Bollitics Europe - in / out / shake it all about

[rjw63]

Even if it meant no more Czech/Hungarian porn?

I have ways of accessing that without the say so of some bureacratic Jonny Foreigner

[Richard]

First of all Bicks is right, there won't be a Tory majority in 2015 unless they eventually find Maddie tied up under Miliband's bed. In that sense it's a bluff from Cameron to a) buy off his own party and unite them behind him, and try to stem the bleeding of support from the Tory base to UKIP. However I think it will be an issue used so effectively against Labour who currently oppose giving the public a say that they will change their position before 2015 and make a referendum part of their election manifesto too. Therefore I think the next Parliament will see a referendum, regardless of who gets in.

As to 'in or out' it would depend entirely on what the theoretical negotiation could deliver. If it was the relationship we have today versus leaving then I'd vote for out, but Cameron's intent to enshrine the principle that the UK will not participate in "ever closer union" is a game changer for me, if he can get it. That would exclude us from the on going drive towards a Federal super-state that the EU institutions openly support, thus mantaining UK as a soveriegn state within a looser assocation of democratic nations.

My personal beef with the EU has always been based on democracy, i.e. the elctorate must be able to sack the people who make our laws and replace them if we so choose. The EU has removed that ability (approx 70% of our laws are made in Europe, beyond accountability to the people) which is something I cannot accept as being right or democratic, in fact it's a dangerous departure from common sense, imo. The EU undoubtedly delivers benefits but equally they come at a cost so the analysis currently being undertaken across government will form a good starting point to begin informing the public on the issues. Hopefully that debate will focus on substance and filter out the shrill background noise from both sides. Fat chance of that happening but we'll see.

Read the other day that the CIA covertly poured millions into the "yes" campaign in 1975, so expect the same sort of underhand tactics again this time round - the BBC which gets a nice fat EU grant will no doubt also be blowing the trumpet for Brussels. It's interesting that many of the great and the good who say that an EU exit would leave the UK a baron and salted wasteland are exactly the same people who said the sky would fall and virgins would combust if we didn't join the Euro. Why anyone should now believe a word of what they say given their track record of incompetent analysis is highly debatable.

Whichever way it goes (and I think we all know Cameron isn't making a principled decision to empower the electorate here) it is absolutely right to give the public a say and confer democratic legitimacy on the future relationship of the UK with Europe. In 1975 people were told they were joining a Common Market, not a Political Union. Heath (nonce?) later admitted he'd lied his chops off quite deliberately about what people were voting on back then. If we are going to become part of a Federal European Union (and if we stay in without any change in the relationship then that is the eventual destination) then the decision is for the British people to make, and them alone.

Top post that sums up a lot of where I am.  I would argue on a few points but the general thrust,  especially on the issue of the question is where I am at

[bickster]

My personal beef with the EU has always been based on democracy, i.e. the elctorate must be able to sack the people who make our laws and replace them if we so choose. The EU has removed that ability (approx 70% of our laws are made in Europe, beyond accountability to the people) which is something I cannot accept as being right or democratic, in fact it's a dangerous departure from common sense, imo.

That is nonsense though isn't it. We vote in EU elections, representatives are elected, they come up for re-election and can "be sacked", in the same sense that any MP can be voted out of office at the next election. Where the EU differs is that it isn't a two party state, the amount of different parties is huge, yes they join together in like minded caucuses but in many senses the multifarious party leads to greater democracy than we have in the UK, decisions are made by far more consensus than ever happens in Britain. The closest we get to consensus politics is when Dave says Jump and Nick says how high, then Nick complains that he can't be sensibly expected to jump that high so Dave gets him to jump a little.

[Chindie]

It's not that simple unfortunately Bicks, with regards us voting for MEPs and that being an example of the EU being democratic. The European Parliament is just one segment of the EU and has a comparatively weak role in the whole organisation - I may be slightly out of date but it's major role a couple of years ago was predominately to sign off the budget for the EU and whatever legislation the institutions above it sent down to be ratified. Oh and to supervise the organisation, whatever that means. The Commission and the Council of the European Union are not democratically elected to office and hold far greater power than the Parliament. The only other democratically elected element of the European Union is the European Council (the meeting of member heads of state along with 2 EU Presidents for a chat, in essence), which for all intents and purposes is powerless.

 

The EU does have a democratic deficit, even generally as a supporter of the institution it really has got to improve it's accountability.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Chindie

[bickster]

DIdn't realise that Chindie, thanks for correcting me.

[Chindie]

No worries, always happy to put the degree to some use

 

It's that kind of thing that shows just how intangibly complex the entire organisation is, which in turn makes the question of 'In, or out?' a far more complex question than it appears. It's actually slightly difficult to comprehend what the organisation actually is. And when the work it does has some very intangible benefits (to your average man on the street, the benefits it is able to bring to him tend to be far less obvious than the bad stuff the papers tell him about. Things like allowing the director of the company he works for to far more easily serve one of the largest consumer bases in the world, itself part of the one of the largest economic areas there is, which secures his job ultimately. What he does see is a load of Poles in the city centre and stories about cucumbers not being straight enough - which are usually hoaxes) the question is daft.

 

And theres not a hope in hell of making a sensible debate come about in the run up to a referendum, because you simply can't adequately explain the rights and wrongs of the situation in quick simple terms. What can do is scaremonger and mislead though - on both sides of the debate.

 

But thats all by the by, the referendum won't happen, precisely because the politicians in the mainstream know leaving would be a nightmare and theres a chance the public would vote to leave.

[blandy]

There's a lot wrong with the way the EU is run. It's corrupt, the accounts haven't been signed off for years and years, money is going missing, it's undemocratic, in part. The Agricultural and Fishing policies are harmful and destructive and expensive. It's ideologically flawed in as much as the Eurozone and no-Eurozone parts are fundamentally at odds. It either needs to be properly federal, or not at all federal.

 

Then again, there's nearly as much wrong with our own nations politics, and many of the same things.

 

I don't know if we;d be better in or out. Bigger business says "IN", smaller is more likely to say "OUT". The problem with what Cameron has done is said he's going to enter into negotiations to try and get [something he hasn't really explained] by a predetermined date and said basically, "if I don't get it we're going to leave". That's a terrible negotiating position. He's an utter hostage to whatever views the rest have. If they say "actually we want to keep you in" then he may get something. If they are of the view towards "no, you can't have that, go on then, ef off" he's scuppered. If we're out, the economy will suffer.

 

I'm sure that by doing it some other nations will agree with some of the things he wants, but I'm also sure that he will not get a majority of them to support what the tories in particular seem to want. The EU might end up sorting out some of the problems as a result of what he;s said, but it'll create as many more.

 

And in the end, no one knows or understands. really, what they'd be voting on. There's a lack of general info about pros and cons. I suppose if it sparks more discussion of the advantages and disadvantages, then that'd be welcome.

 

I think he's more interested in the Tory party's concern re UKIP and their own rabid little Englander tendency, and some notional idea about "foreigners telling us what to do" being their bugbear than actually what is good or bad for the UK.

[bickster]

... than actually what is good or bad for the UK.

Politicians innit

[blandy]

Yep!

[Awol]

The Commission and the Council of the European Union are not democratically elected to office and hold far greater power than the Parliament. The only other democratically elected element of the European Union is the European Council (the meeting of member heads of state along with 2 EU Presidents for a chat, in essence), which for all intents and purposes is powerless.

This was summed up very neatly in an editorial from the German newspaper Bild, yesterday:

"Most EU countries have tacitly agreed to build Europe above the heads of the people. Motto: The European project is simply too important for democratic participation."

Therein lies the problem.

[drat01]

Cameron won't be Tory leader by then. Nor will the Tories win the next election

This has nothing to do with actually wanting a referendum on Europe, it is rather sabre rattling to 1) appease the right in his own party and 2) to try and reduce the perceived threat from the Little Englander Party (just for Tony ;-) )

UKIP won't win many if any seats at the next election but they will split the Tory vote if this referendum isn't promised. Also this will keep some of his own party quiet for a while (not for that long though). If the Tories & Cameron do somehow cling to power (I can't see it personally, with the SellOut Party at an all time low and that is their only chance) then it'll be pretty funny watching them trying to assemble a cabinet of ministers who all have to campaign to stay in Europe. If Cameron is ousted as I suspect before the next election then the game changes considerably, they'll be even more unelectable as they will have lurched even further to the right making them even less attractive to the floaters.

Maybe someone should hand Cameron the paddle as his canoe is adrift up shit creek.

Oh and for the record - IN

saved me a long post

[Withnail]

Interesting read from page 50. Wonder if some views have changed?

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, Withnail said:

Interesting read from page 50. Wonder if some views have changed?

Not sure if you have quoted the right post, as this one only has 3 pages, but I'm just happy to see some takes that challenge my Grealish 2015 disasters for their lack of Mystic Megging

[Sid4ever]

8 minutes ago, Withnail said:

Interesting read from page 50. Wonder if some views have changed?

 But we are only on page 3, phnarr phnarr

[TreeVillan]

Maybe he meant article 50?

[LondonLax]

On 24/01/2013 at 12:29, LondonLax said:

Yeah yeah, well it could play out any number of ways.

 

Personally I'm very happy with the free movement of people around europe so I would rather be in a country that supports that rather the being in a country on the outside.

 

I'm not British, I don't have a nationalistic tie to this country. I will just move to a different one if this one loses it's free movement of people.

So quoting myself nearly 8 years later...I moved to Sweden, have obtained permit residency here and am on my way to getting a Swedish passport so will get my ‘freedom of movement‘ rights back 

[Withnail]

1 minute ago, TreeVillan said:

Maybe he meant article 50?

I guess I meant page 50 as in there are 100 pages of old topics. The 80 and 90 pages are pretty much full of poles. Ah not polish folk I might add. Fascinating reading.