The Big Topic 1 - Europe [Archive]

Wavid

16th Jun 2004, 13:41

Things have slowed down a little on this forum, so perhaps it is an idea to start up a new topic for discussion.

Following the European elections last week, it would appear that the majority of Britons who bother to vote in these things aren't too keen on the idea of the European Union. The large number of votes received by UKIP show that when it comes to mobilising support, they have a better chance than the mainstream parties of reaching out to voters.

So where does this leave Britain and Europe? What chance does the new Constitution, and indeed the Euro, stand of being accepted when the voting public appear to be so anti-integration? And what, (prepares for flame war) are individual Palimpsester's views on Britain's role in (or out of) Europe?

John Self

16th Jun 2004, 13:53

My glib response to the UKIP vote was that, now we know only 16.8% of the population wants out of the EU, will Kilroy-Silk and co kindly go away?

I am pro-Europe but know at heart that my main reason for being so is that my enemy's enemy is my friend, ie if the Hate Mail and many Tories don't want it, then I do. But this is not sufficient in itself of course, and I would welcome guidance from those who know, about how to respond to allegations that the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, that Blair's blather about jobs being lost is pure balls, and so on. In other words, what are the rational and not emotional reasons for being in the EU?

The UKIP's 'success' is partly down to being a single issue party - an anti-asylum party would do equally well - and partly celebrity endorsement. Though Joan Collins didn't do herself any favours when the only reason she could think of for not being in the EU was that the value of the Euro makes her St Tropez pad simply prohibitively expensive to maintain...

gil

16th Jun 2004, 14:24

UKIP served the following useful purpose:

It disabused the main parties of the illusion they seemed to be harbouring that the citizens of this country want to be governed by a crowd of foreign johnnies on ridiculous expense accounts and inflated salaries, rather than a gaggle of mainly British chaps, also on ridiculous expense accounts and inflated salaries.

Both the main parties are now being a bit more clear and thoughtful about what they'll allow Brussels to decide, and what not.

Frankly, it's like democracy always is. The more I hear about the way Brussels and Strasbourg conduct themselves, the less I like it, except that Westminster is, in many ways, worse.

It's all part of the gradual decline of Western Civilisation which rose on a wave of Religion, and is now largely religion-free. This means that most things are determined on the basis of some namby-pamby humanist do-gooder philosophy, instead of the cut-throat commerce and power struggles that characterised the last century.

Where do I stand? Well, I'm Scottish. We aren't even allowed into International football matches any more, but I'm in favour of the European Community in principle, though, in practice, it's so full of entrenched self interest I can't see it ever being a real success.

ono no komachi

16th Jun 2004, 14:58

A very narrow example of Europe pushing for something, that in my opinion, would be a good thing…

A piece on Real Story this week related to the poor health suffered by many pure-bred dogs (they chose to focus on the bulldog (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/3797783.stm) – I wonder why?) as a result of being selectively bred from parents with particular features.

The Council of Europe apparently wants this very selective in-breeding to stop in order for the breed to take on a more natural shape with longer legs, a smaller head and a less flat face, to improve the health of the animals.

This idea was met with outrage by breeders, whose defence of the traditional breed characteristics I found unconvincing. I was particularly sceptical of one pink-suited Pekinese breeder, who when confronted with the argument that a dog should be bred to be a companion, and that looks should be secondary, claimed that it’s natural for people to choose the best-looking companion they can have. Yes, God forbid that the welfare of the animal should interfere with producing a flat-faced, permanently panting freak of nature that is someone’s idea of a breed ideal.

I’m appallingly ill-informed about Europe, and would be respectful of anyone having a well-reasoned argument against the EU, but I suspect that the majority of resistance consists of Sun readers not wanting johnny foreigner coming over here, banning Prawn Cocktail crisps and making us all eat frogs’ legs and sauerkraut.

John Self

16th Jun 2004, 15:11

"I don't know how they can tell me to get rid of this breed," says Robin Searle, who has been breeding bulldogs in Doncaster for 15 years.

"I wouldn't tell them to get rid of the German shepherd. What they want is some sort of Euro-dog."

Lol - Jim Hacker, eat your heart out.

And aren't dalmatians all so inbred that they can barely stand up?

pandop

16th Jun 2004, 19:12

And aren't dalmatians all so inbred that they can barely stand up?

No, but they are prone to deafness (and dimness for that matter)

Rational reasons for not wanting to be in Europe:

They want our seat on NATO (if they had any right to be there, they would be already)

We don't know how it will affect The Commonwealth (to whom we owe a lot more than we owe Europe - not to mention that huge chunks of Europe owe them too), not to mention the position of The Queen

There is no democratic way to get rid of EU commisioners, even when they are corrupt and incompetent (bring back impeachment)

The whole thing is corrupt and incompetent (for the last nine years their
own accountants have refused to sign off on their accounts

There are lots of differences between the needs and cultures of the countries in Europe - one legal, monetary and tax system will not fit all (look at the problems they are already having in the Eurozone)

The change in legal principles would be detrimental to us (just look at the appalling mistakes France made in the Caroline Dickinson case, and the corruption in the child abuse case in Belgium)

While I do not think that we should pull out of Europe all together, I do feel that in some areas less is more - we do not need to have the same legal system, there are already international courts and policing - let them do their job!

Hazel

NottyImp

16th Jun 2004, 21:31

The change in legal principles would be detrimental to us (just look at the appalling mistakes France made in the Caroline Dickinson case, and the corruption in the child abuse case in Belgium)

Ever heard of the West Midlands Crime Squad (oh, so aptly named), or for that matter the Stephen Lawrence case (The Met. in that case)? I've been on the wrong end of British "Justice", and frankly it's absolute pants.

amner

17th Jun 2004, 0:57

...not to mention the position of The Queen

I'm thinking, back to pock-marked wall, hands tied, blindfold, and the sound of six rifles being cocked ringing in her ears... no?

pandop

17th Jun 2004, 9:43

...not to mention the position of The Queen

I'm thinking, back to pock-marked wall, hands tied, blindfold, and the sound of six rifles being cocked ringing in her ears... no?

No.

My point is that not enough thought seems to have gone into how this constitution would (or wouldnt) mesh with what we already have - or are they just going to sweep everything away without a clear understanding of what will replace it?

There has been no discussion as to how signing up to the EU constitution will affect the Commonwealth (forget Iraq, we need to be sorting Zimbabwe - that is our business) The Queen (like it or not) is still our head of state. Not the grinning idiot - and he would do well to remember that (and that she has been involved in top level politics for longer than he has been alive, and has met more great world leaders, and some appalling ones too, than he ever will - and that he would do well to pick her brains), just look at the way he tries to muscle in on state occasions such as the Queen Mother's funeral!

The problem is also that instead of looking around Europe, seeing what the 'best practice' is (I have been to too many meetings lately :roll: ) we just seem to be settling for the methods of who can shout the loudest - regardless of whether we they are any good or not!

Look at America. Although they have federal laws and taxes, they still have the ability to deal with things at State level, as not all states need the same things (California has a bigger economy than most, if not all, of Europe) - but the EU constitution doesn't seem to make allowances for the fact that different countries will have different economic and legal needs at different times.

Hazel

Colyngbourne

17th Jun 2004, 10:14

I can only give a kind of emotional, vague response to this. I am pro-Europe (but one that is not as turgid/incompetent/corrupt as some indicators would suggest). I see no problems with a common currency (except for a sniff of nostalgia for purely history-loving reasons); similarly, I would have to be convinced that a common legal system would do harm rather than good. Economically I haven't much of a clue, except that the CAP would seem to need sorting out, and one-size-fits-all would not seem to best apply :wink:

At heart I want the UK to be more European in attitude. I'm quite happy with our national character but you feel the difference as soon as you step across the water and it's a good difference. You hear it in the way the Portugese primeminister talks - like a human being - on the Today programme. We seem so unenlightened and, naturally, insular.

Wavid

17th Jun 2004, 11:02

The problem with Europe as an issue is that it isn't one - it's hundreds of issues.

I am broadly in favour with the current state of affairs. The free trade area, and removal of restrictions on trade and movement between states is a good thing. The fact that the UK may contribute more than it receives back doesn't bother me when you consider the benefits of membership on the economy, which I should imagine outweigh the deficit many times over.

The idea of a constitution makes sense. Currently the whole set up is based on three or four treaties, none of which tie in together particularly well. What I am unsure of is the idea that the consitution can be used as a motor for further integration at this stage. What I would want to see is simply the current arrangements reflected in one document, with amendments made to fit the new member states into the jigsaw.

As for the commission, it doesn't bother me greatly that they are unelected - they are effectively civil servants, managers. Decisions should still be made by the member states. The thought of the European Parliament being given any actual powers frightens me to death - they should simply provide a scrutiny function for the Commission to ensure that they are putting the decisions of the member states into practice. The squabbling needs to stop, and the endless meetings without conclusion, and obviously the corruption.

Obviously certain individual policies need looking at again, particularly agriculture. Some things are obviously suited to a supernational level of government, such as the prevention of terrorism and environmental policy. When we start getting into the realms of employment law, and the human rights business, I start getting nervous again. As for the Euro, I have no particular emotional attachment to sterling, but I do have doubts over the efficacy of managing a currency over such a wide range of cultures and economies, especially were the UK to join, whose methods of working are far removed from that of the other larger economies in Europe.

So, Europe as a trading zone? Great. As an institution to try and solve all the ills in the world? No thanks. I'll stop now, because I think I might be coming across as something of a reactionary.

pandop

17th Jun 2004, 19:02

As for the commission, it doesn't bother me greatly that they are unelected - they are effectively civil servants, managers. Decisions should still be made by the member states. The thought of the European Parliament being given any actual powers frightens me to death - they should simply provide a scrutiny function for the Commission to ensure that they are putting the decisions of the member states into practice. The squabbling needs to stop, and the endless meetings without conclusion, and obviously the corruption.

That's the problem though - they do make decisions, and they affect us <sigh>

Otherwise I generall agree (and wouldn't object to the constitution if it really was tidying up - but I have a sneaking suspicion that it isn't)

Hazel

NottyImp

18th Jun 2004, 17:32

Frankly, it's like democracy always is. The more I hear about the way Brussels and Strasbourg conduct themselves, the less I like it, except that Westminster is, in many ways, worse.

Can't disagree with that - which is one reason I'm in favour of more direct democracy. Let's cut out the middle-man (because, let's face it, it almost always is a man), and vote on things ourselves. Utopian? Perhaps...

Stace

18th Jun 2004, 23:54

Much as I am progressively thinking, would one really want the affairs of this country limited to the dubious intentions of less-than-trustworthy politician other than the scurrilous bunch of bounders we already tolerate. There are just too many unanswered questions over the EU State for me

skanky

14th Jul 2004, 21:33

That's a good point I think. There are many unanswered questions and there is very little control of the process from the individual level. Any blocking of nations weakens the say of the individual, yet paradoxically very little we do these days only affects at the local level.

One point to remember is that the UK seems to have to make a decision of largely being controlled by Europe (more directly), or largely being controlled by the US (less directly). I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other, but as power is more diluted (and not really any less democratic) in Europe, the UK does have more input and leeway going in that direction. Both are deeply flawed though, and I'm not sure that the choices should be simply between those two...

youjustmightlikeit

15th Jul 2004, 3:38

I've always considered myself a reasonably well informed man, although there are things that come along that are as far as i'm concerned as near to incomprehensible as makes no difference. The first i remember being baffled by when growing up was the whole Bosnia/Yugoslavia/Serbia/blah blah affair. I'm sure it was awful, but i just had no idea what was going on, i didn't even know who the goodies were.

Another issue/event/topic that leaves me utterly cold, is Europe. Lets face it, if we're really honest, none of us, unless we are Oxbridge PPE graduates, have any idea whether the UK joining Europe would be a good or bad thing. I don't know how far we're in already, or how it's really affected us, bar the odd Countryfile piece on farming subsidies.

What i do know, is that no-one in any debate on this topic has simply pointed out that any idea of an effective central government of territories and cultures stretching from Scotland to Greece and from Portugal to Sweden, in any logistical or historical contexts, is utterly laughable.

The mass of humanity involved, the depths of its idiosyncrasies, the number of entrenched intra and inter national grudges; should surely prevent any right thinking person believing in any one successful government. Either the whole enterprise would last about a year before collapsing under the weight of its own unworkability, or the seat of government would have to be so large as to resemble a member state all of its own, and gaining permission to wipe ones own arse would require a Herculean feat of man management similar to the one given to Asterix the Gaul in his 'Twelve Tasks'.

Either way, yea or nay, it's only a matter of time before one state declares war on another. Then who's governing who?

15th Jul 2004, 5:05

Lately it struck me, that I couldn't really write a serious post concerning (more or less directly) politics that I could wholly agree with. All my posts about nationality or emigration are rather trashy, thank God not all are serious. My political worldview is a mishmash of (one might think) mutually exclusive opinions plus a plethora of issues I don't have a clear opinion about. Maybe I'll work it out one day. Generally, I'm pro-Europe, with some reservations.

skanky

15th Jul 2004, 12:29

Another issue/event/topic that leaves me utterly cold, is Europe. Lets face it, if we're really honest, none of us, unless we are Oxbridge PPE graduates, have any idea whether the UK joining Europe would be a good or bad thing. I don't know how far we're in already, or how it's really affected us, bar the odd Countryfile piece on farming subsidies.

What i do know, is that no-one in any debate on this topic has simply pointed out that any idea of an effective central government of territories and cultures stretching from Scotland to Greece and from Portugal to Sweden, in any logistical or historical contexts, is utterly laughable.

There are those who hold that opinion about a country the size of the UK. The more localised the level of power the more relevant it becomes to the individual. The main problem after that is how those local levels interact with each other so that there is a global cohesion.

One of the main reasons for a state to exist is to provide cheap/free resources for the rulers. This is enabled by a contract with the people of that state whereby it is expected to have a monopoly of violence thus supposedly keeping the inhabitants safe from harm. There are other ideals that some hold to the state but as these are often disputed (at least in level of provision), I'll assume that they are not necessary for the nation to exist.

The whole idea begins to fail when the state starts to act irresponsibly with the violence that it is supposed to control. Whether that be externally or inwardly (I'll deliberately leave the definition of "violence" open as it's a pretty grey area and I probably couldn't define it satisfactorily). So, this is wahy the state tries to hide its use of violence (or at least justify it) when it could be percieved that it is not using it in the inhabitants' best interests.

This also explains why the state must create real or percieved threats (immigrants, terrorists, rogue states, etc.) and try to be seen to be dealing with them. Otherwise people may start to wonder what they are getting out of the contract.

I also believe that very little of this is done on a particularly conscious level (you don't get politicians, etc. sitting round saying "Right, let's try and make some people in counyty x want to bomb us"). A thousand years ago there may have been more consciousness about it, but systems can create their own feeback mechanisms that reinforce their drivers.

NottyImp

15th Jul 2004, 19:37

Have you been reading Chomsky, Skanky?

skanky

16th Jul 2004, 11:27

A while ago. I dip into his stuff at times. That view is partly formed by an amalgam of some of his and others. I don't agree with everything he says, though.

NottyImp

16th Jul 2004, 11:50

Some of it had echoes of a lecture I once saw about him. I tried to read some of his stuff, but found it very dry. I think we're batting in the same ball-park, though.

skanky

16th Jul 2004, 12:45

Yeah, he doesn't always put his point across in the best way (nor do I, though). He is also (as are many people - often left, sometimes right) very mis-represented or misunderstood in the media.

John Self

21st Jul 2004, 11:00

Nice to see the UKIP putting their best foot forward. Since the election of 12 MEPs to the European Parliament, they first had to withdraw the whip from one of their MEPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3899969.stm) after he failed to inform them of his impending trial for housing benefit fraud ... and now have had this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912205.stm) brain donor shooting his mouth off:

A Euro MP for the UK Independence Party has sparked controversy hours into his first day in the Strasbourg parliament.

Godfrey Bloom was given a seat on the European Parliament's women's rights committee on Tuesday.

But he told the media: "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."

A range of fellow politicians were outraged, saying his views were terrifying and outrageous.

Mr Bloom, an investment fund manager from York, told journalists he wanted to deal with women's issues because: "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough".

"I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights," he added.

Nice!

NottyImp

21st Jul 2004, 11:48

You can tell these people are new to politics. It might be refreshing if it wasn't so reactionary.

pandop

21st Jul 2004, 11:50

Well as I only have my own dinner to get .... I can't really have it on the table when I get home now can I?

Also, due to the bizarre kitchen inflicted on me be the previous owner of my house - I am convinced that if I move the fridge, the worktop will collapse (so the only way behind my fridge will ever get cleaned, is if I get the new kitchen I so desperately want/need)

Oh - and I don't normally broadcast how I voted, but can I just reassure you all that even though he is technically 'my' MEP, I did not vote for this twat :wink:

Hazel

NottyImp

21st Jul 2004, 11:53

Well said, Hazel!

skanky

21st Jul 2004, 12:43

Hazel, I reckon you should write to him and suggest that if he buys you a new kitchen, you'll make a better effort of cleaning behind the fridge. :D

pandop

21st Jul 2004, 13:03

Worth considering .... my kitchen drives me to distration :roll:

Edited to add: Any effort would be a better effort, as I have been in this house 3 years, and haven't dared move the fridge ....

Hazel

skanky

21st Jul 2004, 13:09

Yeah, but he doesn't have to know that for your side of the bargain to be kept. :wink:

pandop

21st Jul 2004, 13:11

If I get a bulit in one like my aunt has, I won't ever need to clean behind it .... :wink:

Hazel

skanky

21st Jul 2004, 13:15

Come to think of it, I'm the only one who's ever cleaned behind our fridge! Though that was before it was installed. :?

Saris

29th Jul 2004, 14:31

Wavid

29th Jul 2004, 14:36

Blimey, hallo Saris. Long, long time no see!

Saris

2nd Aug 2004, 16:31

I know, I have been in hiding! But as I am free once again to wreak havok and bad taste, I thought I would pop in and say Hi. So, Hi!

Stace

3rd Aug 2004, 11:22

Carefull now, with all this talking of cleaning and fridges, it won't be long before legislation is brought in from Brussels to regulate the aforementioned cleaning, in order to protect the rights of both the cleaner and the fridge, naturally. Not that I wish to seem faceous.

At this rate, fridge cleaning will only be able to be carried out by a trained person who holds the correct certificates in that area of fridge hygiene and health and safety. In short our Govt and the EU are slowly and inexorably choking us with red tape

Wavid

2nd Jun 2005, 14:49

Might as well resuscitate this thread following events in France and the Netherlands. Looks like the constitution is a bit of a dead duck, so just how important do we think this is?

For details of what the document actually contains, this BBC page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm) is quite useful.

For my part, I have to admit to being a little wary of the EU and it's continual enlargement, in terms of geographical area and influence. I'm no little-Englander, for example the introduction of the Euro into this country wouldn't pain me a great deal, but I just get the impression sometimes that various people in politics see European integration almost as a good in itself. I'm all in favour of having freedom of movement, and reasonably free markets between member states, but things like the Common Agricultural Policy worry me slightly - would we not be able to support our farming just as well on our own?

Does anyone know if the UK is a net contributor to the EU or not? I am guessing it is.