To think Cameron did the right thing saying no in the latest EU vote as that he should go even further and get us out of the EU altogether?!

[runningwilde]

I have always been a Euro sceptic, never liked the idea of the Euro and think that places like Norway and Sweden were very sensible staying out of the EU. Although, of course, there are some very good arguments for being in the EU, I can't help but think we are better off out of it?

Would love to hear what others think about this. Aibu to think like this? Agree or disagree?!

The Euro is a camel, but you don't understand the banking crisis if you think there were "good" banks, niceguy2. Nor can you ignore the cost of quantative easing in claiming that the Government is in profit- the taxpayer certainly isn't.

Francagoestohollywood dictators often say their is no time for democracy seems though their was plenty of time to devise more fiscal union

MoreBeta:
"It is a myth that EU countries are united in a common objective. In truth it is a bunch of self interested countries who only stay in the EU for what they can get out of it."

Exactly. Where has this notion come from that all the other EU countries are selfless cooperative creatures, who will readily sacrifice their own national self-interest at the altar of the common European good? It's a big, fat lie; and big, fat lies masquerading as truth are pernicious and dangerous.

That French eejit today, slagging off the UK for being selfish, as if we alone are primarily concerned with securing our own country's best interests - well, he well and truly prends the petit gateau sec. France, full of self interest much?

I've never voted Conservative in my life, but I heartily applaud Dave for saying No, and I don't see him as a loser as a result. People are trying to scapegoat him - well, they will, it's what people do. But he did the only reasonable thing he could have done under the circumstances. Good for him.

Xpatmama

I'm quite aware of the structure of the EU.

Barroso and Rompuy are proposers and facilitators not deciders

That is simply not true.

Barroso himself said that he had offered Cameron a compromise deal. That's a lot more empowerment that you'd get from a mere official.

And to compare them to occupying a similar role to Gus O'Donnell is ridiculous.

Gus (who by the way I met last week) is a civil servant. He works for his political masters whatever political persusion they may be.
That's a very different role to Van Rompuy, Barosso et al.

xpatmama - you are either lying or naive if you are trying to say that the unelected Eurocrats are remotely comparable to British civil servants.

It is all a vast club of vested interest, and it terrifies me that people are blind to the realities of who is actually in charge.

It terrifies me too Alibabab

I used to be very firmly for a referendum - IN/OUT.

I'm starting to change that view.

I think I'd rather just wait for the whole rotten edifice to crumble under the weight of its incompetence.

@wetaugust

I'm quite aware of the structure of the EU.

Doesn't look like you are.

Gus (who by the way I met last week) is a civil servant. He works for his political masters whatever political persusion they may be.

That's a very different role to Van Rompuy, Barosso et al.

After the 2010 election and the hung parliament result, Gus O'Donnell was running the show in his capacity as guardian of the unwritten constitution. He was telling the three parties what they could and could not do.

That's a lot more power than you think he has.

Plus, you're deliberately getting your knickers in a twist over Barroso:

Barroso himself said that he had offered Cameron a compromise deal. That's a lot more empowerment that you'd get from a mere official.

He's acting as a go-between and mediator. If Cameron had accepted such a deal, Barroso would have then gone to Merkel/Sarkosy and offered that up. Do you actually understand how negotiation works? Do you also think that marriage counsellors have power over peoples' marriages?

niceguy, you talk about good banks upping sticks and walking away.

I ask again, where do you think they are going to move to that will underwrite them to the tune of billions or trillions in case of default?

The UK banks had the benefit of being guaranteed by the UK taxpayer. Even the ones that haven't needed to be bailed out yet have the benefit of that free insurance. Do you know of some other countries that are willing to offer unlimited free insurance to a large itinerant foreign bank that wants to flit in from the UK while taxes and regulation look attractive?

Do you know many depositors that will be confident in, for example, Icelandic banks that do not have the benefit of such guarantees?

It's a bit rich to go on about unelected Eurocrats when we are stuck with an unelected coalition government.

Gherkins they are not unelected. Every single member of our government has been elected.

It is just unusual in our largely two party system to have a coalition, but in theory we could have a coalition at all times. We have got used to thinking that we are voting for a Prime Minister, rather than voting for our local MP, that is all.

Piglet, in answer to your question I don't think it's a big issue at all. Banks like HSBC are already global in nature and didn't use the Asset Protection Scheme in the first place. So your underwriting question is moot. They'd move and wouldn't need to be underwritten. In fact, so unattractive/expensive was the APS, Barclays decided to sell their soul to the devil rather than buy into the scheme.

The banks whom definitely won't move would be the likes of RBS, Northern Rock, Lloyds etc. Those are the very ones which aren't doing very well and probably not paying any taxes at all because they are making a loss.

Alibaba, you know what I mean. Cameron did not get a majority. The Lib Dems didn't have to form a coalition with Cameron and in fact broke their promise to the electorate by doing so. But this is off topic.

Maypole, can you name names for these dicators you are all talking aboput?

If you are talking about the new Italian PM, HE wasn't the one who said there was no time to go for elections. Our spread was at >700. Berlusconi and his coalition were unable to reach any kind of credible agreement to get new measures in. Berlusconi therefore lost majority in the Parlamento.

The Presidente della Repubblica (who is elected by the Parlamento, which is made of members elected by the people) had to act quickly, and picked Monti. The Parlamento (made of parlamentari elected by the people) approved (with personal votes) the new government.
Therefore there is no dictatorship here.

If instead you are talking about a Merkozy's dictatorship, that's more interesting to discuss.

If you wish to talk about the dictatorship of markets, that's even more interesting.

Gherkin, coalition's are the norm in most European countries. Our FPTP system is strange to many other countries.

Saying our coalition is unelected would imply that most of our European neighbour's have unelected government's too yes?

Interesting to learn that in 2005, Swiss voters voted by a 55% majority to join the Schengen treaty and it has spent the last 20 years (since its failed EU referendum in 1992) making its laws compliant with the EU in order to benefit from the single market. That's the same with Norway (also failed referendum in 1994) which laws go beyond the its EEA agreement - e.g. non-voting participation in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, the Schengen Agreement, the European Defence Agency as well as 19 separate programmes.

So, we pull out of EU, seeing the UK break up as Scotland votes to ditch England and stick with the EU. We lose access to 50% of its export market, cheap flights, healthcare/tax benefits for all those with property in Spain and France, an escape route from £9,000 tuition fees to all those lovely cheap Dutch/Scandinavian universities, lack of visas/passport queues, cheaper imports from Germany, diplomatic interest with the US and China and become a backwater as we no longer have a commonwealth to speak of and the world has changed since 1974.

Then we spend years trying to rebuild it with time and money spent on lots of different laws, treaties, meetings, bilateral agreements?

As a 30-something Brit working in the EU institutions pretty much since I graduated 10 years ago, I'm pretty appauled to see how little some of you know about the organisation and functioning of the EU. I'm not saying anyone's to blame for that - just clearly that there is a lack of comprehension about the EU.

The people who take decisions on treaties and essentially get the final say on EU legislation are all ELECTED. At high level (European Council) like with the summit last week, it is the 27 Heads of State/Government who all vote - and a lot of the time they have to vote unanimously. They are all elected by their respective countries' citizens. On many policies, it is the ELECTED national ministers (through the Council of the EU) responsible for that policy who vote, frequently in a co-decision arrangement with the ELECTED European Parliament MEPs, on EU legislation.

The Commission are essentially the only major EU institution who are unelected. They don't choose the legislation. They draw up legislative proposals and discussion papers based on the political agenda set by the ELECTED national ministers in the European Council. They have no power to vote on anything. They are just like the UK civil service except that they come from 27 different countries and work for the most part in 3 different languages. Commission President Barroso takes part in the European Council meetings as an observer/facilitator. He DOES NOT VOTE.

Not that I think this will make a blind bit of difference to any of the discussions on here, but I wanted to at least make the effort to try and set some of you straight on who does what in the EU...

Nice to know that I'm not alone in seeing the positive side of the EU muminlondon!

Thanks Amyboo

wetinlondon

oh come on. van Rompuy is a glorified meeting organiser.

also as FV said, Barroso was a gobetween. As I think you'll find many civil servants are. Baroness Ashton is basically similar to an Ambassador, with a much wider remit admittedly.

There are of course differences between the EU Exec and the British one but here I think you really are totally misunderstanding how it all works, including as i said the kind of visible profile of the Commissioners.

I watch this on a daily basis in Brussels - and no I dont work in the institutions but on how to influence them.

Nice to hear some facts for a change too, amyboo

I think maybe he was having his Hugh Grant moment from Love Actually where the pm stands up to the president - didnt quite work out the same did it....

meanwhile, I think this probably is about right:

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/everyone-still-pretending-they-know-what-they're-talking-about-201112114658/

PS amyboo i think we have had a similar reaction.. See my post yesterday!

muminlondon wrote:

-----
Interesting to learn that in 2005, Swiss voters voted by a 55% majority to join the Schengen treaty and it has spent the last 20 years (since its failed EU referendum in 1992) making its laws compliant with the EU in order to benefit from the single market. That's the same with Norway (also failed referendum in 1994) which laws go beyond the its EEA agreement - e.g. non-voting participation in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, the Schengen Agreement, the European Defence Agency as well as 19 separate programmes
-------

Sorry if this seems pedantic, muminlondon, but I think it's important and highlights a certain mindset common in the EU-cracy.

The EU referendums in Switzerland and Norway did not fail (unless you know of evidence of electoral malpractice that would invalidate them).

The people voted NO!

The EU institutions do not know the meaning of this word. Any no vote from a referendum in an EU member state is taken just as a temporary setback. As we have seen on several occasions he little people will just be made to vote again until they give the "correct" answer, which is then deemed to be permanent and irreversible i.e. part of the Acquis Communautaire.