What "powers" do the "euroskeptics" want back?

[Francesca R]

Indeed.
We Bright people should have more votes.

Not really my point, which is that the present-day crop of registered voters should probably not be handed power to effectively bind future generations into an outcome that would likely reflect transitional biases. Of course without constitutional safeguards they can do that, but I would rather they were not given the opportunity.

 

[Puppycow]

No, that only applies to the EMU17.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Darat]

No, that only applies to the EMU17.

It will also apply to any country that wants to join the Euro via EU membership at a future date.

 

[Johny2x4]

It will also apply to any country that wants to join the Euro via EU membership at a future date.

Speaking of that. Does Poland still wants to join the Euro?

 

[Francesca R]

Yes but not yet.

 

[Humes fork]

Yes but not yet.

What's the opinion of their people?

In Sweden right now, 88% are opposed to joining the euro.

 

[Francesca R]

Net negative and falling. There is a lot of information in the annual Eurobarometer survey (see section 3 starting page 33); the last one was August 2011.

 

[scissorhands]

Not really my point, which is that the present-day crop of registered voters should probably not be handed power to effectively bind future generations into an outcome that would likely reflect transitional biases. Of course without constitutional safeguards they can do that, but I would rather they were not given the opportunity.

Other than the present day "crop of voters" ,which "crop of voters" would you prefer?

 

[scissorhands]

Not really my point, which is that the present-day crop of registered voters should probably not be handed power to effectively bind future generations into an outcome that would likely reflect transitional biases. Of course without constitutional safeguards they can do that, but I would rather they were not given the opportunity.

Sounds very democratic.

 

[Francesca R]

Other than the present day "crop of voters" ,which "crop of voters" would you prefer?

something like a mix of today's voters, voters who will be registered in 25 years' time, 50 years' and 75 years' time, weighted something like 40:30:20:10. Then probably a 55% vote hurdle to change national policy. Not sure about the supermajority part.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Indeed.
We Bright people should have more votes.

No, just that it's a travesty that the masses don't actually understand what's happening. Whether they agree with the EU or not isn't my issue, it's that the vast majority of people are barely able to understand how the general election works.

I'm sure it sounds elitist and nasty of me, but it's not an attack on the populace. I think that almost everyone would be able to understand at least the basic mechanics of politics, but they aren't given the opportunity to learn properly. From a severely limited civics education in school, the popular belief that it's all boring and doesn't matter, and probably most of all the shrieking hysteria in the populist newspapers that distorts or outright lies about the political process and what certain organisations do people are confused, put off and just generally apathetic and ignorant, and that is a sad and rather damning indictment of the world.

 

[Aber]

No, that only applies to the EMU17.

Sure? A draft text seems to imply that it applies to any country which signs up to it.

The financial institutions bit is slightly more involved that just a transaction tax. A draft text has a clause which refers to 'enhanced co-operation on matters which are vital to the smooth functioning of the euro area, without undermining the internal market'. Does this mean the the Euro 17 could, for example, ban shorting of euro denominated sovereign debt, or impose a service charge on transactions in euro-denominated securities on these grounds?

 

[Francesca R]

Yes I'm sure.

 

[EvilQuest]

I suspect that what some of the euroskeptics really want is for us to exit the EU entirely, not just grabbing back scraps from the table at brussels. They believe that the EU is tending towards a federal United States of Europe, wherein everything is ultimately controlled by a centralised government based in Brussels. We already have only a minority vote in the EU so no real power anyway and as we have seen from recent events we know what happens when you dare to say "no" to the EU: threats of reprisal, insults, etc so what do we have here? A democratic organisation or an effective dictatorship? They want our money but not our opinions. They will shake our hands and smile only so long as we agree to whatever they tell us to agree to. Just pay your money and no questions asked.

If we came out we wouldn't lose trading connectons with EUrope. Has Norway?

We import more from the EU than we sell to it, so it's to Europe's benefit to keep trading with a country with a market of some 60 mill. Jobs are safe. It costs us billions to be in the EU. money that might better be spent on schools, hospitals, anything?

I suspect that some euroskeptics think things like this (and have other arguments in favour of exiting the EU)

You know what? They just might be right!

EQ