I cannot believe the utter tosh that UKIP is spouting in relation to the EU elections ...

[Countingthegreyhairs]

Why does no-one ever, ever put the other side of the story?

It is not a question of them and us. The UK is a Member State and as such benefits hugely from the European Union in terms of stability, prosperity and security.

Why do none of the British papers ever highlight this?

Europe is the UK's largest export market and thanks to the single market we have preferential access to 380 million consumers. Each person in the UK has the right to sell to members in 27 member states - no other organisation in the world provides such an economic advantage as the EU.

Issues such as pollution, crime, health (pandemics) are not restricted to national borders. It only makes sense for them to be tackled cooperatively

... for example, now we have a global market, the EU entity stops imports of dangerous foods or toys in to the UK and also in to other EU member states such as Spain or France where we might be holidaying

And to contradict UKIP, the EU DOES allow Member States considerable freedom to do their own thing in relation to defense, foreign policy etc

Why are these arguments never heard in Britain? Arrggh!! It makes my blood boil!!!

All of these things could and did happen before. The issue of a country giving up their national soveriegnty is not a small one and the EU is incredibly slow-moving and bureaucratic and is wasteful in the extreme. The EU is also pathetically lily-livered when it comes to dealing with Russia and China. There are benefits to being a member state, I'm still not sure if they outweigh the crap that goes with it though.

But the point is, it is all happening at a much higher level under the EU than it did before and because we are essentially an exporting nation, we benefit hugely from this...

I don't think that President Sarkozy has any sleepless night about giving up French sovereinty, so why should we?

The EU may be bureaucratic but let's remember what has been dominating the news in the UK with MPs expenses. Waste, inefficiency and borderline dishonesty? Perhaps we should put our own house in order before accusing others first.

And are you saying that the UK on its own has been any less lily-livered with regard to China and Russia (especially China)? The collective strength of the EU CAN achieve results on such issues where individual countries cannot. All the more reason to push the EU to take a stronger line (if that is what you feel it should!)

oops - should do

Actually, until the pound took a nosedive, it was a struggle for anyone exporting to the EU simply because of the exchange rate (and no, this isn't an arguement in favour of adopting the Euro). We have trade deals with countries globally and while EU makes trade easier, it doesn't make it so easy that it's just like selling something to a company in Scotland (for eg).

Whether or not another country's leader cares about giving up soveriegnty is irrelevant when the people who elected him obviously care deeply about staying French. It also doesn't make him right. A federal Europe is not something that anyone should wish for, at the least because where is the accountability of these 'elected' officials?

As for hawks and doves, GB has quite a good track record of standing up to countries many times bigger. The EU is a joke - how pathetic it was when Russia invaded Georgia recently. They hummed and hawed and finally decided it was far more important to keep Putin sweet than stand up for a pro-Euro country that wants EU membership.

Sorry, you won't convince me that the EU is as great as you seem to think it is.

Callisto - they didnt. Even 30 years ago, you couldnt just move to another European country and set up shop like you can now.

your first paragraph is one good reason for joining the euro!

Actually, we had very good trading partners, and still do, all over the world, especially within the Commonwealth. We are no longer an exporting nation, we don't make anything to export (apart from a few clever people and money) so all of these trade links within the EU are not actually that important anyway.

Agree Nighbynight.

Agree with your first para too Callisto! - but imo the answer is that it SHOULD be as easy as selling to someone in Scotland - this is the objective of the EU and we should be pushing the EU to do more on this ...we've paid to join the club, now we need to make sure we use the facilities!

On the sovereignty and accountability points, surely it's better to have a talking shop such as the EU in Brussels where leaders such as Sarkozy or indeed Berlusconi can be held to account by all other leaders, including our own. Absolute sovereignty doesn't work either imo!! We all live far too close together to have some mad-man or woman some 200 k away ruining our lives or our economy!

On the Georgia point, would be interested to know what the UK did that was any different to the EU (genuine question)?

As I understand it, foreign policy is still essentially an area of national competence - not EU competence - perhaps Russia knows this and picks off the Member States one by one .. Just like a good trades union, we should all stand together on important issues.

Sorry, just read your other post Callisto...

We may not have the manufacturing industry that we used to, but because we are a high cost economy, we are exporting high value added products, not basics, ie technology and chemicals etc.

And anyway, surely the fact that we no longer manufacture and export raw materials is an argument FOR Europe not against?

Are you telling me that the Mini factory in Swindon only wants to sell to the UK and the Commonwealth? Not at all! We need the preferential access to European markets provided by the single market.

Why was our beleagured agricultural sector decimated by BSE and more recently, blue tongue? Because exports to Europe were banned during that time. The European market is vital to our economy.

And on the question of the Commonwealth, if you ask any Commonwealth country whether they want the UK to leave the EU or not, the answer would be a resounding "no" because they want preferential access to European markets too! The Commonwealth benefits from our membership of the EU - not the other way around.

These arguments about the Commonwealth spring from the Murdoch-owned press in the UK which of course has a vested interest in bashing Europe.

End of rant!!

Er, and the reason I am ranting (in case I am in danger of over-egging the pudding here) is that I care passionately about Britain and British interests

Believe me, the other EU countries are not so reticent in asserting their rights ... we need to get in there and fight wholeheartedly too

The difficulty is that determining where national sovereignty begins and ends is virtually impossible. As such there are areas in which the EU is given the ability to execute its responsibility and areas in which it is not and areas in which it is very effective, and should have a role, and areas in which it is wholly ineffective, and it should not have a role. How you tell these apart is the tricky part and one which the EU and member states just haven't figured out yet.

For example, on environmental issues, the EU clearly should have a level of sovereignty - air pollution in one country very obviously affects other countries. The member states recognise this and in the area of implementation of environmental protection the EU has been very effective in certain regards (e.g. REACH regulation). Unfortunately, environmental policy clearly spills over into, amongst other things, economic policy - reducing pollution may involve taxing or capping emissions in certain industries, which in turn has a direct effect on the competitive ability of domestic industry. At which point the member states become somewhat less happy and the EU becomes less effective as states seek to opt out or disapply certain regulations on the basis of sovereignty. The EU clearly then becomes much less effective.

For example, in terms of a ESDP the EU has long tried to establish some form of unified defence policy (originally through the WEU) partly to protect its own interests and partly to provide a counter-balance to NATO - a lot of time, money and energy has been spend on various initiatives to do this (um, unsurprisingly often at the behest of the French) - for example, more recently the EU Battlegroups initiative. Unfortunately, it's far from clear to me at least that the EU should have sovereignty in this area, and that even if it did it could exercise it effectively. Of course that hasn't stopped them trying over and over again.

Basically, it's a mess. But unfortunately you can't take the good bits without accepting the bad bits and vice versa. It's just a question of which you believe outweighs the other.

Sorry CTGH - I find the whole subject deathly dull and although I disagree with all of your points in your last post I find myself struggling to respond because it is soooo boring.

You're picking apart into separate bits my point about the EU not being economically attractive as an exporter/non-exporter of goods. It doesn't work however you do it. A free market is a good thing, we have many trading agreements with many countries worldwide. I very much doubt commonwealth countries give a shite about whether we are part of the EU collective or not, and for some it will be a headache because the EU is immensly regulatory. They export to us and we have seperate trade agreements with them. It is nothing to do with the EU (apart from certain restrictions that are EU wide).

As for agriculture - please try to find out from the actual farmers how much they want to be a part of the EU. BSE nearly destroyed the beef industry in the UK even though it was prevalent in other EU countries such as France. We are also forced to accept cheap milk and meat (with lower welfare standards edtc) from ex-Eastern block countries which is killing the dairy and pork industries in the UK. Fishing is another issue that the EU has fucked up royally, and continues to do. If you want no fish in the seas, please continue to support the EU.

The EU is a large part of our economy, though I would argue that in these days of impending food/energy/water shortages we should be becoming more self-sufficient anyway, but it isn't the whole. We get enough benefits at this level of membership. Why do we have to give up our national soveriegnty for no further benefits and less actually autonomy over our lives?

I could go on and on but I'm boring myself now so I'll bow out and let you get on with feeling exasperated with us xenophobic murdoch-following sheep.

The free trade parts do sound good - perhaps someone who knows more than me could explain what we get trade-wise from being in the EU that we wouldn't get from being in EFTA only (as some countries are).

That should read BSE and the EU ban on Britain exporting its beef into EU countries nearly killed the beef industry in this country, etc, etc.

Great to see some more responses!

Sorry!! Visitors today and tonight.

Will post again tomorrow!

Kopperbergkate has hit the nail .... we could have free trade without having to be part of the EU.

I cannot understand how Countingthe greyhairs can reconcile the statement "care passionately about Britain and British interests" and be pro-EU. The EU definitely does NOT have Britain's interest at heart - it's a dog eat dog, every nation for its self club. These are not our EU partners these are our European competitors.

The EU has emasculated Britain as a nation. We have accepted EU law as taking precedence over domestic law - FACT. We must allow any EU citizen to live in this country if they wish, so we cannot control immigration and are therefore flooded with former Eastern European, now EU citizens.

We control defence and taxation - and that's about it. I do not want 'ever closer integration' within the EU and have unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strassburg making our laws while a powerless 'EU Parliament' watches on helplessly.

And if you think we've got corrupt politicians in this country they are postively miserly compared to the profligacy of the EU and its Parliamentarians. We're talking about an instution that has failed to have its accounts signed off for at least 6 years - because they fail financial scrutiny.

No thanks - would be out like a shot if allowed to vote on it.

WetAugust - I agree with all of the above apart from the 'flooded with former Eastern European citizens'. I think that since the UK economy is so shite and the pound is so weak that loads of them have gone back. Also, whilst I don't subscribe to the govts line that all immigration is good for the economy, I do think that many British fruit, veg and flower growers would be completely stuffed without Eastern Europeans. Sadly most Brits seem to think that picking strawberries is beneath them.

WetAugust, I always find it depressing when people reel out the same old witless arguments (on either side) so let me just correct a few points.

Firstly, EU law is only supreme in areas in which the EU is competent to legislate and had legislated (directly via directives or indirectly through direct effect). There is a vast gamut of British law which is not affected by EU law. In addition, many member states (including the UK) retain the ability to derogate from EU law where it conflicts with fundamental constitutional principles.

Secondly out of the three pillars, economic/ social, justice and home affairs and security and defence, the UK retains absolute sovereignty with regard to two out of three. In JHA we retain an opt-out and in ESFP there is no opt-in at this time (and probably never will be). And in terms of the economic and social policy, we retain sovereignty over virtually all key economic instruments (fiscal and monetary) and various aspects of social policy, including social security and asylum policy.

Thirdly, in terms of the vast influx of East Europeans. Regardless of the research (which I'm sure you've read) indicating that they have resulted in a net benefit to the economy I'd also just suggest that you read a little bit about British history before suggesting that this region of the world has not experienced mass immigration many, many times through its history.

Fourthly, the EU for all its failings is not a dog eat dog club. If you want to see what a dog eat dog club looks like, take away the EU and see exactly how stable the continent is then. I think the last period before the first European treaty came into force was known as WWII and wasn't an age of European happiness and cohesion (um, or WW1, or the Napoleonic Wars, or... or...). The EU, whatever you think of it, binds countries into partnerships where they would not otherwise do so, and makes them give up things they would not otherwise give up.

Fifthly (just to make sure I get your main errors corrected), MEPs are elected through a democratic process - in fact, I believe there's elections going on about now. If you're making the usual "unelected bureaucrats" argument in reference to the number of civil servants employed by the Council and Commission then I don't recall that we elect our civil service either, unless I missed those elections.

And corrupt policitians, ha. Read the papers. I don't recall any MEPs asking to have their moats reimbursed or their helipads paid for.

Wrong cestlavie - very wrong.

All law made in Britain must have regard to EU law, so Britain cannot make laws that could be deemed to be in contradicton fo EU law in any area. Yes, we do have the ability to derogate but that is very much the exception to the rule and we constantly accept Eu directives that are not in our national interest without derogation.

In JHA we do not have total control. We must extradite our citixens to other EU countries for 'crimes' that those EU countries may have perceived our citizens to have committed. As for fiscal policy, yes we have opted out of the Euro and the European central bank however our fiscal policy is manipulated by Brussels via the back door. We must for instance set a level of VAT. That is Brussels intrusion. EU interference in our domestic matter even extends to the requirement to partially privatise the Post Office.

East Europeans do provide a benefit to the arigultural base of this country but one which is totally outweighed by the hidden costs to the reminder of society in their presence, in terms of additional crime, need for interpretors, ability to claim family allowance for dependants in their home countries, etc etc. That reduces their nett benfit to a deficit.

Your point about mass immigration is irrelevant. Just because we've had mass immigration in many eras does not mean it should continue unchecked. This is a small island with its own huge social pressures without adding to them.

You trot out the old chestnut about how the EU has bound us together in sustanined peace. We live in very different times from those of the WWs. There is no prosepect of us ever going to war with any of the countries of Europe and that is not because of the EU. To think otherwise is ridiculous - under what circumstances would we ever want to declare war on any of them?

MEPs are powerless. They be may elected but that is sheer window-dressing. the real power is held by the Commission not by the MEPs. Do not try to equate the power they have to make laws with the power that civil servants in Britain have to enact law - these are 2 very different functions. As for electing the Commissioners - remember paton - we booted him out of Bath and he picked up an unelected post in the EU as a Commissioner. Don't remeber having teh opportunity to vote for former commissioner Mandelson either. Both party poodles appointed to Brussels as unelected officials.

I can see nothing to celebrate about the EU.

Sorry! Very busy w/e so only just returning to this thread now ...

Totally agree with C'est la Vie!!

In response to you specifically Callisto -[leaving sheep and old Rupe out of it for now!! ]

• seriously 'tis good to have the arguments on both sides aired ...

There are two specific issues to consider further - first the EU is the world?s largest donor of preferential market access for developing countries.

Second - the EU also gives us our best chance of getting access to those markets in third countries where we can sell our goods - USA, India China etc There are plenty of coutries around the world who would love to kick UK in the goolies (as poor David Milliband found recently in india) they can do this to us but not to the EU - our collective 380 million consumers are just too important.

On fishing - the EU Commission has been proposing reforms for decades to prevent the current fiasco and depletion of resources - but the individual Member States have said "no" ? they want to do things differently. This is perhaps the very best example of why it would be better to let the Commission get on and do what it does best - represent a European perspective.

And to respond to WetAugust's comments (roughly in order):

It's not true that all UK law is covered by EU law- the UK is only required to follow the EU where it is dealing with a specific issue within the scope of the EU and where this has been agreed by all Member States previously. Directives do require national legislation to implement but often include wide discretion for each Member State on scope of coverage etc ? in key areas the EU rules are in reality minimum standards - eg, if we want higher levels of environmental protection we can have them.

I don't know as much about JHA as you obviously do but it is my understanding that it is an area of consensus only.

VAT is harmonised but only a proportion of VAT receipts go to Europe, most go to the Member States

Sorry, I don't understand why the EU is causing us to privatise the PO? I don't think it is!! In fact, isn't there a specific provision in the EU treaty which says that individual Member States have the right to decide whether to keep industries or services in public ownership?

Your last paragraph about Easter European immigrants, if I may speak frankly, borders on racism.

What about all those Brits who have left to live in other Member States ? France, Spain etc? They require interpretors in hospitals and schools - they require state help (I personally know of three pensioners living off French state assistance with the help of excellent French nursing care)

In relation to your point about us never going to war with any other countries of Europe:

Sadly if this were true we would all be a lot happier - the point is that wars in Europe have generally always had at their core a desire by some to gain access to others assets in order to compensate for poverty or under performance. The EU does not stop wars - it has no army and no role to play in military issues (but maybe it should!) - what the EU is doing is trying to promoting economic growth to prevent the circumstances which have led to so many wars in the past happening again. If you cast an eye over the map of Europe (the continent) I think you might find a number of areas of concern... .

It simply isn't true tht MEPS are powerless - the real power is held by the Member States - not by the EP nor by the Commission - nothing gets done in Europe unless the national governments let it. There is another debate to be had on whether this is a good idea !

The EU is not perfect by any means. There is always bound to be bureaucracy where 27 countries are trying to engage seriously with one another over serious issues. It's always easier to "opt-out" and walk away when the process is difficult. We should instead ENGAGE in the process and defend British interests.

Arrgh! I've written an essay and killed the thread ...

.... and finally ... can't resist ...

do you really want to waste your vote on a complete twonk such as Nigel Farage???

The most ridiculous thing about UKIP is that they have an Argentinian treasurer!

Oh, and the fact that Nigel Farage could possibly be the most annoying man in the universe.

The Royal Mail lost its monopoly in Jan 2006 when EU directive 2002/39/EC opened up the delivery of all items of more than 50 grams, to competition. Mandelson's solution is to part-privatise to break it up into units that can compete with private providers such as DHL, TNT etc. So an EU directive has had a direct influence on the Post Office.

Your claim that we only have to follow those EU directives over which the EU has jurisdiction is wrong - the EU is pishing the boundaries constatly.

As for inferring that my remarks about the EU requirement to have open borders, being almost racist - That is excatly the sort of response I would expect from such a pro-EU supporter. Stifle debate by playing the racism card. Pathetic!

DH's conversation with a UKIP rep. the other day.

"What about your use of Winston Churchill in your literature."

"Oh yes?"

"Um... I was wondering if you were being ironic or are just plain stupid?"

"Excuse me?"

"Why do you have him on your literature?"

"Winston Churchill was not just a supporter of a united Europe but felt it was a necessity"

"No, he was opposed to a political union"

"Really? That's why he said a United States of Europe would be a good idea?"

"He didn't"

"Oh... I'm afraid he did both politically and for trade."

"Well..."

"Oh and should one read anything into the fact that the only dark faces in your party political broadcast and paper literature are those you say are invading our country?"

"We have several asian and black candidates."

"How many?"

"Well there is the lady in..."

"Counting... Read more on one hand here? How come they aren't in the adverts?"

"I haven't seen the adverts." "Is that plausible deniability?"

"I don't know what that means."

"Why am I not surprised? Ok straight question. If you come to power will my Jewish friends need to wear a yellow star or my gay friends wear a pink triangle."

Pause.

"I don't think so."

"You don't think so? You aren't sure?"

"Um... that isn't what I mean. Goodbye."

And off she goes.