue that being out of Europe would somehow make the UK stronger to counter this threat!
That said it is the corparate sector which employs the workers and thus enables them to live. Any government would mess with that at their peril. So they cooperate to ensure that they can reap the benefits of the private sector but not be played off against each other. The private sector (such as Murdoch...) is naturally against this cooperation because it limits their ability to screw populations for profit!
I have also argued for measures to help SMALL business to thrive, thus localising power more and away from the big businesses.
I am not happy with the slide towards Authoritarianism which you mention, and I am not suggesting that the EU would make this better, I am suggesting that it is ridiculous to avoid being IN it. That is why other countries are trying so hard to get in, (despite the conservatives who are against any cooperation), and it is also why their are no politicians who are really against being in it. Such a political view is only shared by the old conservatives who wish we still had an Empire and even THEY know that it would be suicide to leave because so many businesses have invested here to be IN Europe and they provide JOBS!! If we tried to leave, even going to a semi-in-Europe state, they would just move to Armenia where the wages are lower and where they would be made more welcome by the population.
Simply put, there are some issues which are big issues by definition. Issues which are not can be kept at the local level. In much the same way as recently the UK government has been transferring powers to the Scottish, Welsh and NI Assemblies. There is a debate being had as to which issues are best kept at the local level and which need to be controlled to ensure that the big picture is not forgotten.
Your reactions to the EU are due to fear if they prove to be 'evil'. Do you feel that being in Europe makes you less English?? What do you fear losing?
My "simplistic" comment about them was merely to reinforce that 'they' are like us and that they have as much to lose by screwing up the system as we do.
gonetolunch said:
CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) What else are we supposed to do? I would have loved to have restricted this to national usage only but people don't go along with that and sail through international waters to fish where they like! Thus the only REALISTIC policy is to enforce quotas to hopefully ensure that the fish don't get fished into extinction.
CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) An inevitable reaction after the War to the deprivations of a lack of agriculture. We get a rebate due to our small agri sector, but in time this whole system will be phased out hopefully.
An internal market with nationalism, well nationalism won't disappear and hopefully it will keep the system localised.
The Environment, naturally an issue, but one which everyone wants to ignore worldwide. Hardly something to lay at the door of the EU.
And finally the 'Open' Immigration policy. Well of course economically it is good for business, and it is nigh impossible to prevent someone if they want to come. In fact our wealth attracts them as we have a good system. It is a basic of life, the poor will insist on moving to the rich parts of the world in a selfish attempt to improve their lives!
Therefore we should encourage democracy everywhere and try and encourage them to set up their lives in their own country. They usually don't stay long saying that and they just want to earn a bit of money to live on when they get back. Imagine if it WASN'T worth their while to come!!! We'd be forced into realising that our education system is rubbish and doesn't provide enough doctors, nurses, teachers etc, let alone provide decent skills with an ideal of equality of opportunity, etc but that's another discussion i suppose...
gosub
~#
Article 43 of the Treaty of Nice pretty much entrenches in law the right for corporation's to play member states off against each other. The ECJ is currently deliberating as to whether striking in protest against companies taking advantage of this is lawful.
Did notice that the highest performers on that democracy index were EFTA members as opposed to EU
Did notice that the highest performers on that democracy index were EFTA members as opposed to EU
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews
I disagree with your views about the EU and corporatism. Being out of THE EU, would mean that we would not need EU permission to offer state subsidies to keep jobs! A good example of this is Peugeot moving production from Coventry to Eastern Europe today with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Others might blame it on 'weak' labour laws, but Eastern Europe also has 'weak' labour laws, and so the jobs will move to even cheaper parts of the world. Has the EU stopped our manufacturing base from all but drying up? Has it stopped jobs from moving to India, Malaysia, China, etc, or Eastern European member states? No! Corporations are doing what they are designed to do - maximising profits. They have no loyalty to any individual country and none to the EU either.
The private sector is not against rule by EU institutions. Why do you think the right wing in the shape of the Conservatives are so supportive of the EU? They have signed or supported every EU treaty so far, and even their opposition for the Constitution has been late and lacklustre (to eke out their phoney credentials as eurosceptics?) I have no time for the MSM in the shape of Murdoch or any other newspaper. The supposedly eurosceptic British quality press sucks, and the tabloids just trivialise issues, or often get it plain wrong. The News of the World only yesterday in its print edition reported that the BNP is to get £130,000 in EU aid as it will have 20 MEPs. Who writes this rubbish!
You can argue for SMALL businesses all you want, but the EU does nothing to help them with its all enveloping bureacracy. It talks a lot about reducing regulation, but in reality the bureacrats march on, and small businesses suffer, resulting in less competition for BIG business.
If being in the EU won't improve the situation, why is it ridiculous to avoid being in it? Most of the world's countries are not in it, or anything similar. Poor countries are trying hard to get it, but successful ones have rejected membership, or haven't even tried to gain entry. And who do you mean by "conservatives"? The Conservative Party is not against co-operation, or it wouldn't have signed/supported all those treaties!
It's mainly mainstream politicians who are supportive of it, even if a lot of them only support it to avoid splitting their parties and so keep their jobs. People like Tebbit are probably against it because they don't like big government, but even he's not against it to the extent that he will leave his party! Even some Labour MPs like Clare Short have questioned the point of the EU. EFTA countries access the internal market just as EU members do so investors are unlikely to leave Britain if we left the EU.
Most eurosceptics don't want isolationist policies, but nor do they want to unilaterally implement idealistic policies, however necessary action might be. Britian and the few like-minded countries can't save the world alone. More international co-operation is needed. And the government has only devolved power to the new Assemblies on the basis that they will work within the confines of EU directives, regulations and laws. It doesn't leave them much room for local decisions.
Please stop this thinking you know what my reactions are due to. We clearly see the EU in a different way and you appear to prefer your own interpretation of my views, despite what I have said to the contrary. Let's stick to the tangible, please. I'm not happy with rule by undemocratic EU institutions which hold too much power over citizens being dressed up as co-operation for one thing. I think the EU threatens the lifestyle of continental Europeans almost as much as it does the British, but I don't want to stop them integrating if that is indeed what they want. Is it your view that because it's ok for them, it should be ok for the British too? Well screw that!
When Britain controlled its own fishing grounds with the use of the Navy, they were some of the richest in the World, then Spain and Portugal entered the EU with hardly any fishing grounds to add to the mix. They, and Spain particularly had a large fleet, were given phased access to what had become community waters. We should at least have got something in return. But instead the British fishing industry has all but died for the good of others. If fish could wave flags, they wouldn't be waving the EU's!
The CAP was a natural reaction to the war, but the war has been over for 60 years now, and the CAP has been a monstrosity for most of that time. Attempts have been made to reform it before, but like bureacracy it marches on unabated. To hope it will be phased out eventually is to ignore EU history. And we have a small agri sector in part because of the CAP.
We have a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU. And with the deficit being what it is, we'd have the leverage to negotiate a much better trade agreement. And there is very little which could be said to be 'local' about the EU with diktats from the centre.
No one is laying the state of the environment at the door of the EU, and I certainly don't want to see it ignored. But for all its caring talk, the EU is doing nothing but set targets that most members pay little more than lip-service to. Environmental policy is not a reason for being in the EU.
Immigration policy is good for business? Undoubtedly, a larger population is good for corporations as they have more people to sell their goods and services too, but how is it good for the people? Taxes have risen here faster than anywhere else with no added value on public services, green belt land is being built on to cope with our expanding population, (now standing at around an extra 200,000 people every single year) with planning permission being streamlined and so overriding LOCAL opposition, etc!
I have every admiration for immigrants trying to improve their lives, and would probably do the same thing myself if I were in their position. How can you in all conscience sanction taking young, educated people from their home countries which often need them far more than we do? It's government immigraton policy I am against. Our education system is not the main problem
(I feel my children are being far, far better taught than I ever was.) The real problem I feel, is in social breakdown. Too many children arrive at school completely unprepared ... some don't even know what a book is, that it can be opened and has pages to turn, often with a story that can be read. I don't expect the EU can fix that. But perhaps you're right, that's part of another discussion.
Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, and if we can't run our country with 60 million inhabitants, the EU is only going to be a hindrance.
Sorry for the length of this; I can't do short posts
. I start a new job tomorrow and might not be able to come back for a few weeks. The boss might not be relaxed about internet usage during working hours.
I disagree with your views about the EU and corporatism. Being out of THE EU, would mean that we would not need EU permission to offer state subsidies to keep jobs! A good example of this is Peugeot moving production from Coventry to Eastern Europe today with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Others might blame it on 'weak' labour laws, but Eastern Europe also has 'weak' labour laws, and so the jobs will move to even cheaper parts of the world. Has the EU stopped our manufacturing base from all but drying up? Has it stopped jobs from moving to India, Malaysia, China, etc, or Eastern European member states? No! Corporations are doing what they are designed to do - maximising profits. They have no loyalty to any individual country and none to the EU either.
The private sector is not against rule by EU institutions. Why do you think the right wing in the shape of the Conservatives are so supportive of the EU? They have signed or supported every EU treaty so far, and even their opposition for the Constitution has been late and lacklustre (to eke out their phoney credentials as eurosceptics?) I have no time for the MSM in the shape of Murdoch or any other newspaper. The supposedly eurosceptic British quality press sucks, and the tabloids just trivialise issues, or often get it plain wrong. The News of the World only yesterday in its print edition reported that the BNP is to get £130,000 in EU aid as it will have 20 MEPs. Who writes this rubbish!
You can argue for SMALL businesses all you want, but the EU does nothing to help them with its all enveloping bureacracy. It talks a lot about reducing regulation, but in reality the bureacrats march on, and small businesses suffer, resulting in less competition for BIG business.
If being in the EU won't improve the situation, why is it ridiculous to avoid being in it? Most of the world's countries are not in it, or anything similar. Poor countries are trying hard to get it, but successful ones have rejected membership, or haven't even tried to gain entry. And who do you mean by "conservatives"? The Conservative Party is not against co-operation, or it wouldn't have signed/supported all those treaties!
It's mainly mainstream politicians who are supportive of it, even if a lot of them only support it to avoid splitting their parties and so keep their jobs. People like Tebbit are probably against it because they don't like big government, but even he's not against it to the extent that he will leave his party! Even some Labour MPs like Clare Short have questioned the point of the EU. EFTA countries access the internal market just as EU members do so investors are unlikely to leave Britain if we left the EU.
Most eurosceptics don't want isolationist policies, but nor do they want to unilaterally implement idealistic policies, however necessary action might be. Britian and the few like-minded countries can't save the world alone. More international co-operation is needed. And the government has only devolved power to the new Assemblies on the basis that they will work within the confines of EU directives, regulations and laws. It doesn't leave them much room for local decisions.
Please stop this thinking you know what my reactions are due to. We clearly see the EU in a different way and you appear to prefer your own interpretation of my views, despite what I have said to the contrary. Let's stick to the tangible, please. I'm not happy with rule by undemocratic EU institutions which hold too much power over citizens being dressed up as co-operation for one thing. I think the EU threatens the lifestyle of continental Europeans almost as much as it does the British, but I don't want to stop them integrating if that is indeed what they want. Is it your view that because it's ok for them, it should be ok for the British too? Well screw that!
When Britain controlled its own fishing grounds with the use of the Navy, they were some of the richest in the World, then Spain and Portugal entered the EU with hardly any fishing grounds to add to the mix. They, and Spain particularly had a large fleet, were given phased access to what had become community waters. We should at least have got something in return. But instead the British fishing industry has all but died for the good of others. If fish could wave flags, they wouldn't be waving the EU's!
The CAP was a natural reaction to the war, but the war has been over for 60 years now, and the CAP has been a monstrosity for most of that time. Attempts have been made to reform it before, but like bureacracy it marches on unabated. To hope it will be phased out eventually is to ignore EU history. And we have a small agri sector in part because of the CAP.
We have a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU. And with the deficit being what it is, we'd have the leverage to negotiate a much better trade agreement. And there is very little which could be said to be 'local' about the EU with diktats from the centre.
No one is laying the state of the environment at the door of the EU, and I certainly don't want to see it ignored. But for all its caring talk, the EU is doing nothing but set targets that most members pay little more than lip-service to. Environmental policy is not a reason for being in the EU.
Immigration policy is good for business? Undoubtedly, a larger population is good for corporations as they have more people to sell their goods and services too, but how is it good for the people? Taxes have risen here faster than anywhere else with no added value on public services, green belt land is being built on to cope with our expanding population, (now standing at around an extra 200,000 people every single year) with planning permission being streamlined and so overriding LOCAL opposition, etc!
I have every admiration for immigrants trying to improve their lives, and would probably do the same thing myself if I were in their position. How can you in all conscience sanction taking young, educated people from their home countries which often need them far more than we do? It's government immigraton policy I am against. Our education system is not the main problem
(I feel my children are being far, far better taught than I ever was.) The real problem I feel, is in social breakdown. Too many children arrive at school completely unprepared ... some don't even know what a book is, that it can be opened and has pages to turn, often with a story that can be read. I don't expect the EU can fix that. But perhaps you're right, that's part of another discussion.
Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, and if we can't run our country with 60 million inhabitants, the EU is only going to be a hindrance.
Sorry for the length of this; I can't do short posts
. I start a new job tomorrow and might not be able to come back for a few weeks. The boss might not be relaxed about internet usage during working hours.
gosub
~#
Media is starting reportage on the ECJ hearings at the moment, (currently 30 stories on the top link if you google news "ECJ")
It is worth noting that article 48 of the Treaty of Nice calls for Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States.
'Companies or firms' means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non profit making.
according to http://www.fedee.com/nicetreaty.html anyway.
I seem to recall something a while back where pschologists were asked to evalutate corperations as they were "natural persons" iirc they were pschopathic meglomaniacs
It is worth noting that article 48 of the Treaty of Nice calls for Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States.
'Companies or firms' means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non profit making.
according to http://www.fedee.com/nicetreaty.html anyway.
I seem to recall something a while back where pschologists were asked to evalutate corperations as they were "natural persons" iirc they were pschopathic meglomaniacs
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I've had a thought about the valid criticism of the European Union as undemocratic!
We already have MEP's of course but i would also like to see the freedom to have a referendum if enough people want it.
This would mean that if one could get enough signatures then the political establishment would be forced to listen to the people. For example if the people in Catalonia in north-east Spain really wish to have autonomy, then they should vote on it, and if they achieve a quorum, they should get what they want. Also it would mean that a renegotiation of the CFP could be pushed to the front of the agenda by this simple democratic measure.
I'm sure that if Luxembourg can have the highest GDP per capita in the world and be in the EU, other nations becoming independent within the EU would not cause a problem. In fact the localisation of power could be a source of power though some redistribution from the rich areas to the poor would be needed of course.
I would also agree that a simple right to withdraw from the EU at 6 months notice (to give all the businesses the time to move out of the coutry and to take all their jobs with them).
With these 2 rights the only people left over would be those who are against being in Europe 'coz they're not like us', and they can eff off to the National Front!
All this points to the need to review how the EU is made up, even if we don't call it a constitution. Maybe we could find a common Bill of Rights later, but the setup needs to be organised well, and not just swept under the carpet or else there will be more problems which would be erroneously used as justification of getting out of the EU. Nothing here has convinced me of the nee for this drastic action. There are still bigger issues which need to be dealt with on a larger scale than nationally. For example the cleanliness of hospitals are needed worldwide, and thus a system of best practice between countries is logical. The same goes for crime prevention and countless other issues.
We already have MEP's of course but i would also like to see the freedom to have a referendum if enough people want it.
This would mean that if one could get enough signatures then the political establishment would be forced to listen to the people. For example if the people in Catalonia in north-east Spain really wish to have autonomy, then they should vote on it, and if they achieve a quorum, they should get what they want. Also it would mean that a renegotiation of the CFP could be pushed to the front of the agenda by this simple democratic measure.
I'm sure that if Luxembourg can have the highest GDP per capita in the world and be in the EU, other nations becoming independent within the EU would not cause a problem. In fact the localisation of power could be a source of power though some redistribution from the rich areas to the poor would be needed of course.
I would also agree that a simple right to withdraw from the EU at 6 months notice (to give all the businesses the time to move out of the coutry and to take all their jobs with them).
With these 2 rights the only people left over would be those who are against being in Europe 'coz they're not like us', and they can eff off to the National Front!
All this points to the need to review how the EU is made up, even if we don't call it a constitution. Maybe we could find a common Bill of Rights later, but the setup needs to be organised well, and not just swept under the carpet or else there will be more problems which would be erroneously used as justification of getting out of the EU. Nothing here has convinced me of the nee for this drastic action. There are still bigger issues which need to be dealt with on a larger scale than nationally. For example the cleanliness of hospitals are needed worldwide, and thus a system of best practice between countries is logical. The same goes for crime prevention and countless other issues.
gosub
~#
You're not playing semantics again 
, a system was put in place a while ago where 1 million signature petition delivered to the EU commission is enough to trigger a referendum (at the time I don't think they though 1mil+ were that easy to do), and there is a bill of rights so expect you to go back to saying everything is wonderful in the EU.
If the EU considered health care a priority then there would have been a BCG program in the Baltic states before giving them free movement round EUrope as the WHO recommended, or perhaps they might have done more to prevent the squandering of the finite number of antibiotics known to man on factory farmed animals.
Six months notice would be polite, but repealing the 1972 European Communities Act would be enough to get the UK out.
The effect on business is speculation either way, but the European country that is "home" to more of the largest companies is Switzerland that is not a member of the EU. But that's big companies for you - would reduce the burden on smaller companies as well though.
, a system was put in place a while ago where 1 million signature petition delivered to the EU commission is enough to trigger a referendum (at the time I don't think they though 1mil+ were that easy to do), and there is a bill of rights so expect you to go back to saying everything is wonderful in the EU. If the EU considered health care a priority then there would have been a BCG program in the Baltic states before giving them free movement round EUrope as the WHO recommended, or perhaps they might have done more to prevent the squandering of the finite number of antibiotics known to man on factory farmed animals.
Six months notice would be polite, but repealing the 1972 European Communities Act would be enough to get the UK out.
The effect on business is speculation either way, but the European country that is "home" to more of the largest companies is Switzerland that is not a member of the EU. But that's big companies for you - would reduce the burden on smaller companies as well though.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The charge was that the EU was 'evil' because it is not adequately democratic and because we cannot get out.
With a system which gives a referendum with a certain amount of votes this charge would be seen as baseless.
Also, as you say, we could get out of the EU by repealing the law that got us in, but that is just my point. The EU is not all that bad because it is logical to be in it and we could get out if we wanted to.
I have accepted your points as to the problems with the EU at the moment. I don't really understand WHY you are so against it.
It seems a lot like the National Front idea of 'they're not like us' when actually they are! Their systems are slightly different and we could gain from adopting best practice.
For example the hospitals are much cleaner in France. Heck! the cities are much nicer in most of Europe, the trains are a third cheaper than in the UK. We need to accept that all of these facts point to the fact that they are doing something right! And we should learn from them. The same goes the other way. We are better at ensuring competition in markets than they are and they are learning this lesson from us.
What gets me is the conspiratorial assumption. The EU is NOT a conspiracy against us, there are 27 countries trying to cooperate. It is the same response as in the US about Kyoto. They didn't want to sign up to Kyoto and so they decided that it was a conspiracy against the US, when actually it was just logical to cooperate, but the media kicked in and the people believe just what the media want them to believe. Just like the anti-european media in the UK, which has persuaded the country that the EU is evil.
And now the conservatives want to opt out of the social chapter which ensures the rights of many of the underprivileged in society. But because everyone has fallen for the anti-european media they will vote for them too (maybe! i hope not!).
There was a bill of fundamental rights which was in the constitution but this is dead, though i would challenge you to find anything in it you would disagree with. What you are probably referring to is the Human Rights Act which makes torture illegal etc, and the Conservatives are considering opting out of that as well. Crazy!
The effect on business IS speculation, in the same way as I might speculate as to anything. Certainly Switzerland has a very pro-business attitude as well as low taxes in comparison to many. Very sensible! I wish we had the same low taxes in the UK, it would attract a lot of business too.
I, of course, agree with your comments about anti-biotics and introducing a BCG program in the Baltic states before giving them free movement. Mistakes have been made, I could list a few by the UK government, but this is NOT a reason to stop cooperating, it is a reason to adopt change and to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future.
I would like to see the EU go far beyond its current borders to include even Russia, Turkey, the North of Africa and Israel. We can lead by example with a good, transparent, flexible, democratic system. Why not? Only fear can stop us!
With a system which gives a referendum with a certain amount of votes this charge would be seen as baseless.
Also, as you say, we could get out of the EU by repealing the law that got us in, but that is just my point. The EU is not all that bad because it is logical to be in it and we could get out if we wanted to.
I have accepted your points as to the problems with the EU at the moment. I don't really understand WHY you are so against it.
It seems a lot like the National Front idea of 'they're not like us' when actually they are! Their systems are slightly different and we could gain from adopting best practice.
For example the hospitals are much cleaner in France. Heck! the cities are much nicer in most of Europe, the trains are a third cheaper than in the UK. We need to accept that all of these facts point to the fact that they are doing something right! And we should learn from them. The same goes the other way. We are better at ensuring competition in markets than they are and they are learning this lesson from us.
What gets me is the conspiratorial assumption. The EU is NOT a conspiracy against us, there are 27 countries trying to cooperate. It is the same response as in the US about Kyoto. They didn't want to sign up to Kyoto and so they decided that it was a conspiracy against the US, when actually it was just logical to cooperate, but the media kicked in and the people believe just what the media want them to believe. Just like the anti-european media in the UK, which has persuaded the country that the EU is evil.
And now the conservatives want to opt out of the social chapter which ensures the rights of many of the underprivileged in society. But because everyone has fallen for the anti-european media they will vote for them too (maybe! i hope not!).
There was a bill of fundamental rights which was in the constitution but this is dead, though i would challenge you to find anything in it you would disagree with. What you are probably referring to is the Human Rights Act which makes torture illegal etc, and the Conservatives are considering opting out of that as well. Crazy!
The effect on business IS speculation, in the same way as I might speculate as to anything. Certainly Switzerland has a very pro-business attitude as well as low taxes in comparison to many. Very sensible! I wish we had the same low taxes in the UK, it would attract a lot of business too.
I, of course, agree with your comments about anti-biotics and introducing a BCG program in the Baltic states before giving them free movement. Mistakes have been made, I could list a few by the UK government, but this is NOT a reason to stop cooperating, it is a reason to adopt change and to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future.
I would like to see the EU go far beyond its current borders to include even Russia, Turkey, the North of Africa and Israel. We can lead by example with a good, transparent, flexible, democratic system. Why not? Only fear can stop us!
gosub
~#
Actually my biggest gripe with the EU is accountability, and barriers to exit IIRC came from proponents of the constitution pretending that adding hoops would make it easier.
I do think "they are different to us" is an argument but I take exception to your snide NF insinuations. Top down and bottom up have shaped and driven the development of Europe (not EUrope). Both have their merits, (though I would except that currently the French political system is the most nepotistic it has been since Louis' bad hair day, and the UK seems to have abandoned democracy altogether), but I think even Jonathan Swift would have disliked the look of this particular omelette.
I also except there are aspects from other nations of EUrope and even further afield that the UK could learn from, but that's not really what the EU is for, it is an exercise in homogenization.
The underlying motto of EUrocrats is "ever closer Union" and I hear politicians all the time use the simile of a bicycle- stop and get a scraped knee. But mankind has been here before and it was only the cause of that fall out that stops the EU being seen as the nutters on the fairground saying scream if you want to go faster - the US civil war.
You say the EU has made mistakes that should be learnt from but they have made enough that its clear that the EU is not a panacea - I don't know how well the turkey flu was covered in Italy but it emerged afterwards that EU trade regs limited the response to a bio hazard, or CFP which should be a logical place for pan EUropean cooperation (giving fish passports seems impractical) has been responsible for decimating fish stocks. on the environment Europe's desire to renegotiate the Chicago Convention on air transport, would actually be easier for nation states.
I've heard claims the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years, quite impressive for an organization less than 20 years old as it starts to undermine NATO. And Euro arrest warrants that should in theory cut down hardened criminals hiding places are just as likely to be used to pursue people for crimes a magistrate would balk at (fancy slagging off the Polish Premier).
My scepticism has hardened, from things like hearing where the mandate for all this supposedly comes from (I'm the same age as you, so was never consulted)- when even Baroness Nicholson admits the public were duped, through the smear tactics that have been employed against opposition (Desmond Tutu actually called Jimmy Goldsmith "his brother" at the St Martin at the Fields memorial) as well as seeing what happens to whistle blowers within the EUrocrat system. Political viewpoints from within the accession countries also alarm me, as does not knowing what happened everybody that worked for the Stazi, but what it comes back too is accountability.
I linked before to leviathan a book who's relevance waxes and wanes, but will I think become increasingly significant as while sucessive UK governments fuck up the interface with their political masters (the public) on the other side of the coin: a public interface is not really part of the Eurofederalist equation. I get an impression that the mandate of public consultation will be allowed once it is only a fait a complete, but "ever closer union" makes that an oxymoron, so I can only hope distain for the EU grows faster than the EU's policing and military capabilities.
Edit on 1millin triggering a referendum: 1 million Catalonians get a petition together, personally I don't see why my vote should be as significant as someone living in or from Spain .
I do think "they are different to us" is an argument but I take exception to your snide NF insinuations. Top down and bottom up have shaped and driven the development of Europe (not EUrope). Both have their merits, (though I would except that currently the French political system is the most nepotistic it has been since Louis' bad hair day, and the UK seems to have abandoned democracy altogether), but I think even Jonathan Swift would have disliked the look of this particular omelette.
I also except there are aspects from other nations of EUrope and even further afield that the UK could learn from, but that's not really what the EU is for, it is an exercise in homogenization.
The underlying motto of EUrocrats is "ever closer Union" and I hear politicians all the time use the simile of a bicycle- stop and get a scraped knee. But mankind has been here before and it was only the cause of that fall out that stops the EU being seen as the nutters on the fairground saying scream if you want to go faster - the US civil war.
You say the EU has made mistakes that should be learnt from but they have made enough that its clear that the EU is not a panacea - I don't know how well the turkey flu was covered in Italy but it emerged afterwards that EU trade regs limited the response to a bio hazard, or CFP which should be a logical place for pan EUropean cooperation (giving fish passports seems impractical) has been responsible for decimating fish stocks. on the environment Europe's desire to renegotiate the Chicago Convention on air transport, would actually be easier for nation states.
I've heard claims the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years, quite impressive for an organization less than 20 years old as it starts to undermine NATO. And Euro arrest warrants that should in theory cut down hardened criminals hiding places are just as likely to be used to pursue people for crimes a magistrate would balk at (fancy slagging off the Polish Premier).
My scepticism has hardened, from things like hearing where the mandate for all this supposedly comes from (I'm the same age as you, so was never consulted)- when even Baroness Nicholson admits the public were duped, through the smear tactics that have been employed against opposition (Desmond Tutu actually called Jimmy Goldsmith "his brother" at the St Martin at the Fields memorial) as well as seeing what happens to whistle blowers within the EUrocrat system. Political viewpoints from within the accession countries also alarm me, as does not knowing what happened everybody that worked for the Stazi, but what it comes back too is accountability.
I linked before to leviathan a book who's relevance waxes and wanes, but will I think become increasingly significant as while sucessive UK governments fuck up the interface with their political masters (the public) on the other side of the coin: a public interface is not really part of the Eurofederalist equation. I get an impression that the mandate of public consultation will be allowed once it is only a fait a complete, but "ever closer union" makes that an oxymoron, so I can only hope distain for the EU grows faster than the EU's policing and military capabilities.
Edit on 1millin triggering a referendum: 1 million Catalonians get a petition together, personally I don't see why my vote should be as significant as someone living in or from Spain .
Gmart
Well-Known Member
gosub said:
For a start I thought it was self evident that only those in the relevant constituencies should get to vote.
gosub said:
I have addressed the barriers to exit and we agree that we could get out simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act.
As far as accountability is concerned, I totally agree that accountability and transparency are essential for the union to be effective. In the same way as I would be unhappy not to have the referendum option I described so as to ensure the greater democratic level of accountability we both seem to agree on.
gosub said:
I'm sorry if you take exception to this, I was under the impression you were describing your fellow man as different in some way to yourself. Of course we are all physically different at a genetic level, but we are all entitled to the same levels of freedom and legal protections. Thus if they are the same (ie equal in the eyes of the law), then this would suggest that our systems can converge towards justice. For example why not have the same laws on murder? We all have laws on it and perhaps we could learn best practice from it?
However this exercise in best practice is a BAD thing for you, an example of homogenisation, as if the principle of equality isn't also homogenisation as well!! I just don't understand what you are on about really.
gosub said:
If we are all equal, and we are, then we can create a decentralised union with common laws. Why not lead by example? There are many problems that need to be dealt with and we will need to deal with them from a position of strength, not from one of weakness. Even if we are the 7th economy in the world, the EU is the biggest. You are unhappy at this homogenisation but why? Would you prefer to have vast differences in the laws between the countries. Surely that would lead to countries competing away any decent rights so as to attract business from big business.
We have to stand together or else we will be at the mercies of the market. I accept everything you say but this fact the sad conclusion of your line of reasoning.
Some of the difficulties you describe could easily be put down to those like yourself who are continually arguing for less cooperation, thus leading to problems when trying to cooperate on issues where it would seem logical to do so (eg Euro arrest warrants). There are also problems with excessive red tape which is another common problem which should be organised better.
You seem unhappy with this country being 'duped' into Europe but the problem with that position is that it is difficult to know what things might have been like if we had been independent and out of Europe. I would suggest that we would be worse off while you would probably suggest that we would be better off.
You note some more mistakes which persuade you, ie the recent problems with Bird Flu ( I don't have a TV here so I have no idea as to the coverage here). Again I would suggest that the UK government has made a good few mistakes and I would again not suggest that we abolish our government. I would also point out that the European Government took down the entire European Commission not so long ago.
I am continually agreeing with you on the need for more constitutional safeguards, something I would also argue for the UK government too. I wonder as to your attitude to the UK government. Are you against that too? I don't think we particularily disagree on principle, just on conclusion. You seem to have given up on the EU being a force. Change is needed certainly, but the alternative is not getting out but cooperating to ensure that this change is achieved. Divided we fall! And the same as at the national level we need a bit of vision!!
gosub
~#
What do you teach? Or even how can you teach, if you take exception even at the notion that their can be different philosopical outlooks.
Oi CLUELESS!
edited to add
In your fourth paragraph, you admit "I just don't understand what you are on about really." These words you surround in a duvet of other words aka babble. Not entirely happy with wikipedia so I will try to elaborate, Chirac (Head of State) and de Villepin (Prime Minister) go for lunch if Chirac decides they both have eggs they have eggs, Blair (Prime Minister) and the Queen (Head of State) it would be Blair that decides they both have eggs, keeping the Gulliver's thread the EU-waiter gives them all omelette.
You will back track on this or are you standing by calling the NF the defenders of difference?
You tell me in 162 that "I have accepted your points as to the problems with the EU at the moment" then spout bilge about standing together or being at the mercy of the markets. I await Hearing C-341/05 &
Hearing C-438/05 with renewed dread.
Oi CLUELESS!
edited to add
In your fourth paragraph, you admit "I just don't understand what you are on about really." These words you surround in a duvet of other words aka babble. Not entirely happy with wikipedia so I will try to elaborate, Chirac (Head of State) and de Villepin (Prime Minister) go for lunch if Chirac decides they both have eggs they have eggs, Blair (Prime Minister) and the Queen (Head of State) it would be Blair that decides they both have eggs, keeping the Gulliver's thread the EU-waiter gives them all omelette.
You will back track on this or are you standing by calling the NF the defenders of difference?
You tell me in 162 that "I have accepted your points as to the problems with the EU at the moment" then spout bilge about standing together or being at the mercy of the markets. I await Hearing C-341/05 &
Hearing C-438/05 with renewed dread.
gosub
~#
P.S. I know you are the one who claims to have read the EU constitution, but the Spanish (nicely placed example by the way) aren't naive enough to give the EU commision carte blanche over what level the referendum would be, and if they weren't the Britsish have enough experience of divide and rule to not have let that past.
Another rule you like if were a different rule.
Another rule you like if were a different rule.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
gosub said:
Having metaphysical differences is one thing, and noone is denying the freedom to be different, but we are talking about the need to have best practice for having clean hospitals, or having the best laws. Learning from the best bits of our systems. We can have individual differences but still have the same rights.
I agree that national governments would be reluctant to allow a proper democratic mandate for the EU, after all that would negate their power. Much better to persuade people through the media that the EU is evil and that we don't need it.
You seem reluctant to address the primary problem which is that if we DON'T cooperate and ensure a European wide level field, it would be the big businesses which play us off against each other, with the population losing out.
You claim my words are babble and bilge, but IME this usually means that you cannot be bothered to read them.
This isn't even English. If you can't be bothered to read my words and carefully consider your own then why are you here? Are you English?
The NF would indeed claim to be defending the difference.
Your final posting may as well be "Well the existing Status Quo won't allow any true power to the people so we may as well give up and go independent" As if our independence would give us ANY power in the modern market place, we would just be at its mercy.
I WISH we could be independent but economically it would be suicide. The big business works by making countries compete to allow them to treat their workers badly in the name of the market, and you are falling for their propaganda.
No wonder we need a class society with an Elite in Westminster. Otherwise people like you would take us out of Europe and sod everything only to maybe regret when its too late and you are old. Blair has convinced himself the same way that Iraq was a good idea. His ego has no choice but not to admit his fault, and he will go to his grave convinced that he was right despite any evidence. In fact HE would probably also refuse to consider the other view because he made his choice and heaven forbid that his ego should admit fault.
I don't know why i'm continuing this. You won't read it and won't even think about it. You are decided and I have stated the case already. It seems sad that I have supported the breakdown of the Elite class system only to be persuaded of its need because someone as obviously intelligent as you are unable to see through the media knee jerk reaction to Johnny Foreigner and the supposed conspiracy against the UK.
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews
You think the EU will provide best practice, even though it quite clearly doesn't? Most of our laws are now made in response to EU agreed policies, everything from PFI to the break up of the Post Office's monopoly, from regionalisation to the new EU criminal code, corpus juris, so it really is hard to see how it benefits us.
Who is trying to persuade the people that that the EU is evil? Not mainstream politicians - right from the start Harold MacMillan decided that the Community's eventual aim of full political and monetary union was to be kept from the public, and governments have signed the Constitution, and all the treaties before that with hardly any public debate. Not the media - it's hopeless at reporting on how the EU affects our lives. That the voters seem to believe the EU is no more than an irritant in their lives is as much down to the media as it is to our political elite.
The fact that the world does not begin and end with the EU seems to pass you by! Big business quite simply prefers low cost economies, but the EU suits it now. It would never have been allowed European political integration to progress otherwise. And no before you suggest it, I don't want sweatshop wages for British workers.
A very factual case has been made against involvement in the EU, but you prefer to rely on your own visionary thoughts despite them not bearing any relevance to reality!
I have no idea what the NF's position is on the EU, but know enough about it to know that I have no wish to become a supporter. Clear?
Independent government would allow us to reject one set of politicians for another set, thereby allowing a change of policies, a right denied us in the EU. That's democracy, and far too important a right to trivialise with vague thoughts about vision.
Economically, independence would mean being freed from Fortress Europe, and leave us free to negotiate our own trade deals with emerging markets like China and India. We don't get anything from the EU that we can't have as members of EFTA. As one of the world's largest economies, we would be at least as well placed as other non-EU members. How on earth do you think other, smaller countries manage?
People like me would take us out of Europe and we wouldn't even say 'we told you so' when it finally dawns on people just how much they have been had by the elite's propaganda for the last 40 years.
You are supporting the breakdown of one class system, only to support the growth of an even less desirable class system. If anything it's a conspiracy against the people of Europe, and of Old Europe in particular. I don't know why I've posted this as you are so determined to see opposition to the EU as being based on some asinine propaganda driven caricature.
You think the EU will provide best practice, even though it quite clearly doesn't? Most of our laws are now made in response to EU agreed policies, everything from PFI to the break up of the Post Office's monopoly, from regionalisation to the new EU criminal code, corpus juris, so it really is hard to see how it benefits us.
Who is trying to persuade the people that that the EU is evil? Not mainstream politicians - right from the start Harold MacMillan decided that the Community's eventual aim of full political and monetary union was to be kept from the public, and governments have signed the Constitution, and all the treaties before that with hardly any public debate. Not the media - it's hopeless at reporting on how the EU affects our lives. That the voters seem to believe the EU is no more than an irritant in their lives is as much down to the media as it is to our political elite.
The fact that the world does not begin and end with the EU seems to pass you by! Big business quite simply prefers low cost economies, but the EU suits it now. It would never have been allowed European political integration to progress otherwise. And no before you suggest it, I don't want sweatshop wages for British workers.
A very factual case has been made against involvement in the EU, but you prefer to rely on your own visionary thoughts despite them not bearing any relevance to reality!
I have no idea what the NF's position is on the EU, but know enough about it to know that I have no wish to become a supporter. Clear?
Independent government would allow us to reject one set of politicians for another set, thereby allowing a change of policies, a right denied us in the EU. That's democracy, and far too important a right to trivialise with vague thoughts about vision.
Economically, independence would mean being freed from Fortress Europe, and leave us free to negotiate our own trade deals with emerging markets like China and India. We don't get anything from the EU that we can't have as members of EFTA. As one of the world's largest economies, we would be at least as well placed as other non-EU members. How on earth do you think other, smaller countries manage?
People like me would take us out of Europe and we wouldn't even say 'we told you so' when it finally dawns on people just how much they have been had by the elite's propaganda for the last 40 years.
You are supporting the breakdown of one class system, only to support the growth of an even less desirable class system. If anything it's a conspiracy against the people of Europe, and of Old Europe in particular. I don't know why I've posted this as you are so determined to see opposition to the EU as being based on some asinine propaganda driven caricature.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I can see what you mean but sadly the economics suggest that as a smaller economy we would NOT be able to dictate as good a deal. But you see it your way, i suppose. You say that you don't support sweatshops in the UK, but i believe that a smaller country would not be in as strong a position independently. This just seems self-evident.
Still, good luck to you. Part of me wishes that globalisation didn't exist and that you are right. Maybe we can be independent, and business won't take advantage of it. Maybe all the other countries are just fools. I just doubt it.
Still, good luck to you. Part of me wishes that globalisation didn't exist and that you are right. Maybe we can be independent, and business won't take advantage of it. Maybe all the other countries are just fools. I just doubt it.
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews said:
Economics don't dictate that our economy would suffer as a result of pulling out. The evidence just isn't there for that. And of course we could negotiate a good deal because we are such a huge market. (And we are not a huge market because of our EU membership; most of our trade is done internally and with non-EU states.) Much smaller countries than Britain have better deals with the EU, and it would be in the EU's interests to extend the same terms to us.
goneforlunch said:
I never said that globalisation doesn't exist. But business is taking advantage of our EU membership now. As a specific example, the EU has allowed state owned industries and turned them into private ones, only it calls it liberalisation!
The EU of your visions doesn't exist, and there is nothing to suggest that it will in the future.
gosub said:
I think you're being a little unfair. He consistently ignores reality and questions.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
We are quite large now, but relative to the rest of the world we are shrinking. Although we would be able to survive initially, what would prevent a 26 (at least) EU, turning around and dictating terms in the future? And what makes you think that Big Business would look favourably on this unless to the advantage of themselves?
You are of course wrong about our trading partners. See here for a table showing that the US makes up only 8.68% of our trade, in fact out of the top ten, seven are from Europe, and the top position goes to Germany.
As far as the 'liberisation' is concerned this is UK policy, not consistent with most of Europe where public industries are far more common and well run. Indeed that is an argument for joining. Imagine (I know i do!) a European-wide public train service, a European-wide National Health service.
One wonders why you are so anti-European. What would it take for you to be pro? I have addressed all your issues and indeed I share your concerns, but still you refuse to consider it. The Italians here can't believe it when I tell them that most of the UK are against the EU. They say it is only logical in the way I describe and they scoff at the assumption that the EU is a conspiracy against the UK. If we could only work together then we could create a truly great Cooperative Treaty.
You are of course wrong about our trading partners. See here for a table showing that the US makes up only 8.68% of our trade, in fact out of the top ten, seven are from Europe, and the top position goes to Germany.
As far as the 'liberisation' is concerned this is UK policy, not consistent with most of Europe where public industries are far more common and well run. Indeed that is an argument for joining. Imagine (I know i do!) a European-wide public train service, a European-wide National Health service.
One wonders why you are so anti-European. What would it take for you to be pro? I have addressed all your issues and indeed I share your concerns, but still you refuse to consider it. The Italians here can't believe it when I tell them that most of the UK are against the EU. They say it is only logical in the way I describe and they scoff at the assumption that the EU is a conspiracy against the UK. If we could only work together then we could create a truly great Cooperative Treaty.
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews
I'm not wrong about out trading partners. Your table refers to IMPORTS to the UK which the EU would have no reason to jeopardise and start a trade war because it would have a lot more to lose from that than an independent Britain would - in hard cash terms - if it started a trade war. The EU is losing ground against its global competitors, so shrinkage can only grow worse in the EU. You implied earlier that big business didn't want European integration and now you are implying the opposite, it seems.
UK governments have been at the forefront of liberalisation policies, but it is still an EU policy nevertheless, albeit one that some countries have been reluctant to implement. An independent country could reverse the policy, but an EU member state cannot. European transport policies as implemented by British politicians are crap, and transport policy is something which Britian can barely sneeze at without EU approval. And as for health policy, EU public procurement directives and PFIs we can do without. No other European state has a free at the point of use NHS as we do. I think you are working under the misapprehension that because member states public services are good, EU ones will be too. That's a bit of a leap. Having said that, I have nothing against copying other European states policies if they were thought to be suitable for Britain. It would be interesting to see this honestly debated in a general election campaign.
Still clinging to your 'eurosceptics are anti-European'? How disappointing
. You are delusional if you think expressions of your visions and hopes have addressed any of my issues which it is patently obvious you do not share. And who said the EU is a conspiracy against the UK? Not me! I have laid out why I am anti-EU in this thread. I can't see circumstances arising which would make me pro-EU as it would be contrary to everything mainstream political leaders want. However I am unlikely to be pro-EU unless politicians engage the public in a fully informed debate in which they explain how it will benefit the people and that a single European wide state is their aim.
And the British government is 'working together' to make what it sees as a great co-operative treaty, but we the people don't have any effect on the process. I'm still waiting to hear which clauses in the Constitution you like so much. Or do you now concede that it is not so good after all?
I'm not wrong about out trading partners. Your table refers to IMPORTS to the UK which the EU would have no reason to jeopardise and start a trade war because it would have a lot more to lose from that than an independent Britain would - in hard cash terms - if it started a trade war. The EU is losing ground against its global competitors, so shrinkage can only grow worse in the EU. You implied earlier that big business didn't want European integration and now you are implying the opposite, it seems.
UK governments have been at the forefront of liberalisation policies, but it is still an EU policy nevertheless, albeit one that some countries have been reluctant to implement. An independent country could reverse the policy, but an EU member state cannot. European transport policies as implemented by British politicians are crap, and transport policy is something which Britian can barely sneeze at without EU approval. And as for health policy, EU public procurement directives and PFIs we can do without. No other European state has a free at the point of use NHS as we do. I think you are working under the misapprehension that because member states public services are good, EU ones will be too. That's a bit of a leap. Having said that, I have nothing against copying other European states policies if they were thought to be suitable for Britain. It would be interesting to see this honestly debated in a general election campaign.
Still clinging to your 'eurosceptics are anti-European'? How disappointing
. You are delusional if you think expressions of your visions and hopes have addressed any of my issues which it is patently obvious you do not share. And who said the EU is a conspiracy against the UK? Not me! I have laid out why I am anti-EU in this thread. I can't see circumstances arising which would make me pro-EU as it would be contrary to everything mainstream political leaders want. However I am unlikely to be pro-EU unless politicians engage the public in a fully informed debate in which they explain how it will benefit the people and that a single European wide state is their aim. And the British government is 'working together' to make what it sees as a great co-operative treaty, but we the people don't have any effect on the process. I'm still waiting to hear which clauses in the Constitution you like so much. Or do you now concede that it is not so good after all?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I have to admit that you are right. We have a deficit with Europe (and Africa). I looked at the so-called Pink Book here, and on pages 122 onwards.
That is not to say that we don't trade with them a lot, it's just that they sell us more than we sell to them.
I did go through the entire Constitution and commented on all of it, only for my computer to crash JUST at the moment of posting it all. I am unable to persuade myself to do this again as it is NOT a particularly inspiring read as you know. My opinion was changed by it certainly and I have listed the various improvements I would like to happen to the EU experiment such as a renegotiation of the CFP, and some of the passages do not give adequate power to the people leading to my idea about democratic referendums.
However we are not really arguing about that. If you read the Constitution there would be stuff you agreed with and stuff you didn't. What we disagree with is whether we should have this experiment at all.
This is your stated problem, implying that you might be persuaded if this issue were addressed.
However we DO have MEP's, and indeed they refused to accept the original make-up of the Barroso Commission (see here), which is NOT something which would happen in UK politics.
That said I would like to have the EU setup properly in the same way as I would like the British Government to be the same, but both institutions would have to limit their powers through a Constitution, something which seems ever unlikely.
Ironically if this were allowed the problems with the EU would be solved in part, giving it more legitimacy.
That's just crap. You are trying to stimulate fear of Europe where there doesn't need to be any IF we accept that they are the same as us. Do you feel that the Scots and Welsh are oppressed through their membership of the UK? What about the Cornish? You know obviously that the principle of subsidiarity is integral to the EU, but this also doesn't persuade you because they are evil?
Your assumption that they wouldn't work is a similar leap, but you seem fine with that!
Everything you say is against being in Europe, so excuse me for making this mistake. Of course you are just mistrustful of Europe NOT actually against it without reservation. Where could I have got that assumption from??
Not that your against it because it's a bad idea, just because those evil people in power think it's a good idea. I see!
You point about engaging with the public to persuade them is well made, and would be great if we had an educated population, but the UK education system is setup to only educate the rich through the so-called public schools, the poor don't get much of an education, and so the class sytem continues. The Elite take the decisions in the UK, and until we change this your idea is pie in the sky. What do you think of the death penalty. The majority of people in the UK are in favour but the Elite have decided against it due to problems with killing innocent people etc.
That would be another great thing to solve at a European Level, have a European-wide replacement for the discredited 'A' Level system. Maybe adopting the International Bac? Why not?
That is not to say that we don't trade with them a lot, it's just that they sell us more than we sell to them.
I did go through the entire Constitution and commented on all of it, only for my computer to crash JUST at the moment of posting it all. I am unable to persuade myself to do this again as it is NOT a particularly inspiring read as you know. My opinion was changed by it certainly and I have listed the various improvements I would like to happen to the EU experiment such as a renegotiation of the CFP, and some of the passages do not give adequate power to the people leading to my idea about democratic referendums.
However we are not really arguing about that. If you read the Constitution there would be stuff you agreed with and stuff you didn't. What we disagree with is whether we should have this experiment at all.
This is your stated problem, implying that you might be persuaded if this issue were addressed.
However we DO have MEP's, and indeed they refused to accept the original make-up of the Barroso Commission (see here), which is NOT something which would happen in UK politics.
That said I would like to have the EU setup properly in the same way as I would like the British Government to be the same, but both institutions would have to limit their powers through a Constitution, something which seems ever unlikely.
Ironically if this were allowed the problems with the EU would be solved in part, giving it more legitimacy.
That's just crap. You are trying to stimulate fear of Europe where there doesn't need to be any IF we accept that they are the same as us. Do you feel that the Scots and Welsh are oppressed through their membership of the UK? What about the Cornish? You know obviously that the principle of subsidiarity is integral to the EU, but this also doesn't persuade you because they are evil?
Your assumption that they wouldn't work is a similar leap, but you seem fine with that!
Everything you say is against being in Europe, so excuse me for making this mistake. Of course you are just mistrustful of Europe NOT actually against it without reservation. Where could I have got that assumption from??
Not that your against it because it's a bad idea, just because those evil people in power think it's a good idea. I see!
You point about engaging with the public to persuade them is well made, and would be great if we had an educated population, but the UK education system is setup to only educate the rich through the so-called public schools, the poor don't get much of an education, and so the class sytem continues. The Elite take the decisions in the UK, and until we change this your idea is pie in the sky. What do you think of the death penalty. The majority of people in the UK are in favour but the Elite have decided against it due to problems with killing innocent people etc.
That would be another great thing to solve at a European Level, have a European-wide replacement for the discredited 'A' Level system. Maybe adopting the International Bac? Why not?
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews said:
Thank you. Would you also admit that it would not be in anyone's interest to start a trade war if we left the EU?
I don't want your analysis of the whole treaty particularly, just one or two clauses that you liked to illustrate why you favour it. I wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult for a supporter like you. And my views on the Constitution have already been stated [post # 27 onwards] in this thread.
My views on MEPs have also already been stated on this thread. The fuss MEPs made over the Barrosso Commission was an issue of principal mainly concerning Buttiglone and his outspoken views on homosexuality, but no policies changed as a result.
Unfortunately, what you or I want doesn't count unless we want the same as our politicians.
And you know it's crap because .... what? The Scots, Welsh and Cornish have a very different relationship with the rest of Britain than Britain does with the EU. You are not comparing like with like at all.
The sham that subsidiarity is also came up earlier in this thread [post 34]. Subsidiarity doesn't persuade me because it's a meaningless sop to the EU's critics. As for 'stimulating fear of Europe' please see post # 81, "But I am a European ...". (You could save an awful lot of repetition by using the correct terms, ie EU or Europe. THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.
) Not really. EU policies are not working too well so far ... public procurement directives ... liberalisations ... PFIs...
The IB is an interesting option, as are IGCEs, but before any more changes are made, I'd like to know why British governments have allowed A levels to become discredited. It's so bloody obvious that this discrediation would be the result of their policies. (Although having said that, my child is currently studying for A levels, and she and her friends have worked much harder than I and my friends ever did on ours, and their teachers seem very much more focussed than mine ever did.) The discrediation has resulted in a change in the way pass rates are decided not in the exam itself imo.
I have already said that I'm not against copying other European countries polices, but as an independent country, and that it would be interesting to see such a debate played out in a GE. As part of the EU however, it comes back to not being allowed to change to different system if the IB was found to be unsuitable once education policy becomes an EU competence.
Now that is crap! We do have an educated population, but we don't have a politically well informed one. The education system is set up to teach people everything they need to know in order to help themselves. It's not perfect but it's hardly the system's fault if people remain uneducated! The elite will always take decisions, but the people should still have influence and that's something they don't have nearly enough of in the EU. And not in favour of the DP, and I'm implacably opposed to it under an EU criminal justice system. No right to trial by jury, nor presumption of innocence, no habeas corpus!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I think you live in a different world to me. The middle class is educated but the general education from the state system is nowhere near as good. We are more aware politically than many, it's just that our system is a bit crapper than many. We have a weak democracy (see
As for not comparing like with like the Scots have as much right to statehood as Luxembourg and the Cornish. What is your definition allowing statehood?
Would it be in our interests to start a trade war, no, but because of the power of big business we already have countries competing to see who can attract that business by withdrawing workers rights, which is exactly what i would say would happen if we operated as an independent country.
As for the Constitution the Fundamental rights were fine. There are definitely certain issues like pollution which cannot be left to a national level.
One wonders why you get up in the morning with an attitude like that!
It has to be a sham otherwise your whole case falls apart.
I would hardly expect you to notice that our elected representatives made a stand against the unelected part and won.
Your fear that you would not be able to change it, but I would suggest that if there was enough of an outcry then Westminster would vote to take back this competence. What do you think they would do if we did? Nothing of course because the EU will ALWAYS be a union of nations who can choose.
goneforlunch
Member
gmarthews said:
I live in the real world. Of course privately educated children are better off, that's why their parents pay. But it no more provides an education that better understands politics than the state system. Both systems teach their students to understand the written and spoken word and the world around them, which are the necessary criteria for understanding honestly debated political issues. And see what?
True, and if there was any serious movement towards a separate state for Cornwall a democratic government would allow a referendum on it, but one that is intent on European integration definitely won't. (The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly govern EU regions according to EU diktats. Cornwall is already a part of the SW region.)
An independent Britain wouldn't start a trade war, IMO, and we have the EU discouraging business by pushing for harmonised corporation taxes. An independent country, with a government actually working in the interests of its people, would balance workers' rights with employers' rights. It wouldn't be in the EU's interests to start a trade war if we left.
So pollution issues are left to an EU level, with the Commission setting targets that few countries pay anything more than lip service too, and those that do hobble their own industries. But that's ok, at least the talk is good. I'm pleased to see we are working towards finding out what you like about the Constitution, but EU human rights don't give us anything we didn't have before. And what the EU has so generously given to us, it can take away again. But of course you think its a land of milk and honey, so that thought might not trouble you very much.
Oh it's a sham alright. Answer this point [from post # 34] if you believe in it:
In areas of shared competence, both the EU and member states can legislate, and the principle of subsidiarity was thought by many to mean that decisions would be taken by member states "close to the citizen" if the desired objectives could be achieved in that way. But the definition as used in the Maastricht Treaty was too vaguely defined in the legal sense and no protection against rulings in the ECJ. EU law is supreme over national law ...if the Court says it is.
"British negotiators were well aware that subsidiarity ... equalled federation, and were content that it be so, provided the sceptics back home did not hear about it." German Ambassador to Britain, Dr Jurgen Oesterholt, 1996.
Everytime the EU issues an edict in the form of a law, regulation or directive, national governments are required to transpose it into national law.
Of course I noticed. I just didn't find it very exciting. What difference did it make to policies? None! Frankly, Gmarthers, you don't know what I'd notice.
I KNOW NO BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF OUR EU 'PARTNERS'. Westminster cannot take back any competences signed away by previous governments because we are treaty bound to abide by the rules. No member state has ever done so, though some consider it acceptable to flout the rules, but we hardly do. We're 'good Europeans'.
The EU is not union of nations who can choose. What do you think the ECJ is for? I have made this point [post # 84] directly to you before:
"The ECJ decides on cases where national law conflicts with EU law. Long ago it said its rationale was to allow "community interests enshrined in the Treaty of Rome to prevail over the intertia and resistance of the member states." Its duty is to uphold the treaties and anyone who has read them knows they handed a lot of authority over to Brussels. There are no appeals against its decisions ... and the Constitution enhances its powers."
Please answer it if you insist that the EU is a union of nations that can choose.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
OK, so, after your request for an example, i looked at the text for the constitution again and I am happy with the first 8 articles, they seem fine to me.
In fact I was fine with it up to the Exclusive Competences, which I agreed with apart from the CFP, which (as I have stated) I feel should be tweaked slightly. Perhaps in return you could tell me which part of the Fundamental Rights you disagree with?
Further bits that I agree with include:
Also your confidence in our State system is wonderful. I agree that it depends on the parents, and don't want to be distracted by a subject which has been covered significantly elsewhere. I would just say that Jade Goody on Celebrity Big Brother is a much better representation of my school days than Germaine Greer!
How is this discouraging business? It is merely ensuring that the rights of the European Citizen are not forgotten or competed away by member states in the name of attracting business.
You suggest that the Fundamental Rights are already enshrined in UK law, but obviously this isn't true. For a start the UK doesn't HAVE a constitution, and what few rights we have come from the Human Rights Act which the Conservatives are still trying to repeal, and which is only dealt with in the first part. To have actual rights as described in that document would shake the establishment as well as the Law sector of the economy which is artificially large due to our current constitutional lack.
Certainly the principle of subsidiarity should be strengthened, I would suggest you engage with the democratic process and vote for a European MEP who mirrors your and my wish.
Your comment about the British negotiators is well taken, I'm sure they understood what a ridiculous reaction the media would whip up about such an innocuous passage, after all, (due to the lack of education I suppose), federalism is not even defined properly in the UK. See here for the Wiki quote.
Sounds terrible, I'm sure you agree.
So they should (there is a small fine for not doing so). The recent rail crash is a good case in point for how the EU has IMPROVED our lives despite the efforts of the UK government. The relatively few casualties from the recent crash proved that the current UK railway rolling stock is far safer than in previous years. Although you (and you friends in the Conservative and UKip party) might find it uncomfortable, this improvement is in part due to the Railway Safety Regulations (1999) and these regulations were largely a reflection of EU legislation. As a result, all Mark 1 rolling stock, which failed to protect passengers adequately in past accidents such as Cowden and Clapham Junction, had to be withdrawn from the network by the end of 2005.
All institutions must define their aims and means of achieving them. In a world of global entities, it would be foolhardy for Britain to stand aloof from the EU. We cannot dictate the terms of association, but we must play an active part in their formulation.
In fact I was fine with it up to the Exclusive Competences, which I agreed with apart from the CFP, which (as I have stated) I feel should be tweaked slightly. Perhaps in return you could tell me which part of the Fundamental Rights you disagree with?
Further bits that I agree with include:
Also your confidence in our State system is wonderful. I agree that it depends on the parents, and don't want to be distracted by a subject which has been covered significantly elsewhere. I would just say that Jade Goody on Celebrity Big Brother is a much better representation of my school days than Germaine Greer!
How is this discouraging business? It is merely ensuring that the rights of the European Citizen are not forgotten or competed away by member states in the name of attracting business.
You suggest that the Fundamental Rights are already enshrined in UK law, but obviously this isn't true. For a start the UK doesn't HAVE a constitution, and what few rights we have come from the Human Rights Act which the Conservatives are still trying to repeal, and which is only dealt with in the first part. To have actual rights as described in that document would shake the establishment as well as the Law sector of the economy which is artificially large due to our current constitutional lack.
Certainly the principle of subsidiarity should be strengthened, I would suggest you engage with the democratic process and vote for a European MEP who mirrors your and my wish.
Your comment about the British negotiators is well taken, I'm sure they understood what a ridiculous reaction the media would whip up about such an innocuous passage, after all, (due to the lack of education I suppose), federalism is not even defined properly in the UK. See here for the Wiki quote.
Sounds terrible, I'm sure you agree.
So they should (there is a small fine for not doing so). The recent rail crash is a good case in point for how the EU has IMPROVED our lives despite the efforts of the UK government. The relatively few casualties from the recent crash proved that the current UK railway rolling stock is far safer than in previous years. Although you (and you friends in the Conservative and UKip party) might find it uncomfortable, this improvement is in part due to the Railway Safety Regulations (1999) and these regulations were largely a reflection of EU legislation. As a result, all Mark 1 rolling stock, which failed to protect passengers adequately in past accidents such as Cowden and Clapham Junction, had to be withdrawn from the network by the end of 2005.
All institutions must define their aims and means of achieving them. In a world of global entities, it would be foolhardy for Britain to stand aloof from the EU. We cannot dictate the terms of association, but we must play an active part in their formulation.
goneforlunch
Member
Gmarthews, So you're even happy with this little lot ...
... and yet you still somehow imagine that the EU "will ALWAYS be a union of nations who can choose."?
We already know that member states have given up the right to decide most policies at national level, but you can't get away from the fact that past and present British politicians have done so without the informed consent of the people. How many times does this need saying - can’t you see how dishonest they have been in acting on a mandate they were never elected on? It might be that the voters would agree with what past and present governments want, but we should have an honest debate to find out.
If the EU itself were to apply for membership it would fail on the democratic criteria alone.
In citing subsidiarity as being good for the nation state, you are making a tired old europhile point. Subsidiarity has been with us since the last Tory government was in power and all it means is that parliaments can ask the Commission to think again but they still cannot force it to do so, and it's worthless against ECJ judgements.
The Human Rights conferred on us by the EU are all very well, but most were never under threat in Britain anyway, and rights such as those given to minorities and women have been acquired in all over the developed world, just as they would have been in Britain with a government actually working for the people. The EU's supposed commitment to "justice" does not sit very well with these vaguely defined rights and its putting its own officials above the law.
Taxes must be acceptable to employers and employees, and the needs of government to raise taxes, because if they are not employees will see less and less point in working and employers will take their jobs to lower taxed economies. Rights don't mean much when your job goes elsewhere. Corporation taxes in other European states have in the past been higher than in Britain, (but high taxes don't necessarily translate into better public services as we know) and the Commission calls this 'harmful competition'. I hope they don't waste their time preaching that message in Asia.
On the subject of rail safety, you might consider this Brussels and Rail 'Liberalisation' taking note of the author at the bottom of the page.
The Tories are cynically playing to the gallery in saying they will repeal any human rights legislation. When they said they would repeal the Social Chapter (as a topy priority!) UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, questioned José Manuel Barroso over the possibility of this, and Barroso's answer was ...
Article 48 states:
And they should know that, the treaty was negotiated and ratified whilst they were in office! The situation for human rights legislation would be the same. Again this shows your opinion of the EU as a union of nations which can choose to be wrong.
And my friends don't share my views if they are in the LibLabCon Party.
As for taking an ‘active part’ we don’t take part at all, our politicians do, the very same ones that so many of us are dissatisfied with at home! And they are not forming the kind of association I like, and I’d be very surprised if it turns out to be the kind of association you want either when reality dawns.
... and yet you still somehow imagine that the EU "will ALWAYS be a union of nations who can choose."?
We already know that member states have given up the right to decide most policies at national level, but you can't get away from the fact that past and present British politicians have done so without the informed consent of the people. How many times does this need saying - can’t you see how dishonest they have been in acting on a mandate they were never elected on? It might be that the voters would agree with what past and present governments want, but we should have an honest debate to find out.
If the EU itself were to apply for membership it would fail on the democratic criteria alone.
In citing subsidiarity as being good for the nation state, you are making a tired old europhile point. Subsidiarity has been with us since the last Tory government was in power and all it means is that parliaments can ask the Commission to think again but they still cannot force it to do so, and it's worthless against ECJ judgements.
The Human Rights conferred on us by the EU are all very well, but most were never under threat in Britain anyway, and rights such as those given to minorities and women have been acquired in all over the developed world, just as they would have been in Britain with a government actually working for the people. The EU's supposed commitment to "justice" does not sit very well with these vaguely defined rights and its putting its own officials above the law.
Taxes must be acceptable to employers and employees, and the needs of government to raise taxes, because if they are not employees will see less and less point in working and employers will take their jobs to lower taxed economies. Rights don't mean much when your job goes elsewhere. Corporation taxes in other European states have in the past been higher than in Britain, (but high taxes don't necessarily translate into better public services as we know) and the Commission calls this 'harmful competition'. I hope they don't waste their time preaching that message in Asia.
On the subject of rail safety, you might consider this Brussels and Rail 'Liberalisation' taking note of the author at the bottom of the page.
The Tories are cynically playing to the gallery in saying they will repeal any human rights legislation. When they said they would repeal the Social Chapter (as a topy priority!) UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, questioned José Manuel Barroso over the possibility of this, and Barroso's answer was ...
Article 48 states:
And they should know that, the treaty was negotiated and ratified whilst they were in office! The situation for human rights legislation would be the same. Again this shows your opinion of the EU as a union of nations which can choose to be wrong.
And my friends don't share my views if they are in the LibLabCon Party.
As for taking an ‘active part’ we don’t take part at all, our politicians do, the very same ones that so many of us are dissatisfied with at home! And they are not forming the kind of association I like, and I’d be very surprised if it turns out to be the kind of association you want either when reality dawns.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
You argue that we should be allowed to control our own competition laws, but you seem unwilling to accept that this would pit one country against each other, competing for business, with Worker's Rights as the currency.
I couldn't help but notice that rather than accept that the European Directives have helped to save lives through guiding regulations in the UK, you decided to introduce another sceptical thread on a different subject but which happens to also be about trains (very clever!). This reluctance to accept even a minor positive point about the EU system does indeed label you as an out and out ANTI, and also puts you into the category of unreasonable and extremist. A reasonable person would have accepted the positive point but probably gone on to say that this did not mean that the EU system was good, just that the UK system would have let us down without it.
Consequent elected governments have concluded that the EU is a good idea. They know, as you have also accepted, that they could get out if they wanted to, and so your problem is not that it is undemocratic, but that your representatives have all come to a different conclusion to you.
As for the French and Dutch votes against the Constitution, those votes were generally against unpopular governments, and the fact remains that any organisation needs to be set up well for it to work well, otherwise it will NOT work well.
Now we have discussed many decent ways to reform it, but you aren't interested really, you just wish that everyone would agree with you and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit with your view (see above).
The reason that everyone is getting into a union is that they recognise that they are stronger TOGETHER.
The Barroso comment was basically put up or shut up. If you have a good case to change European law then make it, persuade your trade partners. Seems fair enough if the Tories really feel that the Social Chapter is bad for Europe. But what they really want is to trade worse rights for workers in exchange for investment from big business into the UK. You doubt this? They ARE the Tories remember, and your spreading of fear about Europe is playing into their hands. They want us OUT of Europe because Europe is stopping them from doing this.
Work it out! You are fighting on the wrong side!
I couldn't help but notice that rather than accept that the European Directives have helped to save lives through guiding regulations in the UK, you decided to introduce another sceptical thread on a different subject but which happens to also be about trains (very clever!). This reluctance to accept even a minor positive point about the EU system does indeed label you as an out and out ANTI, and also puts you into the category of unreasonable and extremist. A reasonable person would have accepted the positive point but probably gone on to say that this did not mean that the EU system was good, just that the UK system would have let us down without it.
Consequent elected governments have concluded that the EU is a good idea. They know, as you have also accepted, that they could get out if they wanted to, and so your problem is not that it is undemocratic, but that your representatives have all come to a different conclusion to you.
As for the French and Dutch votes against the Constitution, those votes were generally against unpopular governments, and the fact remains that any organisation needs to be set up well for it to work well, otherwise it will NOT work well.
Now we have discussed many decent ways to reform it, but you aren't interested really, you just wish that everyone would agree with you and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit with your view (see above).
The reason that everyone is getting into a union is that they recognise that they are stronger TOGETHER.
The Barroso comment was basically put up or shut up. If you have a good case to change European law then make it, persuade your trade partners. Seems fair enough if the Tories really feel that the Social Chapter is bad for Europe. But what they really want is to trade worse rights for workers in exchange for investment from big business into the UK. You doubt this? They ARE the Tories remember, and your spreading of fear about Europe is playing into their hands. They want us OUT of Europe because Europe is stopping them from doing this.
Work it out! You are fighting on the wrong side!
Similar threads
