Obama, concern for the UK or US?

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Listening to Obama, I was struck that his language seemed to be about what is good for the US not what is good for the UK. Certainly the former US treasury secretary interviewed on the Today program was very US centric.

His comment about us going to the back of the queue, (and he did say queue instead of line because he was told to) seemed to be a bit of a threat. Is he out of order?

Even in the very inequitable USA, there is a principle of progressive taxation; people who earn more, should contribute more (via taxes). Because everyone benefits from good quality police, environmental regulation, road building, rubbish removal, etc. Insisting you individually get back what you put in is ridiculous. Which is why I am dismayed when I read:

we are spending about £55m a day.. How much better off would we be if we were spending that money on our infrastructure instead of giving it to East Europe?

However you quibble over the numbers or where the money went, it benefits Britain enormously if Eastern Europe is stable & prosperous. Helping them out is very much in our best interests.

It's a pity that our PM isn't and instead wants us to be ruled by a foreign power

This is the line that always gets me. Because using this logic, I assume you also consider Scotland and Wales as being ruled by a foreign power.

And Cornwall. You know, with political representation but with very few if any members of the executive (whether politically appointed or permanently employed) being drawn from Cornwall.

lljkk is spot on. What we pay for membership for EU is directly comparable to paying tax in the UK - I don't personally use the schools, the train network, the London Underground, hospitals (finges crossed), etc etc etc - but I am still happy to contribute to all of those because it makes the country I live in work.

I am happy to contribute to giving those parts of the EU that have had a more unfortunate history than us (no fun being a communist block country for most of the 2nd half of the 20th century) - it is good for everyone in Europe if we can help bring everyone up to a decent standard of living.

As for the original question - in this case there is a common interest (in Obama's view) - a stable prosperous Europe is good for the whole world (US included), and that is more likely to be the case if the UK is an active member of the EU. On a smaller scale a stable prosperous UK is also good for the US (and lots of predictors suggest that is more likely if we stay as an active member of the EU).

Many of the Brexit campaigners have their own specific reasons for wanting out of EU - and not much of it has to do with the arguements that are frequently touted - and a lot more to do with not wanting regulation (of working conditions, of pollution levels, but above all of our financial services sector - they don't want transparency of that because most ordinary mortals would be appalled at what they get up to - and the level of tax avoidance that dwarfs what we pay to be part of the EU).

This is the line that always gets me. Because using this logic, I assume you also consider Scotland and Wales as being ruled by a foreign power.

Scotland and Wales cannot be foreign power to England as we share a Head of State. The West Lothian question needs to be resolved.

lljkk is spot on. What we pay for membership for EU is directly comparable to paying tax in the UK -

No. It's not. We pay our tax to the Westminster Government and it uses that tax in a way that Parliament has democratically voted for - the Budget. Some of that Budget is the money we spend in EU membership. Our membership fees of the EU are set by the EU, not by UK Govt and the EU does demand additional £1,6billion when we've all worked hard and our economy has exceeded expectations.

I don't personally use the schools, the train network, the London Underground, hospitals (finges crossed), etc etc etc - but I am still happy to contribute to all of those because it makes the country I live in work.

That's the key bit: because it makes the country I live in work . With your EU fees you are funding other countries. Libraries, public toilets, day-care for the elderly, transport for disabled children in the UK are all being cut while we send millions evrey day to the EU to spend on other countries.

I am happy to contribute to giving those parts of the EU that have had a more unfortunate history than us (no fun being a communist block country for most of the 2nd half of the 20th century) - it is good for everyone in Europe if we can help bring everyone up to a decent standard of living.

But your EU fees go on teaching people in Burkino Faso to dance, or training troops in Africa. It's trade that helps the standard of living in poor countries - not handouts and the EU actively prevents many from making good trade deals that could stimulate their economy.

As for the original question - in this case there is a common interest (in Obama's view) - a stable prosperous Europe is good for the whole world (US included), and that is more likely to be the case if the UK is an active member of the EU.

No, more likely if we retain our NATO membership and Un Security Council seat.

On a smaller scale a stable prosperous UK is also good for the US (and lots of predictors suggest that is more likely if we stay as an active member of the EU).

The biggest investor in the USA is UK $282Bn
The biggest investor in UK is US $324Bn

Which rather suggests that the US needs a trade deal with the UK much more than we need one with them. And all this trade has been happening without any trade deal between the UK and US.

Many of the Brexit campaigners have their own specific reasons for wanting out of EU - and not much of it has to do with the arguements that are frequently touted - and a lot more to do with not wanting regulation (of working conditions, of pollution levels, but above all of our financial services sector - they don't want transparency of that because most ordinary mortals would be appalled at what they get up to - and the level of tax avoidance that dwarfs what we pay to be part of the EU)

So, Cameron and the Tories want us to REMAIN in so they can give us better working conditions and lower pollution levels and control the financial sector. That sounds very generous behaviour by those Tories that everyone seems to think are determined to do down the workers.

And if you calim the Brexit people want to LEAVE to avoid transparency of our financial sector - then why is the REMAIN campaign funded by those very people who would not like more transparency of their financial undertakings. You do know that Goldman Sachs is funding the REMAIN campaign - backed by JP Morgan and Citigroup and the hedge funds. They want us to REMAIN so financial transparency is improved?? You're pulling my leg

As for the original question - in this case there is a common interest (in Obama's view) - a stable prosperous Europe is good for the whole world (US included), and that is more likely to be the case if the UK is an active member of the EU.

No, more likely if we retain our NATO membership...

NATO is the main guarantor of the security of European nations from external threat but the EU has played an important role in peace & stability by creating, ensuring & extending friendship, co-operation, democracy & the rule of law within the EU.

The possibility of someone like Trump becoming US President throws some doubt on relying on NATO indefinitely.

STDIW

Is the EU a trading bloc or is it a political union of 28 member countries?

NATO is the main guarantor of the security of European nations from external threat but the EU has played an important role in peace & stability by creating, ensuring & extending friendship, co-operation, democracy & the rule of law within the EU.

By replacing the Italian and Greek Governments with unelected technocrats.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2063756/Eurocrats-imposed-Greece-Italy-Id-governed-100-people-phone-book.html

The possibility of someone like Trump becoming US President throws some doubt on relying on NATO indefinitely.

What Trump is saying is that NATO was designed to meet the threat from a different quarter to which the current threat comes. We lose more people in Europe annually to asymmetric warfare (terrorism) than we do to to traditional nation-against-nation fighting, although if the EU keeps trying to entice the Ukraine into the EU, we may find that we are fighting a war against Russia who sees Ukraine as a Russian interest.

Scotland and Wales cannot be foreign power to England as we share a Head of State. The West Lothian question needs to be resolved

Australia also shares that head of state...

But you're right, the fact that the EU does not have a Head of State in that sense does undermine the idea that it's a foreign power.

But you're right, the fact that the EU does not have a Head of State in that sense does undermine the idea that it's a foreign power.

Any organisation that has the power to make laws that you must adopt, that are supreme to the laws made by our domestic Parliament, is a foreign power.

The EU does not have a Head of State - yet.

Any organisation that has the power to make laws that you must adopt, that are supreme to the laws made by our domestic Parliament, is a foreign power

Only if you do not have democratic representation from within it.

If you're struggling with the difference, think about it as the difference between the US before the American Revolution, subject to laws set by

Baby posted for me, oops.

... With laws set by a Government appointed by a Parliament in which there was no representation for them, and the situation with the EU (democratic representation in the Parliament and the Council, and appointed representation in the Commission).

Only if you do not have democratic representation from within it.

If you're struggling with the difference, think about it as the difference between the US before the American Revolution, subject to laws set by ... With laws set by a Government appointed by a Parliament in which there was no representation for them, and the situation with the EU (democratic representation in the Parliament and the Council, and appointed representation in the Commission).

The EU is nothing like the US, pre Revolution or after. The US is a federation of states under one Head of State. The US is a country.

The EU is trying to turn itself into a country, and the Lisbon Treaty gave it the legal entity that it needed to become a country.

I can elect an MEP who is powerless to initiate or strike down any EU legislation in the European Parliament.
I cannot elect or remove any EU Commissioner.
My democratically elected Government has limited power within the overall EU of 28 member states. My Government's power will be further reduced when new member countries accede to the EU.

That's not democratic.

The EU is nothing like the US, pre Revolution or after. The US is a federation of states under one Head of State. The US is a country.

Yes, that's entirely my point. Well done.

You seem intent on ignoring the role of the Council. Why is that?

I struggle with any country with FPTP lecturing on democratic deficit in other systems. But your point about power within 28 member states is similar to my point about Scotland and/or Cornwall.

Quite happy to talk about the Council.

72 times we raised have raised objections in the Council and been over-ruled.

www.peterlilley.co.uk/questions/1873/oral-question-eu-council

Our influence in the Council will be further reduced when new members join the EU.

I'm all for giving the Scots their independence if that's what they want. They have more chance of gaining it from Westminster than they will ever have trying to gain it from Brussels while the UK remains in the EU.

And how many times have we been on the winning side? What about votes at sub-leader level?

Most things that go to a vote are for domestic political consumption. An awful lot of stuff is worked out by consensus/diplomacy in advance, particularly at sub-leader level.

However, complaining about times when our reprsentatives have been overruled in (democratic) votes somewhat undermines your statement that the EU is a foreign power in which we have no representation.

To quote Sorkin, often in a democracy, other people win.

Great post Jassy!

That is the whole point about consensual politics (as opposed to the adversarial system with which we are familiar). The other 27 countries involved don't view it as a problem or something that is being "imposed" from outside because they view themselves as part of the process (as are we!).

Sometimes individual member states lose out for the good of the whole. Some we win, some we lose. But it roughly works out as fair in the end.

Unless of course we choose to absent ourselves from the entire process.

However, complaining about times when our reprsentatives have been overruled in (democratic) votes somewhat undermines your statement that the EU is a foreign power in which we have no representation.

I didn't say we had no representation. They are your words, not mine

The mere fact that the wishes of our democratically elected Government can be overruled demonstrates that the Government is supreme and we are therefore subject to rile by a foreign power.

Sometimes individual member states lose out for the good of the whole. Some we win, some we lose. But it roughly works out as fair in the end.

Fingers crossed then that they never overrule us when it's something that is really important to us. We could be forced into doing something we don't like.

Unless of course we choose to absent ourselves from the entire process.

Yes. That's what I am working towards

If I may say so, is interesting that you consider this your work Springing.

If I may say so, is interesting that you consider this your work Springing.

Not all work is paid. Bringing up children is hard work - you're not paid for that.

Look upon me as a hobbyist

Fingers crossed then that they never overrule us when it's something that is really important to us. We could be forced into doing something we don't like

That's what tends to happen in a representative democracy. Just ask a Labour voter who lives in a solidly Labour constituency in the north whether the things that are really important to their community have been prioritised in the last two Parliaments. Or a Tory voter from Surrey or Kent from 1997-2010.

You can absolutely dislike the system, and be unhappy with other countries having a say on things that affect us, and about the concept of shared rules between different countries. It's just a bit silly to describe it as a foreign power.

The mere fact that the wishes of our democratically elected Government can be overruled demonstrates that the Government is supreme and we are therefore subject to rile by a foreign power.

There you go again. It can't be both a foreign power and an institution in which we have democratic representation.

Is the EU a trading bloc or is it a political union of 28 member countries?

“We believe that Europe can emerge as a Community expressing it’s own point of view and exercising influence in world affairs not only in commercial and economic affairs but also in the political and defence fields.” - Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home press release 1970 reiterating George Brown.

euonym.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Foreign-Secretary-speech-at-IPC-dinner-12th-Jan-1970.pdf#page=3

NATO is the main guarantor of the security of European nations from external threat but the EU has played an important role in peace & stability by creating, ensuring & extending friendship, co-operation, democracy & the rule of law within the EU.

By replacing the Italian and Greek Governments with unelected technocrats.

With representative democracy it isn’t undemocratic for democratically elected politicians to make decisions on behalf of the electorate or appoint heads of government. In Italy & Greece the democratically elected political parties opted for technocratic government.

With representative democracy it isn’t undemocratic for democratically elected politicians to make decisions on behalf of the electorate or appoint heads of government. In Italy & Greece the democratically elected political parties opted for technocratic government.

They didn't. They didn't vote for them, they were imposed on them without a General Election. It's like the Queen installing an unelected technocratic Government at the behest of the EU.

That's not democracy. We might as well skip General Elections completely if you think that's acceptable.

We should be careful when allow the EU so much power.

Of course some people dislike democracy, so their decision to REMAIN in the EU is quite reasonable when they feel that way.