The European Union

[I am Rod Hull]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

 

- George Santayana.

[Harry - LCFC]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

 

- George Santayana.

 

You sound so intelligent.

[Father Ted]

Will the UK really take much of a hit through trade should it leave the EU? NO, look at the size of the Commonwealth. 

 

Will the UK be at an advantage regarding immigration should it leave the EU? YES, of course it will.

 

Will the UK be at an advantage economically (baring in mind the sums of money that the UK PUMPS into the EU, of which it sees very little back)? YES, of course it will.

 

This is a no brainer. The EU is good for small poor countries who are willing to be Germany's bitch... oh and Germany. 

 

OUT

[Guest Col city fan]

I have a simple take on this.. Continue in the European market.. And that's it.

Everything else.. Govern ourselves. Signing the social chapter was a huge mistake IMO. Crazy health and safety, employment laws etc, human rights have made some lawyers massively wealthy and hamstrung the country in so many ways.

[Guest MattP]

Cameron voted for van Rumpuy to have a second term as President of the European Council in 2012. The position is elected by heads of state of each EU member nation and the vote was unanimous. Brown was amongst those who voted for him initially in 2008.

They both did so as our elected representatives on the Council. It's no less democratic than MPs for a particular UK party electing a party leader who can then become PM. Just an extension of representative democracy.

 

You got a link for this as I cannot find anything on the internet that gives the result of this vote? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9559937/Vclav-Klaus-warns-that-the-destruction-of-Europes-democracy-may-be-in-its-final-phase.html

 

Great read, a man who knows a bit or two about what he is seeing as well.

[LJS]

You got a link for this as I cannot find anything on the internet that gives the result of this vote?

Certainly:

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page/highlights/president-van-rompuy-re-elected-for-a-second-term

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-eu-president-vanrompuy-idUSTRE8201Y520120301

As far as I can see there is no breakdown of the votes but I suppose that's pointless in the case of a unanimous vote. I do believe that the results of the election should be shared, though. Whilst I don't go in for the whole "EU is undemocratic' argument it doesn't help itself by not being transparent this stuff. Unless I just haven't looked hard enough, I suppose.

[Guest MattP]

Certainly:

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page/highlights/president-van-rompuy-re-elected-for-a-second-term

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-eu-president-vanrompuy-idUSTRE8201Y520120301

As far as I can see there is no breakdown of the votes but I suppose that's pointless in the case of a unanimous vote. I do believe that the results of the election should be shared, though. Whilst I don't go in for the whole "EU is undemocratic' argument it doesn't help itself by not being transparent this stuff. Unless I just haven't looked hard enough, I suppose.

 

Cheers fella.

 

Not only does it not look transparent but it looks rather pointless, appears it's just a vote of confidence rather than an actual election. Can't find anything about anyone else standing against him.

[LJS]

Cheers fella.

 

Not only does it not look transparent but it looks rather pointless, appears it's just a vote of confidence rather than an actual election. Can't find anything about anyone else standing against him.

True enough. The rules are definitely that the position must be elected. A coronation is unpalatable but then my view of the respective elevations of Gordon Brown and Michael Howard to their party leaderships fall into the same category.

To declare my interest, I'm very pro-EU. I'd like us to go in lock, stock and barrel and be part of a country called Europe. I realise I'm in the minority and I don't think I'll live to see it happen, although I do believe we'll continue to see 'ever closer union' and that the UK will be a part of that. I do favour a referendum on the issue and I'm confident that we'd vote to stay in, if only because the interests of politicians and big business will pump millions into the 'stay in' campaign.

None of that means that I believe the EU to be perfect. I just believe that it has massive potential to be a force for good. I also believe it can be done without eroding those things which make us different from one another, although I acknowledge that the line to be trodden is a fine one. Whatever my views I believe that people should have their say in a fair vote. If we leave then so be it. I'd be very disappointed but then there's nothing stopping me from hopping on to a plane and moving there, is there?

[Captain...]

Cameron voted for Van Rumpey? Errr how?

Presuming the fact you didn't respond to the Lisbon treaty farce shows you do actually think the way the EU approaches things like that is undemocratic though? Or immoral at the very least? Don't you think it was better when we had rotating presidents though rather than the permanent position based on the representation in the actual parliament?

I'll be honest, big Nigel puts it far better than I do.

Regarding Lisbon, the no vote was listened to by the eu, and changes were made to guarantee Irish sovereignty, so the second vote was not the same as the first. They didn't just force them to vote again, they addressed the reasons for the no vote and got the result they wanted. Surely that is democracy in action. Will you ratify this treaty? People say no. Change the treaty to address their needs, people vote again and vote yes. The will of the people of Ireland was listened to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8288181.stm

I didn't say who Cameron voted for, but he voted on our behalf in the European council presidential elections, welll he had the right to, maybe he didn't bother to turn up.

I am still yet to see anything undemocratic in any of this.

[leicsmac]

We didn't seem to do too bad between 1700 and 1980 odd.

 

The world has probably changed almost as much economically and socially in the three decades from 1980 to now than in the preceding three centuries. Massive, rapid advances in technology for communication and data handling have made the world a much smaller place, and many many other countries have caught up with us.

 

We no longer have the economic clout through offering something vital that no one else offers to be isolationist, nor do we have a big enough military to be the biggest kid in the playground ala the fine era of Empire expansionism either. We need alliances - both economic and military - with bigger entities. 

 

Question is - do we throw in with Europe, with the Americans, or try to play all sides?

 

As for the question itself, I'd like us to stay in as I think the days of the nation-state are pretty much numbered anyway, one way or the other. 

[Webbo]

True enough. The rules are definitely that the position must be elected. A coronation is unpalatable but then my view of the respective elevations of Gordon Brown and Michael Howard to their party leaderships fall into the same category.

 

You've got a point about Gordon Brown but not much of one, Blair had resigned and the Labour party needed a new leader.He was elected according to the rules. He could have called an election but it wasn't required by law.

 

I don't see any comparison with Michael Howard.

[Captain...]

You've got a point about Gordon Brown but not much of one, Blair had resigned and the Labour party needed a new leader.He was elected according to the rules. He could have called an election but it wasn't required by law.

 

I don't see any comparison with Michael Howard.

 

Because he was elected to the party leadership unopposed, as was Van Rompuy.

[Strokes]

Because he was elected to the party leadership unopposed, as was Van Rompuy.

Clearly the British public don't like this approach as they booted them into touch at the next opportunity, tell me when we can do the same for barraso?

[MooseBreath]

...and many many other countries have caught up with us.

We no longer have the economic clout through offering something vital that no one else offers to be isolationist, nor do we have a big enough military to be the biggest kid in the playground ala the fine era of Empire expansionism either. We need alliances - both economic and military - with bigger entities.

Not that many countries have caught up with us really. We've been at a disadvantage in that we haven't had the natural resources or the ultra cheap labour that others have used to fuel growth, but we're still near the top and now looking to overtake. Form, class, and all that.

Personally I don't think we need to ally with anyone, but if we do then allying with the numerous semi-third world countries in the EU is not the way to do it. Maybe if we could form a pure economic breakaway EU with Scandinavia, Germany and Belgium then it would be to our advantage. Until then allying with the dross in the EU is not the way to sustainable growth in the uk.

[Captain...]

Clearly the British public don't like this approach as they booted them into touch at the next opportunity, tell me when we can do the same for barraso?

 

Barrosso can be removed by a vote of no confidence by the European Parliament, a democratically elected body, maybe if Farage turned up more often he would know that.

 

We didn't boot them into touch, they were removed as party leader by their own party not the British public, after a failed election. If the Barrosso's EPP party lose the majority in the next European Parliament elections, then it will be up to the majority European party to endorse a nomination. So we (europeans) can remove Barrosso from power by not voting for EPP MEPs, but when they are the majority power in the democratically elected European Parliament, they can endorse who they want for the position of President of the European commission. It still needs to then be voted on by the European Parliament and endorsed by the Council.

 

Maybe there should be a vote for President of the European Commission, it is (arguably) the most powerful position within the EU, it would perhaps engage people more with Europe and force them to set out a clear manifesto so we know what we are voting for, and they know they are directly accountable to the people and not their cronies in the European Parliament, but I suspect it would just descend into party politics, with Labour endorsing one candidate, Tories another, and people voting based on entrenched political views rather than actual policies. I would happily see that happen, but I think voter turn out would be pretty low, and seeing as Barrosso would be the candidate put forward by the majority European Party the result would more than likely be the same but with considerable extra cost.

 

I still see nothing undemocratic in the election process for Barrosso, we vote for people to represent us in the EP, they elected Barrosso, and they can get rid of him.

[Alf Bentley]

Clearly the British public don't like this approach as they booted them into touch at the next opportunity, tell me when we can do the same for barraso?

 

You can vote to boot Barroso into touch on Thursday 22nd May 2014 (elections to European Parliament). As CPF has explained, if Barroso's European party, the "European People's Party" (centre-right) cannot command a majority in the new parliament, it's likely that Barroso will be booted out and replaced by the candidate of the party commanding the most votes.

 

Strangely enough, the one thing that you can't do on 22nd May is vote to keep Barroso, as no British political party is affiliated to the European People's Party (the main group for the right across Europe). The Tories used to be, but they're now affiliated to one of a number of obscure Eurosceptic grouplets carping on the sidelines - UKIP are in a different such grouplet. Labour are affiliated to the Party of European Socialists, the 2nd biggest group.

 

Although the Eurosceptics (and the far right and far left) may gain ground in the European elections, the only candidate likely to be able to defeat Barroso will be the Socialist candidate - so maybe you should get out there and vote Labour to get rid of Barroso, Strokes! 

Here's some recent polling:

http://euronews.com/2014/02/19/poll-predicts-socialists-will-do-best-at-forthcoming-european-elections/

 

Who the Parliament will elect if the Socialists are the biggest grouping but the People's Party and Eurosceptics & Far Right have more MEPs combined, I don't know..... Tories, UKIP & any remaining BNP (probably none) will face a dilemma, then: Barroso or a Socialist?  

 

Vive Delors! Vive l'Europe libre, socialiste et verte! 

[leicsmac]

Not that many countries have caught up with us really. We've been at a disadvantage in that we haven't had the natural resources or the ultra cheap labour that others have used to fuel growth, but we're still near the top and now looking to overtake. Form, class, and all that.

Personally I don't think we need to ally with anyone, but if we do then allying with the numerous semi-third world countries in the EU is not the way to do it. Maybe if we could form a pure economic breakaway EU with Scandinavia, Germany and Belgium then it would be to our advantage. Until then allying with the dross in the EU is not the way to sustainable growth in the uk.

 

How are we looking to overtake when we don't have those resources or cheap labour to manufacture stuff? Where is this new growth going to come from? Is the purely service-based economy ideal really going to recover enough for us to grow strongly again if we are totally reliant on it, and if it does should we put all our faith in it when we know it can fail so spectacularly as it did before?

 

I'm in total agreement with an economic alliance with Scandinavia and other northern European countries though. All strong economies and shared interests, as well as good opportunities for trade.

 

I honestly think isolationism isn't the way to go, especially from an economic perspective - it's possible globalisation has had its day, but if it has then isolation is going to lead to more and more mistrust and nationalism between individual nations...which combined with faltering economies could lead to consequences of the most dire kind.

[LJS]

You've got a point about Gordon Brown but not much of one, Blair had resigned and the Labour party needed a new leader.He was elected according to the rules. He could have called an election but it wasn't required by law.

I don't see any comparison with Michael Howard.

Howard was 'elected' Tory leader without an opponent, as was Brown for Labour and as was van Rompuy for the Council. I don't think any of these are good examples of democracy.

[Webbo]

Howard was 'elected' Tory leader without an opponent, as was Brown for Labour and as was van Rompuy for the Council. I don't think any of these are good examples of democracy.

Fair enough, I didn't understand your point.

[MC Prussian]

There's a new German TV report circulating that sheds more light on the EU's intents on coming to a new free trade agreement with the US.

In essence, think secret meetings, lobbyism, money, ignorance of consumer rights, and arguments being based on "growth"/wealth/prosperity (in this case, a growth of a meagre 0.5%).

 

Here's what the EU trade commissioner thinks of it:

 

And another viewpoint on "free trade":

Interesting part starts at around 3:00.

 

And a bit by the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/transatlantic-free-trade-deal-regulation-by-lawyers-eu-us

 

Europe? Democracy? Right.

[LJS]

That just reads like a trade deal to me (I can't watch the videos from here, apologies). A particularly bad one but a trade deal nonetheless. We sign then all the time and aren't required to vote on them. That's representative democracy for you.

Anyway, I doubt many of us pro-EU lot would claim that the union can't improve it's democratic process. I'll go into my own ideas later if I find the time. What I reject is the notion that the EU is an entirely undemocratic institution. It's a false and lazy argument.

It tends to be used by those too afraid to just say 'I don't want our country to be run by foreigners'. I just wish people would be brave enough to say that. I don't agree with it but I'd certainly never label anybody xenophobic or racist for holding that viewpoint. It's perfectly legitimate.

[Zingari]

That just reads like a trade deal to me (I can't watch the videos from here, apologies). A particularly bad one but a trade deal nonetheless. We sign then all the time and aren't required to vote on them. That's representative democracy for you.

Anyway, I doubt many of us pro-EU lot would claim that the union can't improve it's democratic process. I'll go into my own ideas later if I find the time. What I reject is the notion that the EU is an entirely undemocratic institution. It's a false and lazy argument.

It tends to be used by those too afraid to just say 'I don't want our country to be run by foreigners'. I just wish people would be brave enough to say that. I don't agree with it but I'd certainly never label anybody xenophobic or racist for holding that viewpoint. It's perfectly legitimate.

that sounds like you're saying that the country is indeed or could at some time time  run by foreigners , so surely it's understandable that people see  as potentially undemocratic or at least unrepresentative .

 

or maybe i've misunderstood you're post ?

[MC Prussian]

That just reads like a trade deal to me (I can't watch the videos from here, apologies). A particularly bad one but a trade deal nonetheless. We sign then all the time and aren't required to vote on them. That's representative democracy for you.

Anyway, I doubt many of us pro-EU lot would claim that the union can't improve it's democratic process. I'll go into my own ideas later if I find the time. What I reject is the notion that the EU is an entirely undemocratic institution. It's a false and lazy argument.

It tends to be used by those too afraid to just say 'I don't want our country to be run by foreigners'. I just wish people would be brave enough to say that. I don't agree with it but I'd certainly never label anybody xenophobic or racist for holding that viewpoint. It's perfectly legitimate.

I'd hardly argue labeling the EU as being "undemocratic".

They do have a democratic foundation and (honorable) democratic intentions, but don't build on it (wisely).

As I've mentioned before, it's a completely new and rather young political and economic construct and it will need A LOT of time to run properly.

In the meantime, all loopholes and occasions will be used and abused to secure the best financial deals for all parties involved - and the European citizen will have to pay for most of it.

 

Essentially, there's a big risk of the EU putting its economic aims and treaties above the political ones, mainly serving the industry instead of the citizens.

This is my main concern, ignoring the common people's interest and instead allowing to dictate the economy (and/or other countries) how we are to run our lives.

I wouldn't call this a fear of foreigners, rather a fear of losing/giving up our very own democratic instruments and identity, which some countries have fought for the hard way for decades, if not centuries.

 

For sovereign countries such as Switzerland or Norway, which are not part of the EU, it is legitimate to observe the development with critical eyes. Iceland recently declared it would put its membership application on ice, as it has no intentions to rejoin the club after the collapse of its financial institutions.

[Strokes]

You can vote to boot Barroso into touch on Thursday 22nd May 2014 (elections to European Parliament). As CPF has explained, if Barroso's European party, the "European People's Party" (centre-right) cannot command a majority in the new parliament, it's likely that Barroso will be booted out and replaced by the candidate of the party commanding the most votes.

Strangely enough, the one thing that you can't do on 22nd May is vote to keep Barroso, as no British political party is affiliated to the European People's Party (the main group for the right across Europe). The Tories used to be, but they're now affiliated to one of a number of obscure Eurosceptic grouplets carping on the sidelines - UKIP are in a different such grouplet. Labour are affiliated to the Party of European Socialists, the 2nd biggest group.

Although the Eurosceptics (and the far right and far left) may gain ground in the European elections, the only candidate likely to be able to defeat Barroso will be the Socialist candidate - so maybe you should get out there and vote Labour to get rid of Barroso, Strokes!

Here's some recent polling:

http://euronews.com/2014/02/19/poll-predicts-socialists-will-do-best-at-forthcoming-european-elections/

Who the Parliament will elect if the Socialists are the biggest grouping but the People's Party and Eurosceptics & Far Right have more MEPs combined, I don't know..... Tories, UKIP & any remaining BNP (probably none) will face a dilemma, then: Barroso or a Socialist?

Vive Delors! Vive l'Europe libre, socialiste et verte!

So we have a 'the peoples party' running Europe that is not associated with any British party whatsoever? Tell me again why that is good for the British public?

[Captain...]

So we have a 'the peoples party' running Europe that is not associated with any British party whatsoever? Tell me again why that is good for the British public?

 

Hang on, so you accuse them of being undemocratic, then have a problem with the democratically elected Majority party. They were not elected to be good for Britain, they were elected to be good for Europe. If you don't like it then perhaps you should start tactically voting as Alf suggested.