New Era Dawns for EU

[eurotop40]

The USSR is the heir of zaristic Russia that occupied all its "republics" by means of military actions (e.g. the Caucasus; even the Baltic states were occupied militarly by the Russians). Furthermore, autoctonous populations were deported to Siberia and there was a forced migration of Russians to the occupied territories in order to russify them (s. for instance Latvia, or Kaliningrad, former Königsberg, where ALL Germans were expulsed). You cannot really, by any means, say that the EU has done the same. If ever, it is the ex-colonial powers, mainly UK and France, that now are invaded by their former colonized peoples, that have definitely another culture (much, much more distant than the rest of the EU population).

 

[798686]

The UK doesn't really have a shared culture with the rest of the EU. We've been very different to the rest of mainland Europe for much of the past 1,000 years. We have more in common with the US, Australia, Canada and other Anglo-saxon nations.

To force us into a superstate with continental Europe would be a very bad idea. Subsuming other states into it may not be that wise either - if they stick to a collection of nations then maybe it will be ok (except the homogenous rules don't suit everybody) - but if they insist on heading for a politically integrated federal state (which has so far been the eventual aim), it may well go horribly wrong. :/

 

[dandelion]

The UK system is not perfect, but fairly democratic in comparison to the EU, imo. The 2 or 3 party system works well (rather than the consensus of the EU) so mostly we can vote a party out after 4 or 5 years and opt for something different if we wish. It's worked well for 300 years or more.

I'm speechless. Or rather, jumping at the keyboard.I liked your prevvious post where you responded with some specific issues, but I havnt had time to find out anything about them. However, I can rant about parliament without research.

Worked well? What do you mean by this?

So, we didn't have riots about changing the electoral system during the last 300 years, because most people were not allowed to vote? Women going to jail and dying under horses? All the members of the commons were relatives of the members of the lords? (though many still are). The british parliament is, and always has been, very unrepresentative of the people. There is a bit of an aberration from time to time, but it soon sorts itself out. Tell me how often an election has produced the result of a new government which was not made up mainly of people who were already MPs in the last parliament? When was any parliament not mostly made up of the same people who were in the one before? When has a new parliament therefore ever produced a change from the last one?

My preferred candidate has never, ever, won in a westminster election and there is little chance under the current system that one could. And I'm only a supporter of the third largest party in this country, not something wild. There are many many supporters of the first and second parties who know their chap has absolutely no chance and there is no point voting where they live. So in what way am I represented at westminster? When was the last time the third party won? Or had any influence?

How do you become an MP? answer: join a political party...which at best represents the views of 500,000 people.

The House of Lords was great at keeping a check on what happened in the Commons, but is being gradually changed in favour of appointed (rather than hereditary) peers - and eventually maybe elected ones?

AS i posted before, from a historical perspective it ha been reformed to become less representative rather than more. It was interesting that the house of lords agreed to be abolished, but only on condition it had an elected replacement. It never got one. The commons insisted on appointing the Lords so that its own power could not be challenged.

This is on a par with giving yourself giant expenses so that you can pretend you have a small salary.

It's much easier to get something changed in the UK than it is in the EU. How would the people of the EU show their disapproval of a member/members of the EU Commission?

How do I show my disapproval of Lord Mandelson, or any other Lord? They can not be sacked by anyone. Whenthe commissioners term expires, his appointing government (his constituents) can simply choose someone else they like better. Commissioners represent the countries which choose them.

How do I get a government other than Labour or conservative? Isn't it about half the commons seats are regarded as safe, in that they will never ever change hands to a different party because of the way the voting system is designed? How do any of those constituents get rid of an mp, or get themselves represented by someone they want?

The Lisbon treaty being pushed through while so obviously against EU-wide public opinion is one example of the anti-democratic nature of the Union. The UK parties have also conspired to push through Lisbon (to some extent) - altho' the Conservatives wanted a referendum - and this further highlights the problems of consensus politics.

The conservatives wanted a referendum only so long as they knew they would not be in a position to have to make good on this promise. The EU does not push through treaties. member governments push through treaties. If you want EU expansion stopped, first get someone elceted to westminster who wants to do this. If you can get 300 people elected here who want no more EU expansion, there will be no more EU expansion. So how are you going to do that? If this was Switzerland you could initiate a vote yourself.

 

[eurotop40]

... If this was Switzerland you could initiate a vote yourself.

Hum, well well, you could start collecting - I think - 100'000 signatures to initiate a vote. But take a look at
www.ch.ch - Welcome to the Swiss Portal of the federal government, the cantons and the communes - Political participation
and navigate around, you might find something interesting.

 

[dandelion]

The UK doesn't really have a shared culture with the rest of the EU. We've been very different to the rest of mainland Europe for much of the past 1,000 years. We have more in common with the US, Australia, Canada and other Anglo-saxon nations.

But none of them is intereted in being dominated by Britain any more. Wales and Scotland aren't too happy.

To force us into a superstate with continental Europe would be a very bad idea. Subsuming other states into it may not be that wise either - if they stick to a collection of nations then maybe it will be ok (except the homogenous rules don't suit everybody) - but if they insist on heading for a politically integrated federal state (which has so far been the eventual aim), it may well go horribly wrong. :/

We have not been forcced into a superstate. We are not going to be forced into a superstate. Not by Europe. Maybe by the british government?

NO country has been forced into the EU. They all joined willingly. Which is the main difference to the USSR, or indeed Yugoslavia. Wales was forced to become part of Britain, Britain was not forced to be part of the EU.

 

[dandelion]

Hum, well well, you could start collecting - I think - 100'000 signatures to initiate a vote. But take a look at
www.ch.ch - Welcome to the Swiss Portal of the federal government, the cantons and the communes - Political participation
and navigate around, you might find something interesting.

I think the anti EU people could get 100,000 signatures quite comfortably. The point is the process exists. Get 10,000,000 signatures for anything in this country and the government will laugh at you.

 

[798686]

I'm speechless.

LOL! :biggrin1:

I liked your previous post where you responded with some specific issues, but I haven't had time to find out anything about them.

Why, thank you. :smile:

As I posted before, from a historical perspective it has been reformed to become less representative rather than more...

How do I show my disapproval of Lord Mandelson, or any other Lord?Commissioners represent the countries which choose them.

How do I get a government other than Labour or Conservative?

I agree the reform has been buggered up so that they can be much more influenced by the Commons and whichever party is in power. Basically more of Blair's subverting and politicising of the constitution. But I still think the 2 party system, with Lords basically as a check, seemed to work fairly well. I'm not talking about whether women got the vote or not, as I think it's a separate issue - and one which many countries had at the time.

The Lords can't really be compared to commissioners though. The Lords don't govern the country, or initiate the vast majority of legislation, etc. Also, commissioners are NOT there to represent their Home Country. Each country gets to choose a commissioner, but they swear their allegiance to the EU, and are there to work on it's behalf, not to serve the interests of their own country.

Having the choice of Labour or Conservative which can offer different policies, viewpoints and MPs etc - is better than having a consensus EU government, made up of members from different parties with much the same federalistic viewpoint.

The Conservatives wanted a referendum only so long as they knew they would not be in a position to have to make good on this promise.

Hmm, does kinda seem like this, but I can't be sure. I actually suspect they would've gone through with the referendum had the Treaty not been ratified. Cameron wrote to to Klaus back in July about the possibility of delaying Czech ratification until after the British general election.

PS: I'm sure you know a lot more than me about Parliamentary issues - I'm just commenting on it as far as I understand it.

 

[798686]

Get 10,000,000 signatures for anything in this country and the government will laugh at you.

Wrong. A magazine called 'This England' organised a petition with 1,000,000 signatures to be delivered to the Queen, demanding a referendum on the original EU constitution.

The Queen replied to say the feelings had been noted, and she had personally passed them onto the Prime Minister (Blair). Several days later the u-turn was announced, and labour promised the referendum. [The fact that they then dishonoured it, doesn't detract from the fact that the petition was duly noted].

PS: I wasn't suggesting (in another post) that the UK try to dominate the US/Aus, etc... just that we have more in common with them, so it would seem more sensible to ally ourselves with them.

PPS: I also think your belief that the EU is purely a result of what the member states wanted, is incorrect. It was originally thought up by a group of individuals, mainly Jean Monnet, a British civil servant called Arthur Salter, and Altiero Spinelli. Monnet worked on the plan over 20 years or so (even before WW2), and worked behind the scenes through a variety of contacts. He presented the plan to Robert Schumann in the early 50s when he was in a tight political fix in France, who took it on board and presented it as his own.

The EU tho, was always intended to be a federal, supra-national construct above the reach of individual nations who might want to subvert its aims and turn it into an intergovernmental organisation (which is what Britain wanted). The first six countries signed up to it, but Monnet and others were still pulling the strings up until the late 70s. Yes, each member state signed up to it, but as in Britain's case, most of the population were deceived into thinking it was merely an economic alliance - when the eventual aim was always (as has been clearly admitted by many 'founding fathers') political union. Ted Heath (who'd been a fan since the 50s when he worked in Europe) and a few other officials knew of the eventual open-ended loss of sovereignty that it involved, but it was deliberately hidden from the public.

The EU now has powers, and a life of its own - and the member states exist to do the EU's bidding in a lot of ways. It's definitely not a case of only doing what the states want it to. It was designed to be in authority over the states, not to be dictated to by them.

 

[Jason]

It seems this thread has got to the stage of being an expression of firmly held views rather than a discussion. In an effort to move it on a little surely the big problem in the UK is that as a nation we haven't had a debate on the issues around Europe. We feel so by-passed by the process that most people just switch off. The newspapers hardly write about EU matters because they know their readers don't want to hear. Our politicians are shaping up to fight the next election without saying too much about the EU. When people feel they can express a view on the EU (as at the last EU election) a lot express an anti-EU view.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the EU might be, in the UK we need a national debate to settle the matter. In my view either we become supporters of the EU and work with the system or we leave. The solution that pleases no one is that we stay in and be the most reluctant Europeans, or even stay in and wreck it. It is very likely that Cameron will be our next prime minister. He has stated that he wants to renegotiate much of Lisbon. He has also said this will not be a punch up. By raising the concept of a punch up, and using a colloquial expression no less, he is saying there may be a punch up. Basically there won't be a punch up if Europe agrees. We seem to be facing a position which suits no one.

The UK needs a debate on the issue.

 

[798686]

It seems this thread has got to the stage of being an expression of firmly held views rather than a discussion.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the EU might be, in the UK we need a national debate to settle the matter. In my view either we become supporters of the EU and work with the system or we leave.

Agreed.

 

[Jason]

The conservatives wanted a referendum only so long as they knew they would not be in a position to have to make good on this promise.

I don't think this is correct. I think had Lisbon not been ratfied the Conservatives would have held a referendum on it.

What we have had subsequently is a political response rather than an emotional response. Cameron is doing his best to take the EU out of the equation for the next election. The reality is that the last thing he needs is the EU machine campaigning against him. And he may need Lib Dem support after the election, and they are pretty firmly pro EU.

Close to the election it may change. UKIP is set to take a lot of votes and maybe deny the Conservatives 50 seats, without winning any themselves. The Conservatives may come out with a strongly anti-EU message very close to polling day (something like a referendum on membership in X years). If their calculation is that this is what they need to do to win I think they will do it.

Alternatively they may leave the anti-EU stance until after the election. Of course if they are governing with Lib Dem support this may be difficult, though it is always difficult for a political party to deny the public a referendum on something.

Then there are events! Right now we have the first ripples of the Dubai debt restructuring. What is this going to do to the UK economy? What is this going to do to the Euro zone? It is a likely catalyst of problems. Sterling can at least devalue or revalue at need to cushion the blow to the UK (and there will be a blow). The Euro will devalue or revalue, but the economies it serves are at such different stages that any significant change will cause major strains. For life to go on as usual the Euro must weather the Dubai storm without much movement, which means Euro-denominated finance markets must also hold steady. Today London is down around 3%. Not good but we can weather it - sterling is already following down. Frankfurt and Paris are down by similar levels. I can't predict what will happen, but I think it looks bad. :frown1:

By the time the UK gets to an election the EU issue may look very different.

 

[dandelion]

I agree the reform has been buggered up so that they can be much more influenced by the Commons and whichever party is in power. Basically more of Blair's subverting and politicising of the constitution.

And the conservatives were proposing an elected lords?

But I still think the 2 party system, with Lords basically as a check, seemed to work fairly well.

It does what it is designed to do. It delivers a decisive result and keeps out outsiders. It leaves the commons unchecked as the single authority to make laws and administer the country. 300 people selected by 30,000 party activists.

I'm not talking about whether women got the vote or not, as I think it's a separate issue - and one which many countries had at the time.

It was just that you said the system worked well for 300 years. We would not consider the system that existed for most of those years as now acceptable. Some of us still don't.

The Lords can't really be compared to commissioners though. The Lords don't govern the country, or initiate the vast majority of legislation, etc.

That depends how you look at it. The lords chief job nowadays is to rewrite bad legislation. The commission does not fundamentally initiate legislation. It drafts it in accord with the instructions set down in the treaties.

Also, commissioners are NOT there to represent their Home Country. Each country gets to choose a commissioner, but they swear their allegiance to the EU, and are there to work on it's behalf, not to serve the interests of their own country.

Pull the other one. Governments choose the commissioners. Quite obviously they will act according to their inclinations which existed before they were chosen.

Having the choice of Labour or Conservative which can offer different policies, viewpoints and MPs etc - is better than having a consensus EU government, made up of members from different parties with much the same federalistic viewpoint.

Why? there is little difference between labour and conservative parties.
Both are frankly contemptuous of the electorate. Power corrupts: they have been in power for a very long time. At least UKIP and BNP get members in the european parliament to represent them. They can't here.

Hmm, does kinda seem like this, but I can't be sure. I actually suspect they would've gone through with the referendum had the Treaty not been ratified. Cameron wrote to to Klaus back in July about the possibility of delaying Czech ratification until after the British general election.

But it was plain he was going to be unable to do so.

 

[dandelion]

Wrong. A magazine called 'This England' organised a petition with 1,000,000 signatures to be delivered to the Queen, demanding a referendum on the original EU constitution.

The Queen replied to say the feelings had been noted, and she had personally passed them onto the Prime Minister (Blair). Several days later the u-turn was announced, and labour promised the referendum. [The fact that they then dishonoured it, doesn't detract from the fact that the petition was duly noted].

But it didn't work

PS: I wasn't suggesting (in another post) that the UK try to dominate the US/Aus, etc... just that we have more in common with them, so it would seem more sensible to ally ourselves with them.

Hmm. You will have to work hard to convince me that what those opposed to the EU are worried about is not that the Britain gets out voted and bossed around by the others. Unless its some sort of organisation Britain dominates, then this is always going to be the same.

PPS: I also think your belief that the EU is purely a result of what the member states wanted, is incorrect. It was originally thought up by a group of individuals,

However it started it is now very different to what it was, and every change since we joined was agreed by us.

The EU tho, was always intended to be a federal, supra-national construct above the reach of individual nations who might want to subvert its aims and turn it into an intergovernmental organisation (which is what Britain wanted). The first six countries signed up to it, but Monnet and others were still pulling the strings up until the late 70s. Yes, each member state signed up to it, but as in Britain's case, most of the population were deceived into thinking it was merely an economic alliance

Julius Caesar intended that England would make a nice adornment to the Roman Empire. Things change. You may believe the propaganda that the british government cannot do what it wants. I don't. Though, of course, that includes being able to sign up to a superstate.

The EU now has powers, and a life of its own - and the member states exist to do the EU's bidding in a lot of ways. It's definitely not a case of only doing what the states want it to. It was designed to be in authority over the states, not to be dictated to by them.

We fundamentally disagree.

 

[Drifterwood]

Comparing the EU to the USSR makes no sense.

Only as a cheap ploy to advance an agenda rather than to genuinely discuss the real issues.

Demagogue Jason, you demagogue :tongue:

N Wales joke in case you were wondering.

 

[dandelion]

I don't think this is correct. I think had Lisbon not been ratfied the Conservatives would have held a referendum on it.

If the conservatives really meant to offer a referendum they should have done so while the issue was undecided.

What we have had subsequently is a political response rather than an emotional response. Cameron is doing his best to take the EU out of the equation for the next election. The reality is that the last thing he needs is the EU machine campaigning against him. And he may need Lib Dem support after the election, and they are pretty firmly pro EU.

not to mention the pro-EU conservatives.

Close to the election it may change. UKIP is set to take a lot of votes and maybe deny the Conservatives 50 seats, without winning any themselves. The Conservatives may come out with a strongly anti-EU message very close to polling day (something like a referendum on membership in X years). If their calculation is that this is what they need to do to win I think they will do it.

well yes. WHich is still not to say the referendum would finally happen. But it is not clear to me that being firmly anti-EU is a safe policy for them either, because it is always the middle ground they have to worry about most, which for them means keeping the pro eu people onboard.

Alternatively they may leave the anti-EU stance until after the election. Of course if they are governing with Lib Dem support this may be difficult, though it is always difficult for a political party to deny the public a referendum on something.

WHat would then be the point? if they get through the campaign without having to take a stance this would just be stirring up unnecessary trouble. British political parties unanimously agree that the elctorate should never be given the opportunity for a referendum unless there is absolutely no choce.

Then there are events! Right now we have the first ripples of the Dubai debt restructuring. What is this going to do to the UK economy? What is this going to do to the Euro zone? It is a likely catalyst of problems. Sterling can at least devalue or revalue at need to cushion the blow to the UK (and there will be a blow). The Euro will devalue or revalue, but the economies it serves are at such different stages that any significant change will cause major strains. For life to go on as usual the Euro must weather the Dubai storm without much movement, which means Euro-denominated finance markets must also hold steady. Today London is down around 3%. Not good but we can weather it - sterling is already following down. Frankfurt and Paris are down by similar levels. I can't predict what will happen, but I think it looks bad. :frown1:

The one good thing about universal pain is that it applies to everyone. So happily it cancels out.

By the time the UK gets to an election the EU issue may look very different.

A year ago the world was about to end. still here. Though I agree I think the entire current economic system is unsustainable.

 

[dandelion]

Of course its a mess. But it is our mess. We like it the way it is.

Some of us think it is time we sorted it before england votes to leave the UK. The problem with the queen is not that she isn't elected, but that she takes no part in government.

Americans can get mad with the French to the extent of banning the name French Fry - but they are not going to get angry with Brits to that extent.

Just wait until we do something they don't like

 

[dandelion]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the EU might be, in the UK we need a national debate to settle the matter.

They tried that 30 years ago. We are still arguing.

 

[798686]

They tried that 30 years ago. We are still arguing.

That wasn't a real debate, as you well know. The advertising exec who masterminded the 'Yes' campaign has admitted that they deliberately steered away from issues of sovereignty, and concentrated on mundane economic issues - which wasn't what the whole thing was really about. They've also since conceded that if they conducted a similar campaign today, they'd be done for misleading the public.

To have a 'debate' where the real issues were concealed form the public, and they only knew half the story, is not a debate at all. :wink:

 

[Jason]

Today's UK news is that UKIP have a new leader - Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He is an interesting choice. First of all he has a seat in the Lords so he does have political power and is part of the Westminster community - in short he looks serious. Then he has a Conservative past (he had the Conservative whip) and has previously stated that the Conservatives should adopt policies to get UKIP back into the Conservative fold. If he still holds these views then he has in effect given an opening to Cameron - adopt Euro-sceptic views and UKIP could be delivered into the Conservative party. Thats about 50 seats at the next election.

Pearson is a colourful character and the Conservatives would undoubtedly have some problems with him - but he is also a product of Eton, the same school as Cameron and Boris Johnson (and lots of other senior Conservatives) and he has many views which are those of the Conservative country set. My thought is that Cameron will brief someone to invite Pearson to their country estate for the weekend and sound him out. No political party can ignore 50+ seats in a general election.

 

[798686]

Just as an aside - if anybody wants to read an in-depth, forensic account of the history of the EU and the UK's relationship with it, you should pick up a copy of 'The 'Great Deception' by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

I know the title will be somewhat off-putting for certain people, but it's meticulously documented with more than enough back up for you to be able to draw your own conclusions.

[The original version has even more info on the EEC's beginnings, but ends around 2004].