Of course you worked out easily enough what my Part 2 was - are the issues that really vex people on a daily basis things that EU membership stops UK politicians from addressing and solving? In most cases when people answer the question honestly, as you did, the answer is generally "no" .
Your third point is interesting. Some of the anti EU people like to suggest that it is some kind of super state imposing reams of bureaucracy on countries which would otherwise be run with a much lighter touch. Is that what you are thinking of with this point?
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
I don't "ignore" it. I gave you due credit a while back for your (and Covered End's) determined attempt to make me think about it. So for Christ sake when someone says fair enough, you've got a point, take the compliment and move on, and don't keep throwing out the same old shit. We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
No - you've acknowledged it, but still continue to ignore it as a reasonable answer to one of the three questions you are asking of Dippenhall.
And now the Polish PM is 'inexperienced' at the Czech EU Minister, who you kept reminding us saw a way round the immigration/benefits issue beore the election is now making 'ill-judged' remarks.
And to be quite honest, I don't give a tinkers cuss that they're 'offended' by our elected politicians.
You are actually referring to Radek Sikorski, who at the time was the Polish Foreign Minister and who indeed offered very sensible advice in perfect English on the Andrew Marr show. It was that we can very easily bring our benefits in line with those of other EU countries such as Poland, so that the UK doesn't seem like a gold mine for scroungers, and you don't have to leave the EU to do that. It's about the 4th time I've mentioned it here and I didn't want to bore more rational Lifers with the same point so often.
As for your last sentence, well no, I'm sure you don't .
Of course you worked out easily enough what my Part 2 was - are the issues that really vex people on a daily basis things that EU membership stops UK politicians from addressing and solving? In most cases when people answer the question honestly, as you did, the answer is generally "no" .
Your third point is interesting. Some of the anti EU people like to suggest that it is some kind of super state imposing reams of bureaucracy on countries which would otherwise be run with a much lighter touch. Is that what you are thinking of with this point?
There is no way of agreeing how much legislation has unnecessarily been forced on the UK. Given much of the EU directives do not result in primary legislation the impact is usually amending regulations under existing statutes or simply new administrative procedures. They do not affect people directly and we don't notice unless the Daily Mail picks up on a straight banana directive. It's easy to say it doesn't therefore matter.
I would turn it round and say why assume we are better off with legislation that is initiated in Brussels by one set of politicians/bureaucrats and then implemented by another set of UK politicians. It's crazy, which is why the rest of the EU might look at the UK and say "why bother about protecting supremacy of your domestic democratic system, it is an irrelevancy".
Does Brussels make better decisions than we can make with our own single layer of politicians? No one has any evidence to support the idea one way or another, all you can do is point to good EU legislation we have adopted. It does not prove we could not have done it ourselves nor that we could not have done a better job more specifically geared to our own ideas.
Would the UK have implemented the Working Time Directive? Is it a good idea? Whose idea was it, not the UK's I suggest. The only power we have is that of a minority dissenting voice if we do not agree with the terms of an EU directive. Am I to accept that if we are in a minority and our views are ignored they must have been wrong?
I see our role in the EU as weaker than for example voting for the LibDems and thinking their views will shape policy as a result of sharing power. The LibDems were able to veto stuff but anything implemented was effectively Tory policy with minor modifications to suit.
In the EU we do not have a power of veto except on Treaty changes, our power to influence from within only holds true if we are on course to support political union, otherwise we are constantly a carping minority voice and it is clear to our electorate that we have little control or influence. It cannot continue.
Remaining part of an organisation with whom we do not share a common ultimate objective is good enough reason to justify a serious re-think. It is a matter of principle.
It is not convincing to my ears to say, on the principle of where political power resides, we carry on in the EU because the EU has not harmed us too much and has done some good things and we don't notice what's going on anyway.
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
I don't "ignore" it. I gave you due credit a while back for your (and Covered End's) determined attempt to make me think about it. So for Christ sake when someone says fair enough, you've got a point, take the compliment and move on, and don't keep throwing out the same old shit. We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
No - you've acknowledged it, but still continue to ignore it as a reasonable answer to one of the three questions you are asking of Dippenhall.
And now the Polish PM is 'inexperienced' at the Czech EU Minister, who you kept reminding us saw a way round the immigration/benefits issue beore the election is now making 'ill-judged' remarks.
And to be quite honest, I don't give a tinkers cuss that they're 'offended' by our elected politicians.
You are actually referring to Radek Sikorski, who at the time was the Polish Foreign Minister and who indeed offered very sensible advice in perfect English on the Andrew Marr show. It was that we can very easily bring our benefits in line with those of other EU countries such as Poland, so that the UK doesn't seem like a gold mine for scroungers, and you don't have to leave the EU to do that. It's about the 4th time I've mentioned it here and I didn't want to bore more rational Lifers with the same point so often.
As for your last sentence, well no, I'm sure you don't .
He doesn't need to explain anything. 4 years is ridiculously over the top. Six months , which the Poles themselves have, would be quite enough to deter scroungers
I have read the objectives of the EU and they don’t match up with what you say they are. But of course there will be some countries for even greater union and some against. The job of any country is to shape and influence from within. That isn’t about vetos, it is about making one’s case and finding allies. It feels reasonable enough to me. If the EU reached a point you describe it is moving to, then that might be a good time to have a referendum and might make the result of such a referendum more likely to favour leaving. There are lots of things I would change about the EU, but I accept we are still better off in it because there is better evidence this is the case than otherwise. There are great dangers in leaving the EU and doing so would require a giant leap of faith that I don’t think the majority of the population will be willing to make. And I for one am grateful for that.
Remaining part of an organisation with whom we do not share a common ultimate objective is good enough reason to justify a serious re-think. It is a matter of principle.
This is what I find really depressing about the view towards the EU of so many otherwise intelligent and reasonable Brits. It implies that all the other countries in the EU cannot wait to lose their sovereignty and national identity and be lost in a superstate called Europa. That idea, patently, is a load of bollocks. Do you really think the French no longer want to be French, the Germans no longer German, the Dutch no longer, etc, etc. for the sake of "Europe"? of course not. They are just basically reasonable people who see that there is common ground between them despite their different nationalities, and finding and developing that common ground not only protects against the danger of European war (where it all started in the 1950's) but gives them more clout in the globalised world.
The question of how close, and how quickly, they become is not something set in stone. France is still a sovereign nation state, so is Denmark, etc etc. Sorry to labour the point but you and so many seem to forget it. You talk as if the EU is already run by some mysterious sinister super-race from somewhere above. It's just people from the 28 EU states...
You make a very reasonable point:
Does Brussels make better decisions than we can make with our own single layer of politicians? No one has any evidence to support the idea one way or another, all you can do is point to good EU legislation we have adopted. It does not prove we could not have done it ourselves nor that we could not have done a better job more specifically geared to our own ideas.
and I think it comes down to which kind of society model you personally prefer. Me, I prefer much of the current German model. I suspect you might prefer to return to a 80's style Britain (sorry if I am wrong). But if you believe that leaving the EU will automatically set us on that course of a free-market, minimal State interference society, I believe you will be sorely disappointed. To have that society, you, (or those who propose it) need to win that argument with the British people. They have not done so, and no more this May than in 1997. British H&S madness is a British phenomenon, which will still be alive and kicking if you get your way and we leave the EU.
Today is the 10th anniversary of the Dutch people's emphatic rejection of the EU constitution. In true EU style that democratic decision was derided and treated with contempt and totally ignored. As was the French rejection too. The constitution was then abandoned and renamed the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish then rejected the Lisbon Treaty.
What did the EU do? Well, surprise, surprise, they ignored that result as well. It is well known that the Lisbon Treaty is the same document as the constitution with only very minor changes.
What did they say after the Irish refusal? They said..." The Irish people didn't mean no so they will need to vote again until they get it right"
This is EU democracy at it's finest.
Do any of the pro EU members here find any of this even slightly concerning or is this acceptable to you? Don't start going on about how it's in the past,etc,etc. These things happened and should give out a clear alarm signal about what the EU is prepared to do to get it's own way.
I find it more concerning the way you have put it. The treaty had to be ratified by each member country to be put in place and was designed to make the EU processes work better. Only the constitution of Ireland required them to have a referendum and they voted no and then yes in 2009. Both the French and Dutch later ratified the treaty and the background to that was a matter for those countries rather than the EU.
He was from Israel so could play in a European World Cup qualifying group or compete in the Eurovision song contest but would not be eligible to vote in a European referendum.
I find it more concerning the way you have put it. The treaty had to be ratified by each member country to be put in place and was designed to make the EU processes work better. Only the constitution of Ireland required them to have a referendum and they voted no and then yes in 2009. Both the French and Dutch later ratified the treaty and the background to that was a matter for those countries rather than the EU.
The point is that the people's decisions were ignored though weren't they? It was the governments who ratified the treaty whilst refusing any referendums. There was talk about us having one for it but Gordon Brown said there was no need for one as it was " Just a tidying up exercise". Yeah, that was some tidy up wasn't it. Also Brown crept over there in secret to sign it on his own after all of the others had signed it. I think the Czechs were the last to sign it under extreme pressure.
Admittedly that is coming up in the searches. He did say something very similar regarding political union. If I can find it I will give you a link. Also, no I don't agree with EU expansion in any way, shape or form.
I will remove that quote. If I find anything I will put it back up.
Admittedly that is coming up in the searches. He did say something very similar regarding political union. If I can find it I will give you a link. Also, no I don't agree with EU expansion in any way, shape or form.
I will remove that quote. If I find anything I will put it back up.
While you are at it, you might wish to concede that it's not a coincidence that Nigel Farage is all over the net today with a comment whose opening sentence is exactly yours, and mirror all your assertions. I suppose if you are going to just regurgitate Farage-isms on here for the next two years that is fair enough but maybe you should just admit that that is what you are doing.
It implies that all the other countries in the EU cannot wait to lose their sovereignty and national identity
Not really, they simply have a different attitude and a different concept of sovereignty. Their national identities more reflect the identity of the EU. The Roman system of governance as distinct from the Anglo Saxon system is based on prescriptive directives issued by the State which are law, end of. The Magna Carta influence of sovereign rights not being able to usurp citizens rights and being capable of being challenged has given us a different attitude towards how we like to be ruled.
Experiences colour our views. Back in the sixties we got involved in a minor motoring incident on holiday in Benidorm. We explained what happened to the police and expected nothing more than an exchange of insurance details. No, we were locked up for the night and next day presented with a document we had to sign in order to be released. After translation it became clear we were being set up to pay compensation based on a fictitious description of events. We said we didn't agree with the statement and wanted it changed before signing. Our translator explained we couldn't alter the statement as it had been signed off as State evidence. You could not contradict State evidence, it is a statement of fact. Facist regime or not, that for me is an example of how State power is open to abuse in the European system of law derived from absolute rule of law by State directives.
Our idea after the War to give Europe the Convention of Human Rights, was not for the benefit of the UK, we already had Habeas Corpus. It was to give citizens of Europe the rights we already took for granted being the right to challenge the State's absolute authority over the everyday life of citizens.
The European system of rule allowed the rise of dictatorships in the first place. The purpose and need for the EU convention was to protect the traditional European powers from themselves where absolute State power was supreme.
A political union makes sense for the Europeans, they value the control of the supreme authority of a single State by having a coalition of States that precludes the assumption of power by an extreme political party.
Why it should be depressing that we do not share the same fears and concerns and outlook of the rest of Europe with a different system of State rule escapes me.
I find it more concerning the way you have put it. The treaty had to be ratified by each member country to be put in place and was designed to make the EU processes work better. Only the constitution of Ireland required them to have a referendum and they voted no and then yes in 2009. Both the French and Dutch later ratified the treaty and the background to that was a matter for those countries rather than the EU.
The point is that the people's decisions were ignored though weren't they? It was the governments who ratified the treaty whilst refusing any referendums. There was talk about us having one for it but Gordon Brown said there was no need for one as it was " Just a tidying up exercise". Yeah, that was some tidy up wasn't it. Also Brown crept over there in secret to sign it on his own after all of the others had signed it. I think the Czechs were the last to sign it under extreme pressure.
Obviously the truth concerns you.
It may have helped your argument if you were not implying that the EU forced the ratification, when it did not and quoting then removing the quote when challenged. If the dutch or french governments wish to ignore votes, that has nothing to do with this country and they run the risk of being voted out of office surely in a democratic system. I think the truth is that a gauge of public opinion in both France and Holland shows a clear majority are pro EU and the Irish changed their mind in another vote. Manipulation of facts of the highest order!
But it had to be signed if a country wanted to be part of the EU because it was about the structure of the EU. The option was to leave which would have gone counter to the wishes of the people of those countries. When you are a number of countries, you have to try to find a consensus. The truth does concern me and I know where not to find it on this thread.
"While you are at it, you might wish to concede that it's not a coincidence that Nigel Farage is all over the net today with a comment whose opening sentence is exactly yours, and mirror all your assertions. I suppose if you are going to just regurgitate Farage-isms on here for the next two years that is fair enough but maybe you should just admit that that is what you are doing."
Of course I got it from the Farage statement. Do you think I can remember what happened 10 years ago in a Dutch referendum without being reminded of it?
Whether it is a Farage statement or not is irrelevent. The fact is that 3 referendum results that went against the EU were ignored. Whatever happens in our referendum, in or out is going to affect all of us and a lot of people on either side aren't going to like the outcome.
Just to look at it from a different angle, according to this article theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu there's at least 30,000 Brits on unemployment benefits in the EU. (Although the 2 Brits on ulica korzyści in Poland are somewhat outweighed by the 14,880 Poles claiming JSA here.) Presumably these 30k would have to return to the UK and claim benefit here if we left?
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
Ridiculous logic - delicious irony.
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?) The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
I'm sorry have to pull you up on this.. The European commission subject to the strictest of audit regimes???
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
Prague, as far as I know there is no impediment to this country imposing restrictions to migration from non EU states if that's what you want to do. However my understanding is that is not permitted in relation to migration from EU states. So what he was suggesting was that a substantial part of the 300,000 or so that can't now be controlled, could be if we left. Which sounds like a fair enough argument to me.
Whether or not you want to reduce immigration was not his point as I read it. It was about where border control should lie. In other words about sovereignty.
he gave 320,000 net migration a year as a reason to vote "no". Nothing else. I asked him to tell us what proportion of that 320,000 is non-EU. He hasn't told us. I then pointed out that EU migrants are more likely to easily assimilate and to go home again after a few years. So we could leave the EU and still be faced with highly problematic immigration. And we have the ability to deal with that highly problematic immigration from outside the EU regardless of whether we are in the EU.
It is important to take sweeping statements and casual use of stats and interrogate them a bit, in order to really get to grips with the issues, wouldn't you agree?
The fact is because we have soo much immigration from the EU we have to discriminate against non EU countries... why not make a system that's fair no matter where you come from...
What about those south Africans or Australians who are English speaking and would integrate much more quickly and would bring high end skills weIghtfield lack who are being turns down by our governments attempts to prove we can control immigration?
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
Ridiculous logic - delicious irony.
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?) The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
I'm sorry have to pull you up on this.. The European commission subject to the strictest of audit regimes???
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
So, @cantersaddick, I take it you didn't bother to read my explanation on 29th May as to why this 18 year bollocks is exactly that or why the UK plc accounts would suffer a similar fate if they were subject to the same strict regime?
You are now claiming that the European Commission is corrupt - can you give examples please?
It would be helpful if the sort of dross the Daily Fail publishes isn't used to obfuscate the debate we are having.
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
Ridiculous logic - delicious irony.
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?) The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
I'm sorry have to pull you up on this.. The European commission subject to the strictest of audit regimes???
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
So, @cantersaddick, I take it you didn't bother to read my explanation on 29th May as to why this 18 year bollocks is exactly that or why the UK plc accounts would suffer a similar fate if they were subject to the same strict regime?
You are now claiming that the European Commission is corrupt - can you give examples please?
It would be helpful if the sort of dross the Daily Fail publishes isn't used to obfuscate the debate we are having.
...."What is much more damaging and common is political corruption. A major theme that emerges from the report is failure on the part of politicians to self-regulate, in particular to regulate the conflicts of interest that are a consequence of their dealings with business. This has given rise to recurrent corruption scandals in political party financing, awarding of public contracts and the ‘revolving door’ between industry and government.
In cases like Spain and Luxembourg, these are not just national problems but have spillover effects to the rest of the EU in terms of banking stability and tax evasion. These chapters in the report should make particularly uneasy reading for these Member States.
The ‘revolving door’ is a particularly insidious corruption risk, since rewards for favouring companies or sectors come in the form of board directorships or other prominent positions rather than cash kickbacks . There are examples in the report of this kind of conflict of interest in Spain (in the healthcare sector), in Portugal (in construction) and in Germany (in transport).".....
and
....."There was originally supposed to be a chapter in this report on the EU itself, but this dropped out over the last six months."......
Just to look at it from a different angle, according to this article theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu there's at least 30,000 Brits on unemployment benefits in the EU. (Although the 2 Brits on ulica korzyści in Poland are somewhat outweighed by the 14,880 Poles claiming JSA here.) Presumably these 30k would have to return to the UK and claim benefit here if we left?
Those statistics look to be hugely skewed by your favourite part of the UK - Northern Ireland.
Just to look at it from a different angle, according to this article theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu there's at least 30,000 Brits on unemployment benefits in the EU. (Although the 2 Brits on ulica korzyści in Poland are somewhat outweighed by the 14,880 Poles claiming JSA here.) Presumably these 30k would have to return to the UK and claim benefit here if we left?
Those statistics look to be hugely skewed by your favourite part of the UK - Northern Ireland.
The Republic I think. But you're right, Norn Iron is not my favourite part of the world. In part because I'm forced to go there to visit relatives. I still find it impossible to believe that it's not within the Arctic Circle.
Just to look at it from a different angle, according to this article theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu there's at least 30,000 Brits on unemployment benefits in the EU. (Although the 2 Brits on ulica korzyści in Poland are somewhat outweighed by the 14,880 Poles claiming JSA here.) Presumably these 30k would have to return to the UK and claim benefit here if we left?
Those statistics look to be hugely skewed by your favourite part of the UK - Northern Ireland.
The Republic I think. But you're right, Norn Iron is not my favourite part of the world. In part because I'm forced to go there to visit relatives. I still find it impossible to believe that it's not within the Arctic Circle.
I think what skews the stats (especially the 30k one) are people travelling from Northern Ireland to addresses in the south to claim the dole.
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
Ridiculous logic - delicious irony.
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?) The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
I'm sorry have to pull you up on this.. The European commission subject to the strictest of audit regimes???
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
So, @cantersaddick, I take it you didn't bother to read my explanation on 29th May as to why this 18 year bollocks is exactly that or why the UK plc accounts would suffer a similar fate if they were subject to the same strict regime?
You are now claiming that the European Commission is corrupt - can you give examples please?
It would be helpful if the sort of dross the Daily Fail publishes isn't used to obfuscate the debate we are having.
...."What is much more damaging and common is political corruption. A major theme that emerges from the report is failure on the part of politicians to self-regulate, in particular to regulate the conflicts of interest that are a consequence of their dealings with business. This has given rise to recurrent corruption scandals in political party financing, awarding of public contracts and the ‘revolving door’ between industry and government.
In cases like Spain and Luxembourg, these are not just national problems but have spillover effects to the rest of the EU in terms of banking stability and tax evasion. These chapters in the report should make particularly uneasy reading for these Member States.
The ‘revolving door’ is a particularly insidious corruption risk, since rewards for favouring companies or sectors come in the form of board directorships or other prominent positions rather than cash kickbacks . There are examples in the report of this kind of conflict of interest in Spain (in the healthcare sector), in Portugal (in construction) and in Germany (in transport).".....
and
....."There was originally supposed to be a chapter in this report on the EU itself, but this dropped out over the last six months."......
One might ask why?!
Thank you for the link @LenGlover. I've zoomed through the synopsis. The organisation's main concerns seem to be with corruption within member states rather than within EU institutions themselves. Interesting, too, that around a quarter of Transparency International's funding came direct from the European Commission last year! That said, while the European Commission itself says that only 0.2% of its budget is impacted by fraud, anyone would be a fool to believe that everything within the EU institutions was whiter than white. But are they any worse than the individual member countries they represent? Is it just, then, do you think that good old-fashioned British corruption is of a much more palatable kind than that nasty EU version? (Vide the on-going SFO investigation into Rolls Royce....)
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
I'm sorry have to pull you up on this.. The European commission subject to the strictest of audit regimes???
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
So, @cantersaddick, I take it you didn't bother to read my explanation on 29th May as to why this 18 year bollocks is exactly that or why the UK plc accounts would suffer a similar fate if they were subject to the same strict regime?
You are now claiming that the European Commission is corrupt - can you give examples please?
It would be helpful if the sort of dross the Daily Fail publishes isn't used to obfuscate the debate we are having.
...."What is much more damaging and common is political corruption. A major theme that emerges from the report is failure on the part of politicians to self-regulate, in particular to regulate the conflicts of interest that are a consequence of their dealings with business. This has given rise to recurrent corruption scandals in political party financing, awarding of public contracts and the ‘revolving door’ between industry and government.
In cases like Spain and Luxembourg, these are not just national problems but have spillover effects to the rest of the EU in terms of banking stability and tax evasion. These chapters in the report should make particularly uneasy reading for these Member States.
The ‘revolving door’ is a particularly insidious corruption risk, since rewards for favouring companies or sectors come in the form of board directorships or other prominent positions rather than cash kickbacks . There are examples in the report of this kind of conflict of interest in Spain (in the healthcare sector), in Portugal (in construction) and in Germany (in transport).".....
and
....."There was originally supposed to be a chapter in this report on the EU itself, but this dropped out over the last six months."......
One might ask why?!
Thank you for the link @LenGlover. I've zoomed through the synopsis. The organisation's main concerns seem to be with corruption within member states rather than within EU institutions themselves. Interesting, too, that around a quarter of Transparency International's funding came direct from the European Commission last year! That said, while the European Commission itself says that only 0.2% of its budget is impacted by fraud, anyone would be a fool to believe that everything within the EU institutions was whiter than white. But are they any worse than the individual member countries they represent? Is it just, then, do you think that good old-fashioned British corruption is of a much more palatable kind than that nasty EU version? (Vide the on-going SFO investigation into Rolls Royce....)
Given the tendency of some on here (not you specifically) to denigrate the "source" rather than address the points and arguments raised I deliberately searched out a source that, as partly funded by the EU, might be expected to favour it where there is ambiguity.
Yes the report does refer to individual member states but, as my extract shows, it also impacts on the EU as a whole. I also once more highlight this sentence: ....."There was originally supposed to be a chapter in this report on the EU itself, but this dropped out over the last six months."......
As I highlighted above "what is more damaging and common is political corruption."
In the case of "good old-fashioned British corruption" I can vote for someone else every five years. The principle EU institution, the Commission, is unelected and thus unaccountable yet responsible for well over 50% of UK legislation which is subject to little or no scrutiny by Parliament since it is passed by statutory instrument, a posh way of saying rubber stamp!
I do not find British corruption more palatable but I do find the lack of true democratic accountability within the EU extremely unpalatable and that is my principle personal reason for wishing to leave it.
Yes in theory the European Parliament can sack the Commission and indeed once did. The same corrupt bunch all came crawling back once a bit of time had elapsed and the media had moved onto to something more interesting like Jordan's tits! It was a piece of theatre and little more than that not a true exercise in democracy. The EU Parliament is a sham and even if it did have any clout it concerns me that 60 million plus UK voters only have a representation within it of approximately 7%.
PS I've tried to edit the quotes a bit as there was no room otherwise. Apologies to anyone if I have inadvertently removed anything important. It is not deliberate!
Comments
Of course you worked out easily enough what my Part 2 was - are the issues that really vex people on a daily basis things that EU membership stops UK politicians from addressing and solving? In most cases when people answer the question honestly, as you did, the answer is generally "no" .
Your third point is interesting. Some of the anti EU people like to suggest that it is some kind of super state imposing reams of bureaucracy on countries which would otherwise be run with a much lighter touch. Is that what you are thinking of with this point?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11637644/Poland-definite-no-to-UK-plans-to-curb-migrants-benefits.html
I would turn it round and say why assume we are better off with legislation that is initiated in Brussels by one set of politicians/bureaucrats and then implemented by another set of UK politicians. It's crazy, which is why the rest of the EU might look at the UK and say "why bother about protecting supremacy of your domestic democratic system, it is an irrelevancy".
Does Brussels make better decisions than we can make with our own single layer of politicians? No one has any evidence to support the idea one way or another, all you can do is point to good EU legislation we have adopted. It does not prove we could not have done it ourselves nor that we could not have done a better job more specifically geared to our own ideas.
Would the UK have implemented the Working Time Directive? Is it a good idea? Whose idea was it, not the UK's I suggest. The only power we have is that of a minority dissenting voice if we do not agree with the terms of an EU directive. Am I to accept that if we are in a minority and our views are ignored they must have been wrong?
I see our role in the EU as weaker than for example voting for the LibDems and thinking their views will shape policy as a result of sharing power. The LibDems were able to veto stuff but anything implemented was effectively Tory policy with minor modifications to suit.
In the EU we do not have a power of veto except on Treaty changes, our power to influence from within only holds true if we are on course to support political union, otherwise we are constantly a carping minority voice and it is clear to our electorate that we have little control or influence. It cannot continue.
Remaining part of an organisation with whom we do not share a common ultimate objective is good enough reason to justify a serious re-think. It is a matter of principle.
It is not convincing to my ears to say, on the principle of where political power resides, we carry on in the EU because the EU has not harmed us too much and has done some good things and we don't notice what's going on anyway.
There are lots of things I would change about the EU, but I accept we are still better off in it because there is better evidence this is the case than otherwise. There are great dangers in leaving the EU and doing so would require a giant leap of faith that I don’t think the majority of the population will be willing to make. And I for one am grateful for that.
Remaining part of an organisation with whom we do not share a common ultimate objective is good enough reason to justify a serious re-think. It is a matter of principle.
This is what I find really depressing about the view towards the EU of so many otherwise intelligent and reasonable Brits. It implies that all the other countries in the EU cannot wait to lose their sovereignty and national identity and be lost in a superstate called Europa. That idea, patently, is a load of bollocks. Do you really think the French no longer want to be French, the Germans no longer German, the Dutch no longer, etc, etc. for the sake of "Europe"? of course not. They are just basically reasonable people who see that there is common ground between them despite their different nationalities, and finding and developing that common ground not only protects against the danger of European war (where it all started in the 1950's) but gives them more clout in the globalised world.
The question of how close, and how quickly, they become is not something set in stone. France is still a sovereign nation state, so is Denmark, etc etc. Sorry to labour the point but you and so many seem to forget it. You talk as if the EU is already run by some mysterious sinister super-race from somewhere above. It's just people from the 28 EU states...
You make a very reasonable point:
Does Brussels make better decisions than we can make with our own single layer of politicians? No one has any evidence to support the idea one way or another, all you can do is point to good EU legislation we have adopted. It does not prove we could not have done it ourselves nor that we could not have done a better job more specifically geared to our own ideas.
and I think it comes down to which kind of society model you personally prefer. Me, I prefer much of the current German model. I suspect you might prefer to return to a 80's style Britain (sorry if I am wrong). But if you believe that leaving the EU will automatically set us on that course of a free-market, minimal State interference society, I believe you will be sorely disappointed. To have that society, you, (or those who propose it) need to win that argument with the British people. They have not done so, and no more this May than in 1997. British H&S madness is a British phenomenon, which will still be alive and kicking if you get your way and we leave the EU.
What did the EU do? Well, surprise, surprise, they ignored that result as well. It is well known that the Lisbon Treaty is the same document as the constitution with only very minor changes.
What did they say after the Irish refusal? They said..." The Irish people didn't mean no so they will need to vote again until they get it right"
This is EU democracy at it's finest.
Do any of the pro EU members here find any of this even slightly concerning or is this acceptable to you? Don't start going on about how it's in the past,etc,etc. These things happened and should give out a clear alarm signal about what the EU is prepared to do to get it's own way.
What would Jesus do?
Obviously the truth concerns you.
Whether that's something you agree with is another question, but a link for your quote would be useful.
I will remove that quote. If I find anything I will put it back up.
Not really, they simply have a different attitude and a different concept of sovereignty. Their national identities more reflect the identity of the EU. The Roman system of governance as distinct from the Anglo Saxon system is based on prescriptive directives issued by the State which are law, end of. The Magna Carta influence of sovereign rights not being able to usurp citizens rights and being capable of being challenged has given us a different attitude towards how we like to be ruled.
Experiences colour our views. Back in the sixties we got involved in a minor motoring incident on holiday in Benidorm. We explained what happened to the police and expected nothing more than an exchange of insurance details. No, we were locked up for the night and next day presented with a document we had to sign in order to be released. After translation it became clear we were being set up to pay compensation based on a fictitious description of events. We said we didn't agree with the statement and wanted it changed before signing. Our translator explained we couldn't alter the statement as it had been signed off as State evidence. You could not contradict State evidence, it is a statement of fact. Facist regime or not, that for me is an example of how State power is open to abuse in the European system of law derived from absolute rule of law by State directives.
Our idea after the War to give Europe the Convention of Human Rights, was not for the benefit of the UK, we already had Habeas Corpus. It was to give citizens of Europe the rights we already took for granted being the right to challenge the State's absolute authority over the everyday life of citizens.
The European system of rule allowed the rise of dictatorships in the first place. The purpose and need for the EU convention was to protect the traditional European powers from themselves where absolute State power was supreme.
A political union makes sense for the Europeans, they value the control of the supreme authority of a single State by having a coalition of States that precludes the assumption of power by an extreme political party.
Why it should be depressing that we do not share the same fears and concerns and outlook of the rest of Europe with a different system of State rule escapes me.
But it had to be signed if a country wanted to be part of the EU because it was about the structure of the EU. The option was to leave which would have gone counter to the wishes of the people of those countries. When you are a number of countries, you have to try to find a consensus. The truth does concern me and I know where not to find it on this thread.
Of course I got it from the Farage statement. Do you think I can remember what happened 10 years ago in a Dutch referendum without being reminded of it?
Whether it is a Farage statement or not is irrelevent. The fact is that 3 referendum results that went against the EU were ignored. Whatever happens in our referendum, in or out is going to affect all of us and a lot of people on either side aren't going to like the outcome.
This is the same EC that hasn't had their accounts signed off in 18 years because of lage discrepancies in the accounts! If this was a counties government or a company they would have been shut down by now for that alone...
Sure the European parliament is elected but has very little power! It is little more than a glorified debating society (with huge expenses) all the real power is in the corrupt undemocratic Commission!
What about those south Africans or Australians who are English speaking and would integrate much more quickly and would bring high end skills weIghtfield lack who are being turns down by our governments attempts to prove we can control immigration?
You are now claiming that the European Commission is corrupt - can you give examples please?
It would be helpful if the sort of dross the Daily Fail publishes isn't used to obfuscate the debate we are having.
A couple of salient extracts:
...."What is much more damaging and common is political corruption. A major theme that emerges from the report is failure on the part of politicians to self-regulate, in particular to regulate the conflicts of interest that are a consequence of their dealings with business. This has given rise to recurrent corruption scandals in political party financing, awarding of public contracts and the ‘revolving door’ between industry and government.
In cases like Spain and Luxembourg, these are not just national problems but have spillover effects to the rest of the EU in terms of banking stability and tax evasion. These chapters in the report should make particularly uneasy reading for these Member States.
The ‘revolving door’ is a particularly insidious corruption risk, since rewards for favouring companies or sectors come in the form of board directorships or other prominent positions rather than cash kickbacks . There are examples in the report of this kind of conflict of interest in Spain (in the healthcare sector), in Portugal (in construction) and in Germany (in transport).".....
and
....."There was originally supposed to be a chapter in this report on the EU itself, but this dropped out over the last six months."......
One might ask why?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/business/international/anti-corruption-group-finds-fault-with-european-union.html?_r=0