Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

dave marshall posted:

Is it not the case that the basis for much of the dissatisfaction with the EU, as far as  the UK is concerned, lies in the fact that the original scenario, that of a free trade area, has been hijacked over the years by those wishing to create a European super state, with all the bureaucracy which has resulted?

Had we stuck to the initial concept, and not allowed our self promoting politicians to strike deals behind the scenes, then we would more than likely not be having the present discussion.

Dave.

I agree with what you say Dave, and I too, consider we have been let down by our politicians, especially those who have moved into the European Parliament, lined their own pockets and let a nation of bureaucrats take over.

But 20-20 hind-sight isn't necessarily the best basis for moving forward this time, although often it is !

Apart from the past how are we to steer the future?

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Nobody does because this is called second guessing the future.

 

 

I agree George, that nobody knows the future. But most people, business and governments consider  what possibilities the future might hold and try to predict  the benefits and risks  of those possibilities and which would be in their best interest.

This is a bit more useful than "not bothering" or "guessing" when you are asking people to vote on their future.

Let's hope that you are right in thinking that it won't make much difference either way !

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Apart from the past how are we to steer the future?

If we only looked to the past, we wouldn't make progress.

Sure, the past provides experience. But new thinking produces progress (or disasters !)

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Apart from the past how are we to steer the future?

Quite so.

The UK electorate have had little say, over the years, in the steady progress towards this European monolith.

A referendum would at least allow people to make their feelings known, though we may safely assume that the information supplied by the various media, on the run in to the big event, may not present the clearest of pictures.

 That's it..................rant over! 

Dave.

I quite agree that the past must be considered with thought! Of course this is so obviously that it would not normally really need to be mentioned.

The truth is that in the EU we are being led by the nose on the basis that we want in, but if we don’t want in then they will certainly not want a complete divorce. Apart from Poland and the UK the EU is in the flatlining doldrums. They need us even more than we need them. They won’t require us to be in the EU club to be a significant generator of European Union prosperity.

ATB from George

dave marshall posted:

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Apart from the past how are we to steer the future?

Quite so.

The UK electorate have had little say, over the years, in the steady progress towards this European monolith.

A referendum would at least allow people to make their feelings known, though we may safely assume that the information supplied by the various media, on the run in to the big event, may not present the clearest of pictures.

 That's it..................rant over! 

Dave.

 

 

 

I think we may safely assume that the news media [populist or serious] will be a small factor in the UK electorate’s decision.  The UK is not an entity that got where is has without a hugely sensible population, even considering the diversions the news media is supplying, or has supplied ...

ATB from George

dave marshall posted:

Is it not the case that the basis for much of the dissatisfaction with the EU, as far as  the UK is concerned, lies in the fact that the original scenario, that of a free trade area, has been hijacked over the years by those wishing to create a European super state, with all the bureaucracy which has resulted?

Had we stuck to the initial concept, and not allowed our self promoting politicians to strike deals behind the scenes, then we would more than likely not be having the present discussion.

Dave.

I don't think the original scenario was simply to create a free-trade area. That may be the reason why Britain wanted to join at some stage, but the "founding fathers" had other ambitions which the British never really shared. Most of the posts above seldom rise above the purely materialistic: what's in it for us? What do we get out of it?

I was born just after the end of the Second World War, within walking distance of the Belgian border - that border was a 10-foot wall as far as most people were concerned. Today, I can simply take the car, drive 45mn (no visible border...), and have dinner in Bruges - no fuss. Lille, where I live, is part of a Euroregion which includes Kortrijk and Tournai. That's what Europe is about. Corrupt Euro-politicians? No more corrupt than others, perhaps even less.

Frenchnaim posted:

dave marshall posted:

Is it not the case that the basis for much of the dissatisfaction with the EU, as far as  the UK is concerned, lies in the fact that the original scenario, that of a free trade area, has been hijacked over the years by those wishing to create a European super state, with all the bureaucracy which has resulted?

Had we stuck to the initial concept, and not allowed our self promoting politicians to strike deals behind the scenes, then we would more than likely not be having the present discussion.

Dave.

I don't think the original scenario was simply to create a free-trade area. That may be the reason why Britain wanted to join at some stage, but the "founding fathers" had other ambitions which the British never really shared.

My point exactly.

The concept at the time, as presented to the UK electorate, was one of a free trade area, nothing more.

The subsequent birth of a European super state was orchestrated without the consent of said electorate, which, quite apart from the present economic arguments either way, explains the feelings of many, over remaining part of this beaurocratic monolith.

Dave.

dave marshall posted:

Frenchnaim posted:

dave marshall posted:

Is it not the case that the basis for much of the dissatisfaction with the EU, as far as  the UK is concerned, lies in the fact that the original scenario, that of a free trade area, has been hijacked over the years by those wishing to create a European super state, with all the bureaucracy which has resulted?

Had we stuck to the initial concept, and not allowed our self promoting politicians to strike deals behind the scenes, then we would more than likely not be having the present discussion.

Dave.

I don't think the original scenario was simply to create a free-trade area. That may be the reason why Britain wanted to join at some stage, but the "founding fathers" had other ambitions which the British never really shared.

My point exactly.

The concept at the time, as presented to the UK electorate, was one of a free trade area, nothing more.

The subsequent birth of a European super state was orchestrated without the consent of said electorate, which, quite apart from the present economic arguments either way, explains the feelings of many, over remaining part of this beaurocratic monolith.

Dave.

Not exactly what I meant... I doubt the original drafters had in mind the concept of a super state. This was the immediate post-war period, remember, France and Germany (and other European nations) had been at war for the best part of a century.

Besides, if you see Europe as a super state, you must admit it is a very weak form of super state - powerless in many areas. Attempts have been made to create a more coherent whole: they have been largely unsuccessful (France, for one, voted against the European Constitution, which was totally unworkable).

The dilemma, for Europe, is how to be more efficient as a community of nations, while preserving national sovereignties and identities. It's like squaring the circle...

Not exactly what I meant... I doubt the original drafters had in mind the concept of a super state. This was the immediate post-war period, remember, France and Germany (and other European nations) had been at war for the best part of a century. 

 

 

Besides, if you see Europe as a super state, you must admit it is a very weak form of super state - powerless in many areas. Attempts have been made to create a more coherent whole: they have been largely unsuccessful (France, for one, voted against the European Constitution, which was totally unworkable).

The dilemma, for Europe, is how to be more efficient as a community of nations, while preserving national sovereignties and identities. It's like squaring the circle...

Whether or not I see the EU as a superstate is largely unimportant, I simply question the determination of our politicians to bring that scenario into being, without reference to the UK electorate.

Dave.

Friends

Fascinating discussion. It's interesting to read your views. Many of your views reflect an inward looking nationalism that is now quite common in Europe and here in the US. Common themes are a dissatisfaction with government and a concern about uncontrolled immigration. 

For myself I do have a fear that we are missing some hard learned lessons from WW 1 and WW 2. Those who lived during that time are no longer around to remind has how much better a little bureacracy is than having the beast  at your door. And, as recent history informs us, the beasts are still out there.

The EU is certainly an imperfect organization but in a different way so is the organization of the 50 US States. Some 200 years after federation we still deal with state to state issues. Imperfect people creating imperfect organizations. 

I have been casually following your EU membership debate over the years and always find myself thinking that you may well be unpleasently surprised by the uninteded consequences should you choose to leave.

In the event, good luck with the debate.

 The UK is a net contributor, so the loss will be greater for the EC than for the UK if we leave.

Don't kid yourself, it's going to make precious little difference - the European budget is peanuts compared to our national budgets. And if you think Britain will have a totally free rein once it's left the EU, you're making a mistake, I believe. Like Norway and Switzerland, Britain will probably have to comply with European regulations.

Personally, I don't care whether Britain stays or leaves, I lived in Britain for a long time, and I will continue to visit my friends and relations once Britain has left - I'm just appalled by the abysmally low quality of the debate in the media.

Chris G posted:

European laws are forced upon the UK, and we currently have only limited right to make our own laws. 

Not sure if that is true, sounds like an urban myth to me.

But, if it where true, would it be a bad thing. I personally don’t think so. 

What do you prefer.

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in Brussels by a committee who make the decisions for the benefit of the general public. 

Or 

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in London by politicians who make the decisions for the benefit of themselves.

My opinion of UK politicians isn't very high; my opinion of European politicians is however considerably lower, so in answer to your question, I'd prefer the UK politicians.  At least we have the chance to vote them out of office every five years (though better when parliament wasn't for a fixed term.  

Don't the European politicians make decisions to suit their interests - and protect their power base?

Frenchnaim posted:

The dilemma, for Europe, is how to be more efficient as a community of nations, while preserving national sovereignties and identities. It's like squaring the circle...

The "European Union" and "Efficient" is an oxymoron.

Trying to get 28 nations to agree on anything is time-consuming, frustrating and expensive.

Getting them to change a rule, once it has been made, takes about five years - and that's for rules that all 28 agree NEED to be changed.

The UK isn't alone in seeing the need for change in many areas, especially in the areas that Cameron and Tusk have put before the European Parliament. But self-interest elsewhere will attempt to dilute or eliminate these proposals, regardless of whether they would improve the efficiency of the union of nations, or preserve national sovereignties and identities or not.

Will the EU be stronger with the UK in it ?

UK politicians make policies that appeal to the voters for the sole purpose of gaining votes and gaining/retaining power.

The same isn't true for EU politicians, in general nobody knows or cares what policies they come up with. (Unless it's a regulation on the shape/size of bananas, then it becomes front page news).

fatcat posted:

 

What do you prefer.

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in Brussels by a committee who make the decisions for the benefit of the general public. 

Or 

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in London by politicians who make the decisions for the benefit of themselves.

 

 

I'm not at all convinced that the assertions in red are justified.

Perhaps we should consider

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in Brussels by an un-elected committee.

or

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in London by elected  politicians.

 

 

 

fatcat posted:

UK politicians make policies that appeal to the voters for the sole purpose of gaining votes and gaining/retaining power.

The same isn't true for EU politicians, in general nobody knows or cares what policies they come up with. (Unless it's a regulation on the shape/size of bananas, then it becomes front page news).

 

Try working with EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency). Its been a nightmare for the past 10 years and we are still trying to sort out their mess. This is just one example area.

I think you'll find many people do care about real issues and have to spend years getting things put right.

Don Atkinson posted:

fatcat posted:

 

What do you prefer.

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in Brussels by a committee who make the decisions for the benefit of the general public. 

Or 

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in London by politicians who make the decisions for the benefit of themselves.

 

 

I'm not at all convinced that the assertions in red are justified.

Perhaps we should consider

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in Brussels by an un-elected committee.

or

Decisions on laws, policies and regulations taken in London by elected  politicians.

 

 

 

 

UK politicians make policies that appeal to the voters for the sole purpose of gaining votes and gaining/retaining power.

The same isn't true for EU politicians, in general nobody knows or cares what policies they come up with. (Unless it's a regulation on the shape/size of bananas, then it becomes front page news).

I'd personally prefer the  unelected committee.

fatcat posted:

I'd personally prefer the  unelected committee.

Fair enough.

No doubt others here will agree.

An article which will answer some of the questions:

http://www.economist.com/news/...pe-budget-didnt-bark

Frenchnaim posted:

An article which will answer some of the questions:

http://www.economist.com/news/...pe-budget-didnt-bark

Sorry, but it hardly answers any significant questions.

It's just a European whinge about who pays what into the common fund. Pretty pathetic really.

The whole funding issue needs to be re-structured to reflect who is able to contribute and who needs to receive, and it needs to be flexible to accommodate future changing circumstances.