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?!

amyboo - I rather think you are downplaying the role that the President of the European Council and Commission President have.

The Commission sets the legislative agenda rather more aggressively and potently than a UK civil servant ever does. The Parliament is far less powerful than the Commisison and anyone in business knows that. It is the Commission you need to influence to get things done. The EU President and Commisison President are deeply involved in the framing of new treaties and legislation.

Jacques Delors was a good example of the power of the Commission President. Nigel Farage's famous speeches speak some truths to the power of the unelected EU officialdom.

Berlusconi was history when he lost his majority in the Parliament, meaning that some of his parlamentari (elected by the people) moved to a different party that wasn't in the governing coalition.

Perhaps it is difficult to appreciate that B. wouldn't have let go if a different political coalition had taken his place, iyswim.

somebloke - exactly!

Amyboo wrote:

----
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.
-----

I agree with you Amyboo that there is an appalling lack of knowledge about the EU. I do think blame can be apportioned though. The level of knowledge exhibited in the British press is, with few exceptions, abysmal, and this applies both for pro and anti-EU rags. For example the junket that Cameron has come back from was not a "summit", implying an association of independent sovereign states, but a meeting of the European Council, a fully constituted body of the EU. It's like calling a session of the US Senate a "Summit of north American states". Also, Cameron didn't veto anything because there was no treaty on the table to veto.

However, more fundamentally, a lack of dissemination of knowledge about the EU among the public is not just an unfortunate omission, but a deliberate design feature.

The aim of the founders and shapers of the EU, such as Monnet and Spinelli was to create a technocracy, remote from anything so vulgar as governments voted in by the electorates of nation states. They realised that they couldn't be open about this but needed to advance slowly and crab-like, and keeping their grand design under wraps. Only when the edifice was complete could they whip off the dust sheets and bask in the admiring gasps of "Oooooh!" from their lucky and grateful people.

Hence the innocuous sounding names such as "European Coal and Steel Community" and "Common Market" for the early manifestations of the Grand Projet. Also the way that increases in EU powers were called "competences" and put forward as purely pragmatic steps, and subsequent EU treaties as "tidying up exercises". But then the inviolable principle of "Acquis Communautaire" whereby powers one gained by the EU are never repatriated.

We may not understand but we were not meant to understand. In computing parlance it's not a bug but a feature.

In the words of the great Netherlands footballer Johann Cruyff, "If I had wanted you to understand it I would have explained it better".

morebeta

You are not entirely wrong about the ability of commission presidents etc to set the agenda. however they mostly do it based on the mandate set by the Council. To be honest, Barroso has been criticised for being too deferential to the Council of Ministers - since this means that sometimes entirely useful pieces of legislation are not published.

In addition, i think you slightly misrepresent the balance of powers. I think "anyone in business" knows:
a) that you should influence legislation before it is published, while it is being drafted by the Commission, since a lot of the text stays in but
b) that the Parliament is much more transparent than the Council, and
c) it is ultimately the Parliament and the Council who adopt legislation, not the Commission. so business does not hang around once something is proposed but jumps straight in with the elected representatives. The Parliament can be extremely powerful.

And really, Farage, truth to power??? I would respect him a lot more if he could stop the stoopid juvenile insults. And actually do some parliamentary work rather than using his seat not to change anything but just spout off.

Can I also ask how people would want legislation on eg environment to be done without the EU? is the UK going to go it alone on emissions standards for cars for example? good luck on telling the industry that the UK is going to do its own standards ;-)

To be honest I think all this they no not what they do bullshit is really getting old

I don't need to know the ins and outs of licking the floor its just something I don't want to do

Its almost like labours line the little people are to stupid to vote thats why they are in opposition and will be for a long long time

amicissima - good point... ha.

but I think the general point still stands..

xpatmama - there is no need for complete fiscal and political union to decide standards across an industry Talk about a hammer to crack a nut.

Somebloke, where did you get all these insiders info then?

where did I say I wanted complete fiscal and political union?

because that is certainly not the situation in the EU!

It is what we are heading towards though, that is very clear. This new treaty gives Brussels power over national budgets, and Greek national sovereignty has been all but removed in recent weeks.

somebloke yes, to be pedantic, the Swiss referendum failed to achieve a yes vote for membership of the EU.

But not pedantic enough as I have to correct myself - the Swiss referendum in 1992 was for the EEA and it was in 2001 when a referendum voted against opening talks on joining the EU. But the 2005 referendum backed membership of the EU Schengen and Dublin agreements, and another referendum the same year opened the job market to newer EU members including Bulgaria and Romania. The Swiss Federal Council still considers EU membership an option.

I think it would be crazy to put the EU to a referendum. We vote governments in to make big decisions like this and trust them to make decisions t for the benefit of everyone. I wonder how many of us as individuals are really equipped with the knowledge to make the right decision about it.

The only way the UK would make it alone would be as some kind of tax haven. A multiple choice referendum might be useful - i.e. which allies would you prefer:

a) Norway
b) Switzerland
c) The US
d) The large land mass with whom we have been sharing policies for the past x years and who have provided us with the readies to keep our country afloat.
not forgetting
e) Russia - always waiting in the wings for a tax haven.

Francagoestohollywood:

I have no inside information. This stuff is in the public domain e.g. in major works such as Hugo Young's "This Blessed Plot" (pro-EU) and Booker and North's "The Great Deception" (anti-EU).

There's load of stuff on the Internet now - we're not dependent on the mainstream media.

One place you will not get a fair spread of views is the BBC, which is rabidly pro-EU to and extent that it is in breach of its own charter. The chairman of the BBC Trust is Lord Patten, who is charged with "maintaining its impartiality". As a former EU Commissioner he is in receipt of a lavish EU pension, and one of the conditions for the continuing payment of this is that he continue to act to further the aims of the EU.

So no conflict of interest there then ....

pretendhousewife wrote:

------
I think it would be crazy to put the EU to a referendum. We vote governments in to make big decisions like this and trust them to make decisions t for the benefit of everyone. I wonder how many of us as individuals are really equipped with the knowledge to make the right decision about it.
---

No, we don't vote them in to make decisions like this. We entrust them with powers, which remain on loan to them, for a few years, and after that reserve the right to take these powers back and hand them - again temporarly and provisionally - to a different lot.

We haven't authorised them simply to give away these powers to a foreign power, any more than if you were to lend me a book I would have the right to make a present of it to someone else.

pretendhousewife, governments are elected to represent us, not dictate to us or hand over the representation to someone of their choosing and not ours.

Pretendhousewife if the politicians electoral manifestos were legally binding then maybe I'd agree with you as we would know exactly what they would do in power. However since this is not the case politicians should not be allowed to go ahead with policies which would have a massive impact on our lives without checks and balances. Remember Labour's policy on allowing mass immigration over the past decade now we are really feeling the effect of this on our public services, housings and jobs market. I can't remember allowing mass immigration being in any of Labour's election manifestos. So no we can't just allow politicians to make certain decisions in the belief they know best often they make these decisions not in the best interest of the country but what's best to get their parties reelected.

I think manifestos should be legally binding. A politician shouldn't be allowed to promise the earth, in the full knowledge that post election they will be able to go back on everything they promised the voters. It would mean that their pledges had to be realistic and we would have a much better idea of what we were agreeing to.

The LibDems going back on their pledges regarding tuition fees for example, should be treated as breach of contract.

I don't think it's crazy at all for a referendum. In fact I think one is long overdue.

The only problem is what would the question be and how do we ensure people don't either use the referendum to protest the coalition and clearly understand the implications of what they vote for.

Given most of the electorate cannot understand the difference between a deficit and a debt, I don't rate their chances at understanding the complexities being debated at the moment.

The only way the UK would make it alone would be as some kind of tax haven......e) Russia - always waiting in the wings for a tax haven.

It's called the Premier League :o

But overall I agree. If you are not part of one of the major trading blocs and have no great natural resources or industry to speak of you are essentially just going to be a bigger Cayman Islands.

Niceguy that's exactly why it IS crazy to put this to a referendum. Because we will end up with a vote based on small-minded party politics (often based on people's opinion of their local councils plus their newspaper of choice). That would be crazy.

And for the rest of you, dear objectors, I would say that joining the EU isn't about handing powers over to someone else. It is another democratic layer, it is a lot more democratic than our other layer (the House of Lords plus the Queen) and we would have a very big say at the Brussels table, as great as Germany as France or any other EU country, an influence that would be to the benefit of the people of this country. If we don't play ball we are out of the game.

I don't know what this fear is about. The EU has been a huge benefit to us so far - in terms of human rights, equality, benefits, farming. I for one would be extremely worried if the Queen, or the US/Russia/China a.n. other powerful nation was our only ally or fallback.

pretendhousewife wrote:

----
Niceguy that's exactly why it IS crazy to put this to a referendum. Because we will end up with a vote based on small-minded party politics (often based on people's opinion of their local councils plus their newspaper of choice). That would be crazy.
-----

No!

On that basis you would outlaw general elections, the results of which may also be based on such trivial and irrelevant matters.

They simply do not have the right to do this. It is not in their gift.

It is not "another democratic layer". It is not a democracy at all.

Democracy is power (kratos) wielded by the people (demos).

A demos as in "we the people". There is no European demos, who (apart from profession EU types) cann identify themselves as "we".

If you don't have a demos, all you have left with is the kratos.

We are already democratically electing EU MPs. We vote for them already. It is already democratic. The vote is the demos, as you say - we choose WHO we want to represent us.

And if there were a referendum, how do you think it would go?

I say we will never join if it is left up to the 'demos'.