Think your missing the point of all this cafcfan. It's not who is committing the fraud and who is corrupted, it's the fact that the EU is facilitating it by not being properly managed and accountable for its actions.
It can't keep records that allow a proper audit to be completed, and to give excuses for the holes in the accounts as if they are justifications for carrying on year after year with the same problem is surely a sign that there are systemic problems. You, nor anyone else, knows whether an "error" is an error or a fraud because the audit has been unable to conclude what has happened.
The whole decision making process is what allows corruption to seep into the system. Powers split between the Council of Ministers, MEPs and the Commissioners is supposed to give a more democratic process and prevent sectional interests having undue influencing on EU decisions. In practice it has flaws. Power is concentrated at each level rather than being dispersed across all three. Each has a veto which is exercised reluctantly. (It takes at least 18 months to get a piece of legislation through, the EU would grind to a halt if diligent due process were exerted).
Each level can make a demand that says unless it looks like this it will not get past me, so you nobble one piece in the chain to get a favourable result, everyone falls behind it so the EU doesn't grind to a halt and it just gets the nod.
These issues are important because some claim that the quality of the decision making processes within the EU that affect the UK must be better because they have emerged from a superior, more democratic system with the interests of Europe at heart.
I struggle to find any evidence that supports that point of view.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
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.
Aah, thank you. that makes sense. They'll do anything in Northern Ireland as long as it's illegal. (That's why there's almost no petrol engined cars in NI - they don't run on (red) diesel..... I reckon there's probably enough red diesel sold there to run all the farm vehicles in Europe!)
It is also quite clearly set out that the unelected, unaccountable European Commission, the source of legislation which affects the UK can ignore the European Parliament although it has to "receive" its opinion.
....."The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament's opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it."......
The political choice for our country is essentially is a simple one.
One voice in 28 in a democratically flawed institution or a sovereign state making its own decisions and conducting its own negotiations within global institutions.
At the moment the EU represents us within global bodies so we have effectively a 1/28 stake despite being net contributors and financing the the thing!
Len, you're getting mixed up between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission in the quote you provided.
The Commission is entirely comprised of representatives who are appointed by the national parliaments of each of the 28 member states and is then ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. I understand that they're not directly elected, but to describe the above as 'undemocratic' seems unfair to me, unless we are to go down the American path of elections for everything.
Faceless bureaucrats in both Westminster and Brussels are obviously completely unelected, and wield considerable power in both.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
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.
Aah, thank you. that makes sense. They'll do anything in Northern Ireland as long as it's illegal. (That's why there's almost no petrol engined cars in NI - they don't run on (red) diesel..... I reckon there's probably enough red diesel sold there to run all the farm vehicles in Europe!)
Don't worry, they probably all still live north of the border and do all their shopping in Newry, Enniskillen etc.
There's a forex risk for them, though. I wonder how many asked to be paid in GBP instead of Euro.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
Isn't this exactly what Cameron is saying?
He lost the status of "active constructive member" when he pulled the Tories out of the main European centre-right bloc (which includes Merkel's CDU) in the European Parliament. It was two fingers to Merkel, the Dutch, the Scandis, the entire northern bloc that shares much of the more reasonable British concerns and would push for reforms.
Its one of the most stupid and pointless things he's done, IMO, since he got elected. And they haven't forgotten.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
Isn't this exactly what Cameron is saying?
Its one of the most stupid and pointless things he's done, IMO, since he got elected. And they haven't forgotten.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
Isn't this exactly what Cameron is saying?
He lost the status of "active constructive member" when he pulled the Tories out of the main European centre-right bloc (which includes Merkel's CDU) in the European Parliament. It was two fingers to Merkel, the Dutch, the Scandis, the entire northern bloc that shares much of the more reasonable British concerns and would push for reforms.
Its one of the most stupid and pointless things he's done, IMO, since he got elected. And they haven't forgotten.
His actively whizzing round having meetings with so many European colleagues campaigning for reform looks pretty active to me!
It's 6 years since Britain distanced itself from being Merkel'/Sarkozy's poodle. Subsequent events in Crimea have shown their know towing to Russia was a deeply flawed outlook. Sarkozy's visits to Putin resulting in the statement from Schroeder that Putin was an "impeccable democrat" together with the fortress Europe mentality utterly dominated by Franco German interests was something the UK was possibly correct in distancing itself from.
Sarkozy's statement when blocking Turkeys entry into the EU calling it Asia Minor and saying how he wasn't going to let French schoolchildren see Europe with a border with Syria together with the blocking of Ukraine and Geogia from NATO does give an image of the walls going up around a Europe demarcated by the French and Germans. It also told e Russians that Europe had cast Georgia aside, with the subsequent invasion a tangeable result.
So, as you strongly suggest, maybe not the best move perhaps, but a long time ago in politics, and initiated because of repeated refusal of the EU to allow UK reforms on fiscal and other matters. Being part of the bloc brought none of the reforms the UK sought hardly drew benefit to the UK.
It is interesting to note that Labour members sit with the Socialist Group on the Council of Europe, with fellow members including the fascist Russian Liberal Democratic Party and the Turkish anti Kurd party, so I'm not overly impressed with our alternatives, are you?
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
OK let's set aside the issue of which countries have the worst or best record on corruption.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
I am far from alone in being pro EU but in recognizing the need for major reform. Seems to me the only major difference between us is that I believe that if you want to reform an organisation you have to first be an active member who has gained the respect of others. Not a disruptive hooligan who hurls abuse at fellow members from the back of the room ( thinking Farage antics in the EP, rather than your posts:-))
Isn't this exactly what Cameron is saying?
He lost the status of "active constructive member" when he pulled the Tories out of the main European centre-right bloc (which includes Merkel's CDU) in the European Parliament. It was two fingers to Merkel, the Dutch, the Scandis, the entire northern bloc that shares much of the more reasonable British concerns and would push for reforms.
Its one of the most stupid and pointless things he's done, IMO, since he got elected. And they haven't forgotten.
His actively whizzing round having meetings with so many European colleagues campaigning for reform looks pretty active to me!
It's 6 years since Britain distanced itself from being Merkel'/Sarkozy's poodle. Subsequent events in Crimea have shown their know towing to Russia was a deeply flawed outlook. Sarkozy's visits to Putin resulting in the statement from Schroeder that Putin was an "impeccable democrat" together with the fortress Europe mentality utterly dominated by Franco German interests was something the UK was possibly correct in distancing itself from.
Sarkozy's statement when blocking Turkeys entry into the EU calling it Asia Minor and saying how he wasn't going to let French schoolchildren see Europe with a border with Syria together with the blocking of Ukraine and Geogia from NATO does give an image of the walls going up around a Europe demarcated by the French and Germans. It also told e Russians that Europe had cast Georgia aside, with the subsequent invasion a tangeable result.
So, as you strongly suggest, maybe not the best move perhaps, but a long time ago in politics, and initiated because of repeated refusal of the EU to allow UK reforms on fiscal and other matters. Being part of the bloc brought none of the reforms the UK sought hardly drew benefit to the UK.
It is interesting to note that Labour members sit with the Socialist Group on the Council of Europe, with fellow members including the fascist Russian Liberal Democratic Party and the Turkish anti Kurd party, so I'm not overly impressed with our alternatives, are you?
Glad someone is interested in this topic although I'm very surprised at your take on it. We could lose everyone else by concentrating on this but I'll try to keep it topical.
You seem to suggest that the main reason why Cameron pulled the Tories out of the main centre right bloc was to do with EU foreign policy. Honestly, that's the first time I've heard such a claim. Here is the Wikipedia page of the new bloc. It's all about the politics within the EU, not external to the EU. When you talk about 'subsequent (external) events" how do you deal with common accusations that the EU caused trouble in Ukraine by too openly supporting the Maidan? That's the opposite of what you imply (I share your distaste for Schroeder, but so do most Germans i know).
The other main party at the time happened to be the Czech ODS, that's exactly why I'm so bothered about this. I thought a the time this was hopelessly naive of Cameron. Politics in these countries is still in development stage, people are not what they seem. Suffice to say for now that Mirek Topolanek, the then leader of ODS, is now an energy baron. But the real leader of ODS has always been Vaclav Klaus.He was president. People here will know him as the bloke who nicked the pen. He's also a closet gay homophobe, who increasingly is suspected of being in the pay of the Russians. In the last election last autumn, ODS suffered a Lib Dem style thrashing. East of the old Wall, be careful whom you get into bed with. Heaven knows, I've learnt that!
Len, you're getting mixed up between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission in the quote you provided.
The Commission is entirely comprised of representatives who are appointed by the national parliaments of each of the 28 member states and is then ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. I understand that they're not directly elected, but to describe the above as 'undemocratic' seems unfair to me, unless we are to go down the American path of elections for everything.
Faceless bureaucrats in both Westminster and Brussels are obviously completely unelected, and wield considerable power in both.
You're right I worded my post badly.
In my defence the main point I wanted to make was to demonstrate the reality that the EU Parliament is impotent. Posters above had suggested that the EU Parliament gave some sort of genuine democratic legitimacy to the EU as it was elected.
To clarify I effectively missed a step or rather part of a step. As I posted above the European Commission proposes legislation which is then passed to the European Parliament and (the bit I missed out) the unelected Council of Ministers (the co-legislators).
......."The Commission's main roles are to: propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU) set a objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them manage and implement EU policies and the budget represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
My quote in my post above demonstrates that the Council of Ministers (via as can be seen the European Commission since it proposes the legislation) has ignored the European Parliamentary opinion it is supposed to "receive" thus demonstrating the reality that the European Parliament is impotent as this incident is by no means an isolated one.
As a final observation it is worth noting that the unelected European Commission (will) ......"represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
I would rather the elected government of the UK deals with such matters on behalf of the UK rather than effectively delegating and diluting its voice to 1/28 when it comes to representing UK interests.
A fundamental reason for coming out of the EU in my opinion. Norway and Switzerland have their own seats at such trade negotiations not a 1/28 say in somebody elses!
Good interesting post as usual from you even if I don't share your conclusion. I'd prefer to beef up European Parliament authority, while severely clipping the wings of the Commission. That's doable.
Question though. Do you believe that Norway and Switzerland negotiate trade deals with say China on their own? I'm willing to bet that in fact they go under the EEA banner. Which is basically them, Iceland and the EU countries...but I could be wrong there.
Good interesting post as usual from you even if I don't share your conclusion. I'd prefer to beef up European Parliament authority, while severely clipping the wings of the Commission. That's doable.
Question though. Do you believe that Norway and Switzerland negotiate trade deals with say China on their own? I'm willing to bet that in fact they go under the EEA banner. Which is basically them, Iceland and the EU countries...but I could be wrong there.
This article, coincidentally written today, answers better than I can and also highlights the increasing irrelevance of the EU as regulations are increasingly global in origin.
As I say better speaking for ourselves rather than having a 1/28 input and being forced to accept a common EU position in my opinion just as Norway does.
Len, you're getting mixed up between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission in the quote you provided.
The Commission is entirely comprised of representatives who are appointed by the national parliaments of each of the 28 member states and is then ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. I understand that they're not directly elected, but to describe the above as 'undemocratic' seems unfair to me, unless we are to go down the American path of elections for everything.
Faceless bureaucrats in both Westminster and Brussels are obviously completely unelected, and wield considerable power in both.
You're right I worded my post badly.
In my defence the main point I wanted to make was to demonstrate the reality that the EU Parliament is impotent. Posters above had suggested that the EU Parliament gave some sort of genuine democratic legitimacy to the EU as it was elected.
To clarify I effectively missed a step or rather part of a step. As I posted above the European Commission proposes legislation which is then passed to the European Parliament and (the bit I missed out) the unelected Council of Ministers (the co-legislators).
......."The Commission's main roles are to: propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU) set a objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them manage and implement EU policies and the budget represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
My quote in my post above demonstrates that the Council of Ministers (via as can be seen the European Commission since it proposes the legislation) has ignored the European Parliamentary opinion it is supposed to "receive" thus demonstrating the reality that the European Parliament is impotent as this incident is by no means an isolated one.
As a final observation it is worth noting that the unelected European Commission (will) ......"represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
I would rather the elected government of the UK deals with such matters on behalf of the UK rather than effectively delegating and diluting its voice to 1/28 when it comes to representing UK interests.
A fundamental reason for coming out of the EU in my opinion. Norway and Switzerland have their own seats at such trade negotiations not a 1/28 say in somebody elses!
Let me get this straight, you think the government of each EU country is democratically elected, but you believe the Council of Ministers (ie the same people) is not democratically elected?
Do you want the European Parliament to overrule the national governments (as represented in the Council of Ministers)?
The European Commission is the EU's version of the senior civil service. It proposes but can't do anything against the wishes of the European Parliament and, crucially, the national governments.
It's true that Norway has a seat at the WTO negotiations. I have no idea how much value this has given the difficulties within the WTO in reaching agreement in the past few years (is Montevideo 1994 the last WTO agreement?)
Len, you're getting mixed up between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission in the quote you provided.
The Commission is entirely comprised of representatives who are appointed by the national parliaments of each of the 28 member states and is then ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. I understand that they're not directly elected, but to describe the above as 'undemocratic' seems unfair to me, unless we are to go down the American path of elections for everything.
Faceless bureaucrats in both Westminster and Brussels are obviously completely unelected, and wield considerable power in both.
You're right I worded my post badly.
In my defence the main point I wanted to make was to demonstrate the reality that the EU Parliament is impotent. Posters above had suggested that the EU Parliament gave some sort of genuine democratic legitimacy to the EU as it was elected.
To clarify I effectively missed a step or rather part of a step. As I posted above the European Commission proposes legislation which is then passed to the European Parliament and (the bit I missed out) the unelected Council of Ministers (the co-legislators).
......."The Commission's main roles are to: propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU) set a objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them manage and implement EU policies and the budget represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
My quote in my post above demonstrates that the Council of Ministers (via as can be seen the European Commission since it proposes the legislation) has ignored the European Parliamentary opinion it is supposed to "receive" thus demonstrating the reality that the European Parliament is impotent as this incident is by no means an isolated one.
As a final observation it is worth noting that the unelected European Commission (will) ......"represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
I would rather the elected government of the UK deals with such matters on behalf of the UK rather than effectively delegating and diluting its voice to 1/28 when it comes to representing UK interests.
A fundamental reason for coming out of the EU in my opinion. Norway and Switzerland have their own seats at such trade negotiations not a 1/28 say in somebody elses!
Let me get this straight, you think the government of each EU country is democratically elected, but you believe the Council of Ministers (ie the same people) is not democratically elected?
Do you want the European Parliament to overrule the national governments (as represented in the Council of Ministers)?
The European Commission is the EU's version of the senior civil service. It proposes but can't do anything against the wishes of the European Parliament and, crucially, the national governments.
It's true that Norway has a seat at the WTO negotiations. I have no idea how much value this has given the difficulties within the WTO in reaching agreement in the past few years (is Montevideo 1994 the last WTO agreement?)
1) The government of each EU country is democratically elected by the population of the individual countries yes but, as you well know, one minister per country means a representation of 1/28 which as far as the UK electorate, as my country and thus my primary concern, being properly represented means it is effectively unelected yes since with qualified majority voting the UK view can be ignored apart from the few limited (diminishing rapidly incidentally) situations where the full veto still exists.
2) No I do not want the EU Parliament to overrule national governments. Why would I when I have clearly stated I want to leave the EU? However whilst we remain within the EU the European Parliament, with the UK having around 7% of the seats, has marginally more democratic legitimacy than the 1/28 within the Council of Ministers. Hence why I pointed out the Council of Ministers ignoring it above.
Decisions and regulations are forged globally let's have our own seat to state our case rather than a 1/28 stake in somebody elses.
As regards your TTIP point don't forget that the US is also bound (theoretically I accept) by global agreements and if, as is happening, the important decisions are taken at a higher global level then the relevance of a bi lateral trading agreement will inevitably diminish.
Your definition of "unelected" (your word) is stretching past breaking point if it includes "elected by other people"
Your standpoint on parliament v council of ministers is confusing me. I'll leave it there
I don't know how exactly decisions are made within the Council of Ministers. No one seems to be able to name a real-life bad thing resulting from a decision "the EU" made against the UK since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Given that, it seems likely that the EU seeks consensus/unanimity on most decisions before involving qualified majority voting. From all your links and quotes, Len, it looks like every decision is ultimately made by the national governments.
TTIP is a real negotiation that's happening now. You want to take the UK out of that process, resulting in a negative short term outcome, in the hope that some years after TTIP goes through, the USA offers better terms to the UK. Why would the US offer better terms to the UK when it's a smaller partner? Besides, any deals would have to be approved by Congress so it could take some time.
You say major global agreements are happening imminently. Which ones are these? The Doha round of WTO talks have been running for 15 years with no progress and nothing imminent.
I used to be like you. I used to think intangibles like sovereignty and control were the most important things, and that any encroachment on these (as the EU inevitably was) were to be prevented. Now, though, for the most part, I'm more interested in what actually happens than how the decision has come about. Obviously it has flaws and is slow, but I think the EU has been better than no EU would have been, and I think it's probably better being inside pissing out...
My opinion on the EU would change if it started forcing lots of bad laws on the country against the wishes of the government. That's why I asked the question twice about real-world things the EU had done.
Fish conservation is close to my heart and the EU has been a complete disaster for fish conservation in EU waters let alone British waters.
There has been overfishing of bass and fishermen have been allowed to catch juvenile fish so preventing fish stocks from maintaining a sustainable level. For 20 years Britain has been calling for an increase in the minimum size of bass allowed to be caught and a crucial decision is about to be made given no one can deny the stocks are about to collapse. The "independent" Commissioners have the duty to act in the interests of the EU, not particular lobby groups. The scientific evidence says 42cm is the minimum size and at last there is a proposal for the current 36cm limit to be increased, but only to 40cm. On conservation grounds the Commissioners have no reason not to put the change in front of the Parliament for approval. In practice the Council of Ministers can veto any legislation that the Commissioners propose. The Council is made up of politicians of the member states so will vote in line with sectional interests and many will oppose this change because they want to be entitled to carry on landing fish even if it destroys our fish stocks.
David Mitchell, the Angling Trust’s Marine Campaigns Manager and Secretary of the EAA’s sea Sub-Group, said;
“ There’s a real danger that the Commission’s proposal to increase the MCRS gets compromised by commercial fishing interests who seem to only be able to focus on their short term interests rather than the long term interests of the fishery.
A 40cm MCRS would still not allow all bass to spawn before being harvested and a two-step increase from 36cm to 40cm, before eventually moving from 40cm to 42cm, would display a pitiful lack of ambition by all those tasked with averting the collapse of sea bass in EU waters. Let’s move to 42cm now and help the stock recover by increasing the allowing fish to spawn and increase the biomass.”
This is an example of the EU in action, where Britain's interests are at the mercy of a body of political representatives of the EU nations who have only their own interest at heart. Let's see how this unfolds. If the Commissioners are forced to abandon this proposal due entirely to the selfish actions of our partners in the EU it will give me no pleasure whatsoever to say again that the EU is an aberration. It will show the bizarre logic of allowing EU legislation intended to benefit the EU actually being decided on a majority view representing selfish national interests regardless of its harm on a minority of national interests.
If the proposal is passed, it will be nothing to do with the good offices of the EU, it will be us getting a positive outcome to protect what used to be our own resources, by the skin of out teeth. Note that our UK elected representatives in the Parliament have naff all influence or power to make this proposal law.
I've just listened to an interesting piece on the World Tonight on Radio 4 on fish stocks. Admittedly cod, not bass. However it paints a picture of the results of EU intervention which is very different to the one you have described. I'd be interested in your take on it.
Regardless of whether staying or leaving is better in the short term do the yes voters feel comfortable becoming part of a European superstate? Even if becoming part of a huge block is the only course for the future why is the EU the best option?
We should become the 51 state of the USA. If you get Life, it's 99 years. Britain could be turned into 1 big Disneyland. Democrats or Republicans. We can get rid of Trident as Uncle Sam will look after us. Waterboarding and guns on every street. No more migrants ? Except for the 3000 Mexicans a month. Enchiladas' or Fajitas on every street. Goodbye Europe. Welcome to the Umbrella state.
Regardless of whether staying or leaving is better in the short term do the yes voters feel comfortable becoming part of a European superstate? Even if becoming part of a huge block is the only course for the future why is the EU the best option?
I might be wrong, but I believe geography may have something to do with it!
Regardless of whether staying or leaving is better in the short term do the yes voters feel comfortable becoming part of a European superstate? Even if becoming part of a huge block is the only course for the future why is the EU the best option?
I might be wrong, but I believe geography may have something to do with it!
Tell that to Hawaii Bob.
In all seriousness though I can see obvious downsides to tying ourselves to a fractious, militarily week and resource poor continent which has existential threats on its borders. If we absolutely have to lose our independence I'm far from convinced the EU is the smart play.
Comments
It can't keep records that allow a proper audit to be completed, and to give excuses for the holes in the accounts as if they are justifications for carrying on year after year with the same problem is surely a sign that there are systemic problems. You, nor anyone else, knows whether an "error" is an error or a fraud because the audit has been unable to conclude what has happened.
The whole decision making process is what allows corruption to seep into the system. Powers split between the Council of Ministers, MEPs and the Commissioners is supposed to give a more democratic process and prevent sectional interests having undue influencing on EU decisions. In practice it has flaws. Power is concentrated at each level rather than being dispersed across all three. Each has a veto which is exercised reluctantly. (It takes at least 18 months to get a piece of legislation through, the EU would grind to a halt if diligent due process were exerted).
Each level can make a demand that says unless it looks like this it will not get past me, so you nobble one piece in the chain to get a favourable result, everyone falls behind it so the EU doesn't grind to a halt and it just gets the nod.
These issues are important because some claim that the quality of the decision making processes within the EU that affect the UK must be better because they have emerged from a superior, more democratic system with the interests of Europe at heart.
I struggle to find any evidence that supports that point of view.
@Len Glover, @Dippenhall, you may wish to study the Transparency International index of global corruption. The UK lies only 14th in that table. 5 EU countries are ahead of us.
Among the companies about whose activities in the Czech Republic I have the greatest suspicion (due to conversations I had at British Embassy events in the 90s as wells local newspaper coverage) are two who no longer exist , National Power and Anglian Water. You will note that both are privatised utilities. It is often ignored that the European Commission enthusiasm for privatising utilities in all Member states can be traced back to the aggressive evangelising in Brussels of Thatcher's mob within the EU post 1990. (even though she herself was deposed, people like John Redwood are still banging that disreputable drum to this day). So basically we have had a big impact on the EU. Created private utility monsters, led IMO by League One level managers on FAPL salaries, and behaving extremely badly abroad when beyond the gaze of UK journalists and active citizens.
It's a sad lesson I've learnt in the last 22 years out here: We Brits need to be a bit circumspect about calling others in Europe corrupt.
https://edri.org/net-neutrality-fail/
It is also quite clearly set out that the unelected, unaccountable European Commission, the source of legislation which affects the UK can ignore the European Parliament although it has to "receive" its opinion.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers
....."The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament's opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it."......
The political choice for our country is essentially is a simple one.
One voice in 28 in a democratically flawed institution or a sovereign state making its own decisions and conducting its own negotiations within global institutions.
At the moment the EU represents us within global bodies so we have effectively a 1/28 stake despite being net contributors and financing the the thing!
If you think that is all fine and dandy vote yes.
The Commission is entirely comprised of representatives who are appointed by the national parliaments of each of the 28 member states and is then ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. I understand that they're not directly elected, but to describe the above as 'undemocratic' seems unfair to me, unless we are to go down the American path of elections for everything.
Faceless bureaucrats in both Westminster and Brussels are obviously completely unelected, and wield considerable power in both.
Pro EU campaigners surely have a duty to show it's better than other alternatives, it's only being pointed out it's not particularly well run and has the same challenges as any other political system. Difference is the electorate can't do much to influence things and must rely on the integrity of a board of Commissioners appointed by those who may well be corrupt.
Can we just accept the EU hasn't found an answer to combating corruption and its's no better than any other system so why should we look up to the the EU as a superior system with a superior decision making process?
There's a forex risk for them, though. I wonder how many asked to be paid in GBP instead of Euro.
Can't you just find someone else?
Its one of the most stupid and pointless things he's done, IMO, since he got elected. And they haven't forgotten.
It's 6 years since Britain distanced itself from being Merkel'/Sarkozy's poodle. Subsequent events in Crimea have shown their know towing to Russia was a deeply flawed outlook. Sarkozy's visits to Putin resulting in the statement from Schroeder that Putin was an "impeccable democrat" together with the fortress Europe mentality utterly dominated by Franco German interests was something the UK was possibly correct in distancing itself from.
Sarkozy's statement when blocking Turkeys entry into the EU calling it Asia Minor and saying how he wasn't going to let French schoolchildren see Europe with a border with Syria together with the blocking of Ukraine and Geogia from NATO does give an image of the walls going up around a Europe demarcated by the French and Germans. It also told e Russians that Europe had cast Georgia aside, with the subsequent invasion a tangeable result.
So, as you strongly suggest, maybe not the best move perhaps, but a long time ago in politics, and initiated because of repeated refusal of the EU to allow UK reforms on fiscal and other matters. Being part of the bloc brought none of the reforms the UK sought hardly drew benefit to the UK.
It is interesting to note that Labour members sit with the Socialist Group on the Council of Europe, with fellow members including the fascist Russian Liberal Democratic Party and the Turkish anti Kurd party, so I'm not overly impressed with our alternatives, are you?
You seem to suggest that the main reason why Cameron pulled the Tories out of the main centre right bloc was to do with EU foreign policy. Honestly, that's the first time I've heard such a claim. Here is the Wikipedia page of the new bloc. It's all about the politics within the EU, not external to the EU. When you talk about 'subsequent (external) events" how do you deal with common accusations that the EU caused trouble in Ukraine by too openly supporting the Maidan? That's the opposite of what you imply (I share your distaste for Schroeder, but so do most Germans i know).
The other main party at the time happened to be the Czech ODS, that's exactly why I'm so bothered about this. I thought a the time this was hopelessly naive of Cameron. Politics in these countries is still in development stage, people are not what they seem. Suffice to say for now that Mirek Topolanek, the then leader of ODS, is now an energy baron. But the real leader of ODS has always been Vaclav Klaus.He was president. People here will know him as the bloke who nicked the pen. He's also a closet gay homophobe, who increasingly is suspected of being in the pay of the Russians. In the last election last autumn, ODS suffered a Lib Dem style thrashing. East of the old Wall, be careful whom you get into bed with. Heaven knows, I've learnt that!
In my defence the main point I wanted to make was to demonstrate the reality that the EU Parliament is impotent. Posters above had suggested that the EU Parliament gave some sort of genuine democratic legitimacy to the EU as it was elected.
To clarify I effectively missed a step or rather part of a step. As I posted above the European Commission proposes legislation which is then passed to the European Parliament and (the bit I missed out) the unelected Council of Ministers (the co-legislators).
http://ec.europa.eu/about/index_en.htm
......."The Commission's main roles are to:
propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers
enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU)
set a objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them
manage and implement EU policies and the budget
represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
My quote in my post above demonstrates that the Council of Ministers (via as can be seen the European Commission since it proposes the legislation) has ignored the European Parliamentary opinion it is supposed to "receive" thus demonstrating the reality that the European Parliament is impotent as this incident is by no means an isolated one.
As a final observation it is worth noting that the unelected European Commission (will) ......"represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example.).".......
I would rather the elected government of the UK deals with such matters on behalf of the UK rather than effectively delegating and diluting its voice to 1/28 when it comes to representing UK interests.
A fundamental reason for coming out of the EU in my opinion. Norway and Switzerland have their own seats at such trade negotiations not a 1/28 say in somebody elses!
Good interesting post as usual from you even if I don't share your conclusion. I'd prefer to beef up European Parliament authority, while severely clipping the wings of the Commission. That's doable.
Question though. Do you believe that Norway and Switzerland negotiate trade deals with say China on their own? I'm willing to bet that in fact they go under the EEA banner. Which is basically them, Iceland and the EU countries...but I could be wrong there.
As I say better speaking for ourselves rather than having a 1/28 input and being forced to accept a common EU position in my opinion just as Norway does.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/busting-norway-myth.html
Do you want the European Parliament to overrule the national governments (as represented in the Council of Ministers)?
The European Commission is the EU's version of the senior civil service. It proposes but can't do anything against the wishes of the European Parliament and, crucially, the national governments.
Norway do not have a seat at the TTIP negotiations as these are between the USA and EU. As they are not involved, it's expected a successful TTIP will have negative consequences for them. They will also probably have to implement any legislative changes resulting from the agreement within the EU. Obviously, Norway will be hoping that the EU-US agreement will lead to a later agreement between the US and Norway, however, they're separate.
It's true that Norway has a seat at the WTO negotiations. I have no idea how much value this has given the difficulties within the WTO in reaching agreement in the past few years (is Montevideo 1994 the last WTO agreement?)
2) No I do not want the EU Parliament to overrule national governments. Why would I when I have clearly stated I want to leave the EU? However whilst we remain within the EU the European Parliament, with the UK having around 7% of the seats, has marginally more democratic legitimacy than the 1/28 within the Council of Ministers. Hence why I pointed out the Council of Ministers ignoring it above.
Decisions and regulations are forged globally let's have our own seat to state our case rather than a 1/28 stake in somebody elses.
As regards your TTIP point don't forget that the US is also bound (theoretically I accept) by global agreements and if, as is happening, the important decisions are taken at a higher global level then the relevance of a bi lateral trading agreement will inevitably diminish.
Your standpoint on parliament v council of ministers is confusing me. I'll leave it there
I don't know how exactly decisions are made within the Council of Ministers. No one seems to be able to name a real-life bad thing resulting from a decision "the EU" made against the UK since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Given that, it seems likely that the EU seeks consensus/unanimity on most decisions before involving qualified majority voting. From all your links and quotes, Len, it looks like every decision is ultimately made by the national governments.
TTIP is a real negotiation that's happening now. You want to take the UK out of that process, resulting in a negative short term outcome, in the hope that some years after TTIP goes through, the USA offers better terms to the UK. Why would the US offer better terms to the UK when it's a smaller partner? Besides, any deals would have to be approved by Congress so it could take some time.
You say major global agreements are happening imminently. Which ones are these? The Doha round of WTO talks have been running for 15 years with no progress and nothing imminent.
I used to be like you. I used to think intangibles like sovereignty and control were the most important things, and that any encroachment on these (as the EU inevitably was) were to be prevented. Now, though, for the most part, I'm more interested in what actually happens than how the decision has come about. Obviously it has flaws and is slow, but I think the EU has been better than no EU would have been, and I think it's probably better being inside pissing out...
My opinion on the EU would change if it started forcing lots of bad laws on the country against the wishes of the government. That's why I asked the question twice about real-world things the EU had done.
There has been overfishing of bass and fishermen have been allowed to catch juvenile fish so preventing fish stocks from maintaining a sustainable level. For 20 years Britain has been calling for an increase in the minimum size of bass allowed to be caught and a crucial decision is about to be made given no one can deny the stocks are about to collapse. The "independent" Commissioners have the duty to act in the interests of the EU, not particular lobby groups. The scientific evidence says 42cm is the minimum size and at last there is a proposal for the current 36cm limit to be increased, but only to 40cm. On conservation grounds the Commissioners have no reason not to put the change in front of the Parliament for approval. In practice the Council of Ministers can veto any legislation that the Commissioners propose. The Council is made up of politicians of the member states so will vote in line with sectional interests and many will oppose this change because they want to be entitled to carry on landing fish even if it destroys our fish stocks.
David Mitchell, the Angling Trust’s Marine Campaigns Manager and Secretary of the EAA’s sea Sub-Group, said;
“ There’s a real danger that the Commission’s proposal to increase the MCRS gets compromised by commercial fishing interests who seem to only be able to focus on their short term interests rather than the long term interests of the fishery.
A 40cm MCRS would still not allow all bass to spawn before being harvested and a two-step increase from 36cm to 40cm, before eventually moving from 40cm to 42cm, would display a pitiful lack of ambition by all those tasked with averting the collapse of sea bass in EU waters. Let’s move to 42cm now and help the stock recover by increasing the allowing fish to spawn and increase the biomass.”
This is an example of the EU in action, where Britain's interests are at the mercy of a body of political representatives of the EU nations who have only their own interest at heart. Let's see how this unfolds. If the Commissioners are forced to abandon this proposal due entirely to the selfish actions of our partners in the EU it will give me no pleasure whatsoever to say again that the EU is an aberration. It will show the bizarre logic of allowing EU legislation intended to benefit the EU actually being decided on a majority view representing selfish national interests regardless of its harm on a minority of national interests.
If the proposal is passed, it will be nothing to do with the good offices of the EU, it will be us getting a positive outcome to protect what used to be our own resources, by the skin of out teeth. Note that our UK elected representatives in the Parliament have naff all influence or power to make this proposal law.
I've just listened to an interesting piece on the World Tonight on Radio 4 on fish stocks. Admittedly cod, not bass. However it paints a picture of the results of EU intervention which is very different to the one you have described. I'd be interested in your take on it.
If you get Life, it's 99 years.
Britain could be turned into 1 big Disneyland.
Democrats or Republicans.
We can get rid of Trident as Uncle Sam will look after us.
Waterboarding and guns on every street.
No more migrants ?
Except for the 3000 Mexicans a month.
Enchiladas' or Fajitas on every street.
Goodbye Europe.
Welcome to the Umbrella state.
In all seriousness though I can see obvious downsides to tying ourselves to a fractious, militarily week and resource poor continent which has existential threats on its borders. If we absolutely have to lose our independence I'm far from convinced the EU is the smart play.