EU, EU, EU - out, out, out

[The Don]

The UK conservative party has been split over EU membership for as long as I can remember and the issue periodically re-emerges to plague the party leadership. The recent success of UKIP in the local elections has brought the issue front and centre once again.

David Cameron (the UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party) is broadly pro-European but has agreed to an in/out referendum in 2017. The latest Queens Speech (legislation for the next parliament) does not contain legislation to ensure that the referendum takes place.

This has not placated a significant number of Conservative politicians, 100 of whom have voted for an amendment to call for that legislation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22542207

I've said it in many threads before but I believe that the British natural xenophobia combined with a constant drip, drip of eurosceptic right wing tabloid stories will allow the UK to sleepwalk into an EU exit. I am convinced that too many of the UK population will be swayed by promises of a return of the holiday duty free and won't appreciate the economic damage that an EU exit may bring about.

 

[lionking]

It will hurt the UK big time, and I hope sanity prevails. I doubt it will.

 

[MikeG]

I am anything but xenophobic, and am a complete Europhile.........but I question the wisdom of tying ourselves to the apron strings of a protectionist organisation with a failing currency, chronically weak economies and high unemployment, and where subsidies for agriculture and expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness. We have a trade deficit with Europe, and we also have an expensive extra and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and governance as a result of our membership.

Fixing Europe into a modern outward-looking trading organisation with low tariffs and more national sovereignty could help me change my mind, but there is no way that David Cameron's renogotiations will achieve anything like that. Therefore, as things stand, I am in the out-of-Europe camp.

Now, best of luck calling me xenophobic.

Mike

 

[spin0]

It will hurt the UK big time, and I hope sanity prevails. I doubt it will.

It would be a big loss for the rest of the EU too. I do hope UK chooses to stay with us, but it's their choice and no hard feelings if decides otherwise.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

It will hurt the UK big time, and I hope sanity prevails. I doubt it will.

Given the EU's systematic failings, and the fact that people have lost confidence in the EU, I don't see how it's "sanity" to tie yourself to an economic system that is in so much trouble that they have had to raid the savings of some of its member country's citizens.

ETA: This isn't helped by the fact that the EU considers ideas like this to be a good means of restoring confidence.

 

[DC]

wooot? how can anyone be against the EU?

 

[Rolfe]

Given your location, was that sarcasm?

Rolfe.

 

[DC]

Given your location, was that sarcasm?

Rolfe.

absolutely

i had hoped the would be an obvious give away

 

[Rolfe]

Just checking.

Rolfe.

 

[dudalb]

Given the EU's systematic failings, and the fact that people have lost confidence in the EU, I don't see how it's "sanity" to tie yourself to an economic system that is in so much trouble that they have had to raid the savings of some of its member country's citizens.

ETA: This isn't helped by the fact that the EU considers ideas like this to be a good means of restoring confidence.

That's the real problem. The Bureacrats in Brussels really do seem to fufill the Euro Skeptics worst accusation...that they want to become the surpreme governing power in Europe, with national governments being reduced to bureaucratic convienences.That is just not going to sell in a lot of European countries.And the accusation that the EU is really ran by France and Germany for the benefit of France and Germany is gaining steam also.

 

[DC]

That's the real problem. The Bureacrats in Brussels really do seem to fufill the Euro Skeptics worst accusation...that they want to become the surpreme governing power in Europe, with national governments being reduced to bureaucratic convienences.That is just not going to sell in a lot of European countries.And the accusation that the EU is really ran by France and Germany for the benefit of France and Germany is gaining steam also.

not in Germany nor France

 

[spin0]

I am anything but xenophobic, and am a complete Europhile.........but I question the wisdom of tying ourselves to the apron strings of a protectionist organisation

I'm also an Europhile. I am EU citizen, and I do support the aims and the spirit of the Treaty of Rome (1957).
I am:

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

To me those aims sound both sensible and, as we have seen, beneficial to the Europe as whole and to the individual member countries. I don't think many decision makers seriously deny the sensibility of those aims any more, and the member countries have already committed to them by signing the treaty.

So the question is not the aims per se, but how to reach and further refine them. How to move forward and how to further develop - and hopefully expand - the European Union? Personally I support moving forward on the path of integration. That stance probably makes me a federalist, though that's a bit vague epiteth.

with a failing currency,

Euro is not failing. All the numerous prophesies of Euro countries exiting the European Monetary Union and EMU dispersing have been proven wrong by reality. Despite the crisis both people and the decision makers in the €uro countries do support the currency and staying in it. Me too.

But EMU does have it's inherent flaws, and obviously mistakes were made when € was constructed (said so over ten years ago like so many others). The question is how to fix those flaws, not how to dismantle €. Banking Union is currently under negotiations as the next step.

chronically weak economies and high unemployment,

There's also very strong economies in EU. I for one am "ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions". Even if it will cost me in the short term I can see there's bigger benefits in the long term for me, my kids, their children, and Europe as whole.

and where subsidies for agriculture and expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness.

Ah, the infamous Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It does have it's flaws, yet I can't see how it "hugely harms international competitiveness". Could you please quantify how "hugely"?

These days CAP is not the monster is used to be long ago. Both it's relative share and absolute amount of the EU budget has been steadily declining during last decade or so (kudos to Tony Blair for his part), and the policy is to further reduce it on a year by year basis. See:

and

Some seem to categorically hate the CAP and promote drastic measures to end it altogether. I do not agree with that. The CAP does have it's flaws, which need fixing and are in the process of being fixed, but I do see the necessity of it.

Here's one reason: ensuring the supply of food to the EU's 500 million citizens is essential. Strategically it means maintaining the capabilities and knowhow to grow food in different parts of EU on a long term.

Because you never know what happens in the world on a long term: a giant volcano erupts somewhere, a new plant desease spreads wreaking havoc on the yields, wars brake out and trade is disrupted, a resistant pest spreads, climate change causes disrupts on farming etc. And suddenly there's scarcity of food.

Now those scenarios may sound unlikely, but how do you know on a long term. Maintaining productive agriculture in the EU is one way to insure there's food for its citizens.

That is not to say that the CAP does not need reforms. It does. And reforms are being implemented. Further information: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/

It is a bit ironic that when the 'austerity hawks' like David Cameron made cuts to the future EU budget, the CAP actually got bigger from the proposed. The big cuts were made to programs like Europe 2020, Horizon 2020, and Connecting Europe Facility. So if I hear Cameron complaining about CAP and how EU is not emphasizing growth and competitiveness enough, I know to laugh at his good and probably well meaned joke.

You wrote: "expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness". I honestly do not get your meaning there. Could you please elaborate on that. What are these "expensive social programmes"? How expensive are they? Could you please quantify how "hugely" they harm our competitiveness?

Your claims do sound worrisome, and I'd like to hear what should be done about it. At least here in Finland our problems in competitiveness within the EU or in global markets have very little to do with EU's social programmes. Could it be possible that UK's problems with competitiveness have something to do with UK's own policies?

I can recognize how some EU directives can hurt competitiveness, and mostly they go both ways. Finland's competitiveness as an export country did get hit unreasonably hard by the new sulphur directive (shipping), but we'll deal with that. In fact they just built the world's most enviromentally friendly cruise ship which uses LNG as fuel. Now go book a ticket for a cruise of immaculate Baltic tax-free intoxication and casual acquaintances with all those voluptuous Swedish and Finnish blondes in the name of European integration.

We have a trade deficit with Europe,

You do? Please sell us more stuff and services then, I promise we'll buy if it's of good quality and of competitive price. Promise!

Not that the existence of such trade deficit means much.

and we also have an expensive extra and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and governance as a result of our membership.

What the hell have you done in the UK and why the hell did you do that for. You do not need that extra unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and governance to deal with EU! You could simply get rid of that unnecessary layer of yours, and integrate the new services into your existing.

Fixing Europe into a modern outward-looking trading organisation with low tariffs

Yes. That was the aim decades ago. Lot of hard work and progress happened. Now it is. Common market with no tariffs. And with the negotiating power of a single market of 500 million people free-trade pacts with others have been negotiated and more are in the works. I support that.

and more national sovereignty could help me change my mind,

On one hand you say you are of the out-of-Europe camp, and on the other hand you say that if you had more national sovereignity you'd change your mind. Are sure you have really thought this through?

Here's another often heard contradictional position: I think EU lacks democracy, more national sovereignity!.

but there is no way that David Cameron's renogotiations will achieve anything like that.

I agree. I don't think there's much for Cameron to achieve that way.

I did appreciate his speech. He provided some very important points with which I do agree. But he did paint himself into corner at the same time, IMO. I wish he hadn't, as I wish the UK would stay with us and continue to share its vision and practical rationality with us to further develop this new thing for everybody's benefit.

Therefore, as things stand, I am in the out-of-Europe camp.

Well, as a fellow European I'm not happy to hear that but I do respect it.

Some say you were not informed but disinformed and even fooled the last time you had the referendum in the UK. Yet the treaty you voted for, accepted, and signed begins: "DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe"

If UK chooses to have a referendum again, I do hope UK is this time able to make an informed decision - without any fooling or disinformation clouding the famous rationality of your minds.

Now, best of luck calling me xenophobic.

Ok, you're xenophobic. What did I win?

 

[geni]

Given the EU's systematic failings, and the fact that people have lost confidence in the EU, I don't see how it's "sanity" to tie yourself to an economic system that is in so much trouble that they have had to raid the savings of some of its member country's citizens.

Err they didn't. That was the standard not protecting bank deposits above a certian value. Much the same happened with the Isle of man (and the sooner that particular tax haven is integrated into the UK proper the better).

 

[MikeG]

Jeez, it's a long time since anyone spent that much time and effort rebutting anything I had to say. Shame so much of it is wrong!

The Euro isn't failing, eh? Well, it sure has a curious way of showing it's strength, with constant bail-outs, country after country, to ensure that it all hangs together.

I don't care a jot about the tariffs within Europe......that wasn't my point. My point is that Europe puts up nasty big trade barriers with the rest of the world, and operates within them as though there is no real world going on outside. Africans, for instance, have virtually no access to our agricultural markets because of our tariffs. a "modern and outward looking" EU would have no trade barriers to the rest of the world.

The CAP is an abomination. If the French want it so badly, then my view is that the French should pay for it. Why on earth should my taxes support French tobacco farmers? The USA, New Zealand and Australia removed most of their agricultural subsidies years ago, and have benefited enormously from that. We pay subsidies, and the net result is uncompetitive farms and higher food prices, at great cost to every tax payer in the EU. It's beyond-words stupid.

The expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy I was talking about was the EU Commission. The unaccountable and enormously expensive folks who keep taking decisions which have an impact in our everyday lives without us having much of a say. Pooled sovereignty and all that. I wasn't referring to anything within the UK, as you seemed to think. Oh, and the European parliament. Please find some justification for that for me, because I haven't found any, other than giving a platform to a whole series of extremists.

I don't understand your difficulty with the idea of the return some of that pooled sovereignty ("competence") to the UK having an influence whether I vote in or out. I don't want a Europe which pools sovereignty, and one in which one of the aims is ever closer union. However, a Europe which is a club of trading nations, competing with each other, but in a tariff free zone......that I would be happier with, and that could persuade me to change my view. A move in that direction would tip the balance more towards an "in" vote.

I am profoundly unhappy with the idea of European laws trumping UK laws. Frankly, I don't see that our law and our criminal justice system is any business of any other country, any more than, for instance, Slovenia's laws are any of our business.

The treaty I voted for? Hmmmm. Now let me see. When was that exactly? Oh, 1975. That's right. When there were, what, 12 member states? And I was 14......

Mike

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The UK conservative party has been split over EU membership for as long as I can remember and the issue periodically re-emerges to plague the party leadership. The recent success of UKIP in the local elections has brought the issue front and centre once again.

David Cameron (the UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party) is broadly pro-European but has agreed to an in/out referendum in 2017. The latest Queens Speech (legislation for the next parliament) does not contain legislation to ensure that the referendum takes place.

This has not placated a significant number of Conservative politicians, 100 of whom have voted for an amendment to call for that legislation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22542207

I've said it in many threads before but I believe that the British natural xenophobia combined with a constant drip, drip of eurosceptic right wing tabloid stories will allow the UK to sleepwalk into an EU exit. I am convinced that too many of the UK population will be swayed by promises of a return of the holiday duty free and won't appreciate the economic damage that an EU exit may bring about.

Must be kinda difficult for the Tories at times to remember if today is a Better Together or a Better Out day. You think they might struggle with the cognitive dissonance of it all sometimes but they are Tories.

 

[geni]

I am profoundly unhappy with the idea of European laws trumping UK laws. Frankly, I don't see that our law and our criminal justice system is any business of any other country, any more than, for instance, Slovenia's laws are any of our business.

Problem is that as soon as you have free trade it isn't that straightforward. For free trade to work what one country accepts as say lead free paint has to be accepted by all countries. Otherwise you can get protectionism by gaming the standards.

 

[MikeG]

That is at the opposite end of the scale to determining who we can extradite, or the like.

 

[spin0]

Jeez, it's a long time since anyone spent that much time and effort rebutting anything I had to say. Shame so much of it is wrong!

Cheers, I would have appreciated if you had taken some time to demonstrate where exactly my correspodence to you was factually wrong. I also observe that you're not a person to notice the existence nor the meaning of a question mark in a sentece as a device to elicit further discussion. Amiright?

The Euro isn't failing, eh? Well, it sure has a curious way of showing it's strength, with constant bail-outs, country after country, to ensure that it all hangs together.

€ and EMU do have flaws. I thought I alredy said that with some further points which you gracefully ignored.

I don't care a jot about the tariffs within Europe......that wasn't my point.

My bad then for not understanding. If there were tariffs within our single market I'd be concerned, and would seek ways to get rid of them. And as you raised the point of tariffs in the first place I got the impression you'd care if such tariffs existed. But you do not care a jot. My error, sir.

Just to be clear: You are aware that UK is in the common free market with the rest of the EU+EFTA, are you?

My point is that Europe puts up nasty big trade barriers with the rest of the world, and operates within them as though there is no real world going on outside.

Nasty EU, negotiating free trade agreements with India, Canada, USA etc. That's not just nasty, it's eeeevil.

Africans, for instance, have virtually no access to our agricultural markets because of our tariffs. a "modern and outward looking" EU would have no trade barriers to the rest of the world.

Good point, there's reasons to rid of those barries down the road.

The CAP is an abomination. If the French want it so badly, then my view is that the French should pay for it. Why on earth should my taxes support French tobacco farmers? The USA, New Zealand and Australia removed most of their agricultural subsidies years ago, and have benefited enormously from that. We pay subsidies, and the net result is uncompetitive farms and higher food prices, at great cost to every tax payer in the EU. It's beyond-words stupid.

I take it you didn't read much anything I said.

The expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy I was talking about was the EU Commission. The unaccountable and enormously expensive folks who keep taking decisions which have an impact in our everyday lives without us having much of a say. Pooled sovereignty and all that. I wasn't referring to anything within the UK, as you seemed to think.

You want to improve EU by getting rid of its legislative organs. Uhm... how about if you just vote yourself out?

Oh, and the European parliament. Please find some justification for that for me, because I haven't found any, other than giving a platform to a whole series of extremists.

Yeah in a way I can understand the extremists part as that's what UK votes there. Then they isolate themselves from other parliamentary groups, and whine how isolated they are and lack power because of the eeeevil EU, and then they sleep through plenaries. And then they report back how eeeevil EU is again.

I don't understand your difficulty with the idea of the return some of that pooled sovereignty ("competence") to the UK having an influence whether I vote in or out.

I quite correctly noted that your position was in conflict with your other position on the same matter.

I don't want a Europe which pools sovereignty, and one in which one of the aims is ever closer union.

In that case your inventive, resourceful and smart nation should have kept within the EFTA. The very first sentence on the first page of the treaty you guys voted for, accepted, and signed says: "DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe".

However, a Europe which is a club of trading nations, competing with each other, but in a tariff free zone...... that I would be happier with, and that could persuade me to change my view. A move in that direction would tip the balance more towards an "in" vote.

We have that already. We do that already. Since decades.
And there you go with the "tariff" again despite having just said in the very same post "I don't care a jot about the tariffs within Europe".

I am profoundly unhappy with the idea of European laws trumping UK laws. Frankly, I don't see that our law and our criminal justice system is any business of any other country, any more than, for instance, Slovenia's laws are any of our business.

Ok, off you go then. While at it do remember to repeal the treaties with ECHR and Council of Europe, you know the very treaties and organs UK so hard worked for, and have been the foundation which you now see as worthless.

The treaty I voted for? Hmmmm. Now let me see. When was that exactly? Oh, 1975. That's right. When there were, what, 12 member states? And I was 14......

You mean UK needs a new referendum for every new generation to honor its treaties?

For every member country the EU has been very accomodating and has given various special considerations and exemptions, and especially to UK.

So I think it is possible to renegotiate a new deal, a sort of a second class membership for UK where UK has more sovereignity - though I don't know what it means in the context - and gets less to say in EU matters (perhaps an observer position?). And also hopefully less direct payment from Finland for UK's membership, for which we have heard nothing but the usual constant level of whining carried by SW winds.

But that's obviously not what you're after, Mike. Well, there's the possibility for UK to drop out of EU altogether and just remain as a member or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

You'd get to join the common market for a reasonable fee - IIRC it's some hundred million for Norway so perhaps would be a billion or so for UK, cannot say. And for that you'd get all the benefits of our single market. You'd also get some say in the planning of some directives concerning the market.

But there's the problem of pretending sovereignity. As you'd have no position for most EU decisions, to some extent you'd have to deal with the new concept of Government by Fax - as Norwegians fondly call it. Nah, it's not that bad as it sounds, as any Norwegian can tell you.

And that's not what you'd like anyway, Mike, as it still has the very same problems of a free market - "tariffs" as you aptly pointed out. For you I cannot conceive any other reasonable deal but to drop out from EU and EFTA altogether. You'd have a truly free market within UK, and a truly sovereing nation (ok, not before you repeal some international treaties your proud nation has long ago built and signed).

And imagine, Mike: with your own free market you could actually fulfill your dream and give Africans that access to your agricultural markets. Hell, you could have a free trade deal with Africa. All by yourself.


k, joking.

 

[MikeG]

Evidently the EU is a perfect institution, functioning in just the way that all the populace of the continent would desire, not wasting a single Euro, and benefiting the whole wide world.

So, do I waste an hour of my life on replying to someone who is incapable of understanding what I have said in clear and simple terms, and who has taken quite a sneering tone, or do I just forget it and move on, knowing that any response would produce more condescension and sneering?

Hmmmmm, let me see......

 

[geni]

That is at the opposite end of the scale to determining who we can extradite, or the like.

You claimed "I am profoundly unhappy with the idea of European laws trumping UK laws." as an absolute position that precludes the posibility of a meaningful scale.

I will also point out that there are still some chemical companies in the FTSE 100 and thus laws in that area are really rather important.