Re: Why provide _decent_ trading deal?
Wow so because those 2 will be fine we extrapolate the line and find that they all will.
Excellent work, A* to you. You should do this for a living!
In 1805, William Pitt the Younger, on hearing of Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Austerlitz, is reported to have said: "Roll up that map (of Europe) – it will not be wanted these 10 years". Well I have attended two meetings which suggest that the European Union has already rolled up its Data Protection Map of Europe so it …
I'm just curious as Viviane Reding's comments about discussions with Britain and *Ireland* being a waste of time never made the press over here in Ireland.
That being said, we mostly seem to run EU updates on the TV at about 1am on a Sunday night! So it's very easy to miss or to fall asleep as it's usually very boring and technical.
Ireland's definitely moved more towards an attitude of 'critical engagement' than British style Euroscepticism in recent years. There's been a serious change in attitude towards the European Commission and I don't think the Irish public is blindly pro-EU as they're often painted. We've thrown spanners in the works a few times with that highly inconvenient process known as democracy that our constitution insists on. At one stage the European Commission were actually forced to turn up and pretty much directly negotiate protocols with the Irish public as apparently we'd regected an EU treaty.
Can you imagine the horror for the poor commissioners!? Having to actually debate with voters in TV studios and town hall meetings.
I definitely wouldn't describe Irish attitudes as being in line with the UK on the EU though. I don't see any growing demand to pull out and there was a very long (multi-year) in depth debate about the Euro and how membership has played out during the economic crisis. I don't really think there's a sense that exiting and devaluing would be a good strategy.
I can only assume Ireland's been trying to negotiate to ensure it doesn't have to be too harsh on Facebook, Twitter etc all of which have European HQs in the Emerald Isle so technically the Irish Data Protection Commission is responsible for being their watchdog.
I mean if there's one thing Britain and Ireland agree on it's light touch regulation and corporate brown nosing! We wouldn't want to upset our respective business friendly reputations.
The UK's probably more concerned about being prevented from data slurping. Ireland's just trying to avoid having to annoy big data outfits.
I've found the same in Ireland. Back in the boom, with lovely EU grants, some of Ireland did very well and of course we all loved the EU's pockets... Now that austerity has hit and the EU wanted to get more than their fair share of money back from us to bail out their own issues (put us on the rack to some degree), we don't love them as much - more a we kinda like you, we're not sure we trust you but we still wanna be part of the 'team' - so we'll go along with it.
I used to live in the UK and now looking in, I find that a good proportion of people around my parents age (and younger) are very anti Europe - for no logical reason other than it's inbuilt. They've become increasing insular (or it was always there but now they have an outlet with the UKIP party and can voice it) and can not see the benefits, only the downsides of the EU. I think most of their stance is a mis-guided form of nostalgia, fed by the Daily Mail and all. Oh yes...things were better back in the war before all these EU rules.......
> I find that a good proportion of people around my parents age (and younger) are very anti Europe - for no logical reason other than it's inbuilt.
Rather than just assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must have no logical reason for doing so, why not try asking them?
> They've become increasing insular (or it was always there but now they have an outlet with the UKIP party and can voice it)
UKIP's policy is to trade with the whole world and to allow controlled immigration from the whole world rather than the current system of giving preference to the EU and allowing the EU to enforce protectionism against the rest of the world on our behalf. How does that give an outlet to insularity?
> I think most of their stance is a mis-guided form of nostalgia, fed by the Daily Mail and all.
You think? Again, why not try actually asking them?
I'm not nostalgic and I don't read The Mail. In fact, I used to be staunchly pro-EU. I've turned against them on simple grounds of democracy: the UK, for all its imperfections, has it, and the EU doesn't.
Since I have actually seen pro-EU politicians use the fact that Italian restaurants are really nice as an argument in their favour (as if we won't have any Chinese restaurants unless we cede some of our sovereignty to China), I find it amusing when people tell me that it's my side who are illogical.
>UKIP's policy is to trade with the whole world and to allow controlled immigration from the whole >world rather than the current system of giving preference to the EU and allowing the EU to enforce >protectionism against the rest of the world on our behalf. How does that give an outlet to insularity?
The insularity comes from the belief that the UK could achieve better trading terms with the rest of the world as a separate entity than as part of a huge trading block. It might be possible in some cases but other countries might decide that a potential market of 64 million people isn't as interesting as a market worth 550 million people.
As for controlled immigration, it is just an argument for segregation by nationality stemming from xenophobia. If UK companies find better candidates outside of the EU, there is nothing that forces them to give preference to EU candidates. It just happens to be easier to hire nationals from EU countries because of the abolition of visa requirements. The difference in labour rates between EU nations is actually a boon for UK companies since it is as close to free market conditions as they could expect.
"Well, the Irish did vote to pull out in a referendum, which surely constitutes some demand to pull out."
Are you serious? The Irish, in the face of a campaign that ran on the slogan "If you don't know, vote no", rejected 2 EU treaties, and then, after further widespread debate (to address the concerns about not knowing) and some additional concessions (the Seville Declaration for the Nice Treaty, and the retention of a Commissioner for every country for the Lisbon Treaty) voted very strongly in favour of the 2 treaties - over 60% voting Yes in each case, on higher turnouts.
The Irish electorate has NEVER voted to pull out of the EU - it has acted to make sure that some of the concerns of a small Nation in the EU were taken seriously, and the EU Heads of Government took these concerns on board. The Irish equivalent of UKIP insists that this process was "undemocratic", but both of these 2nd referendums actually had far greater public engagement on the often complex issues covered in EU treaties than probably anywhere else in Europe, (except accession debates, which are just as contentious in Eastern Europe today as they were in Ireland and the UK in the 60's and 70's)
"...if ... UK votes to leave the EU:
The UK will be outside the EEA "
The one does not automatically follow the other. Plenty of countries in the EEA but not the EU, so the rest of the article about the UK therefore no longer able to benefit from the DPA is open to challenge
and Spain....
And Norway.... they're broke aren't they.. Oh wait maybe not.
Personally I'm not in favour of exit but I always love it when people bang on about the benefits of the EU and then don't mention any.
When pushed they say things like "well if we leave XYZ won't trade with us", "embargoes", "duties stuck on British goods", etc. FWIW these are the same arguments I heard when we "HAD" to join the Euro otherwise British industry would die within the week.
So their argument boils down to "the benefit of being in the EU is that the EU won't beat us up".
That's a VERY unhealthy relationship.
The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EEA countries that are not part of the EU enjoy free trade with the European Union.
But but remaining in the EEA will mean Europeans are still free to move between EEA countries. The whole reason we want to leave the EU is because there are millions of foreign people arriving on a monthly basis and getting thousands of pounds handed to them by that bird from the postcode lottery adverts. We will have to leave the EEA too
Personally I think we could be on the road to a very difficult future thanks to our politicians panic over loosing elections and or their desire to maintain votes.
1) The Scottish refrendum was offered as a sop in the belief that Salmond and Co couldn't possibly win. Well that could be a very close run thing. Whatever the right and wrongs of self determination if the Scots vote to leave there will be earthquakes to cope with. Not least of which the likely change in the balance of power at westminster and the rise of English nationalism in the R-UK.
2) Immigration and UKip, again whatever the rights and wrongs, the actual numbers of people and their origins. Demographic changes can be toxic in a shrinking economy. Plus the growing cultural changes embedded with 2nd and 3rd generations from commonwealth migrants of 40 years ago. In order to head off UKip, the Govt-of the-Day would probably sacrifice their eldest children or any other electoral bribe to stay ahead in the polls.
(Mind you I do chuckle when the die hard English enjoy and boast about the benefits of a cheap Polish builder whilst spending the saved money going for a curry washed down by German lager..)
So it is possible that in the next couple of years we will have a shrunken UK (unexpected consequence 1) blaming all of it's problems on Europe. With the English demanding a trading relationship with the EU whilst denying Scotland use of the pound etc. etc.. Leading up to an absolute IN\OUT referundum (unexpected consequence 2) which may result in us leaving. The R-Europe could then say to the R-UK, 'Sorry you couldn't stay, but at least we can crack on without you now.. And Oh by the way could you take back your Two million ex-pats pensioners..' (unexpected consequence 3)
Can I suggest a growth industy to get into could be repatriation\removals
Against a lilkely possible future of serious climate change and a still dodgy financial system. it does all seem a bit silly, but that's Five year time horizon politicians for you.
Given that not a single member of the general public has ever voted for what we have in Europe today, I fail to see what the problem of giving the people a vote to either legitimise it or remove it?
Or shall we just scrap all remaining traces of our democracy an give us no say in anything?
I also find it funny that assuming that we left Europe, we'd become isolated and lose trade left right and centre falling in to a pit of oblivion. Which is curious given that there are many examples of countries doing very well indeed without being tied to the EU and we are in a prime position to setup direct trade links with free trade to the rest of the commonwealth, one of the largest markets on the planet.
Now I'm not saying we should leave the EU but it should be changed and we should all have a say in whether we want to be apart of that, that is not unreasonable
Sorry, but that is simply untrue. Every single country entering the EU had the possibility of asking its citizens if they agreed, many did - some with negative results (ie Norway, of course).
Since that time, there have been a few referendums to have citizens decide on key points. You can find a comprehensive list here.
But your opinion is nevertheless quite interesting, it demonstrates exactly how you consider the EU. Maybe that is the reason your government wants to leave it.
You should watch Peter Vlemmix's documentary about the EU: EUROMANIA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO4Ayo4mYZg)
Pay attention to the part where some countries voted against the European Constitution, with more votes planned and they got so worried that more people would vote it down. So they just changed the name to Treaty of Lisbon and did it in a way so that in the end almost no one voted on it.
Thanks for the link - a riveting film. I have just watched a bit as it is bedtime in the deep south where I live but I will certainly continue it tomorrow.
One thing I would mention is that he did not go back far enough in his search for the origins of the EU. The initial germ was planted long before the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s. It was apparently planted by the Nazis in the closing stages of the war when they realised they were going to lose and decided to lay the groundwork for a new United Europe, which would adopt different tactics to the fire and brimstone methods that had failed them. This was based on a plan originating from the German company IG Farben in 1940.
The first President of what would evolve into today's European Commission was a prominent Nazi lawyer called Walter Hallstein. Google 'nazis and EU' for a lot more disturbing stuff like that.
Actually my friend, the only thing the UK public has ever voted for regarding Europe is the EC elections of 1975, the EC was setup in the 60s, in 75 we voted to remain apart of it, since then any resemblance of the EC was absorbed and transformed in to the EU. There is largely nothing wrong with the concept of the EC as it was, its the EU I have a problem with given that it dictates policy (though WM has to rubber stamp it) without any public mandate to do so. I also have a problem with the common agricultural policy which has spanned the two (EC / EU) and has been nothing sort of disastrous for the industry here. but that's a debate for another time.
If the people want it and vote for it then fine, I wont like it but that is democracy, as it is, we haven't voted for most of it.
I'm always baffled by the number of people supporting Cameron in leaving the EU and/or wielding the dangerous threat to do so, at the risk of having to do it for political reasons. Who cared a single second when he went berzerk on Junker election ?
After all, the UK is one of the few countries to still have a full sovereign currency in the EU: it can print money ad nauseam to start the economy again, so doesn't suffer from one of the sole EU problem.
Then, it seems unavoidable, to me, UK (minus Scotland) will leave the EU, so noisy was the spin around how it would make things better. This data protection ridicule posture and how no-one cares is one more syndrom that it will make everyone outside of UK happy.
End of the day, this will only kill UK exports to EU (yeah, no painful security/safety requirements anymore, china-style, only to be treated as the same rubbish).
I really hope Cameron gets to his senses again, so as to avoid the UK going down ...
regadpellagru: Cameron was determined not to hold a referendum in the first place, until his hand was forced; even now, he is determined to accept whatever terms the EU may offer rather than support leaving. You should also bear in mind the exports in question are mostly in the opposite direction, *from* the other EU countries *to* the EU, so any barriers erected would actually be more to the UK's benefit than the other way round!
I'm always baffled by this continental perception of Cameron as if he were some sort of extreme Eurosceptic, when in reality he is still firmly on the Europhile side of British public opinon, having fought hard to prevent a referendum earlier this parliament (tearing his own party apart with a 'three line whip' to block it) and now being determined to fight on the EU's side if there is one next parliament.
If you're worried about Cameron, I'd love to see your reaction if we ever get a Eurosceptic government!
If Scotland votes for independence, it won't happen overnight, so how long will the transition take? If the 2015 general election results in a Conservative led coalition or minority government that relies on UKIP support, an EU referendum could take place before Scottish independence is completed. If the Scots vote to remain in the EU while the rUK votes to leave, then the Scots could inherit the UK's membership. But if Wales and Northern Ireland also vote to remain within the EU and effectively join with the Scots in a new federal UK, the end result could be England no longer being in the UK or the EU.
As an aside, I'd like to know how many "better together" supporters of maintaining the United Kingdom are also "better off on our own" supporters of withdrawing from the EU...
As I understand it, Mr Cameroon does *not* wish the UK to leave the EU, but wants the EU, particularly the EC to become more efficient, and more in tune with the electorate of all nation states, rather than it being this deaf leviathan that is hell bent on creating a monster Federal Europe. Something that the people of France, Germany, Italy, etc.. do NOT want.
It is that un-listening monster that is rearing it's head here.. "Don't listen to the UK, they're not part of what *we* want to do".
And what if what "*we*" want to do is wrong? And what the UK is saying is right?
That is my concern here. The arrogance of the issue. Whether the UK is undergoing a political upheaval is neither here nor there, it is the matter that the UK is being ignored in a matter where it has every right to be part of the process.
We're (UK) not the only country to show an anti-EU Nationalist resurgence in recent times. The French, Danes, Dutch, and others have all seen dissent grow in recent times, yet I don't see them getting the same treatment.
Perhaps we should complain to the European Court of Human Rights?
My view - better in than out, but steering the ship, not hanging over the side puking up all the time.
And a ship that only has one berth, not two! The regular movement between Brussels and Strasbourg has to stop - it costs the EU tax payers and is a total waste of money.
Not that the EU has ever wasted money before....
... I would hope it would put paid to any stupid ideas of leaving the EU.
England, Wales and NI outside the EU (and especially if Scotland remained inside, which is most likely) would be a very weak entity, and hopefully enough little Englanders may actually face up to this.
And given the choice between Scotalnd being part of the EU or part of the UK outside the EU, which would they choose?
The British were tricked into joining what liars like Edward Heath convinced them would be a friendly trading cooperative, by a self-appointed European political elite who knew exactly what it was always intended to be - a dictatorial European Super-Power controlled by a single, economically powerful country masquerading as one of the team. What is it the Scots say about 'he who pays the piper'?
Instead of cowing the peasantry with bombs and bullets as the last lot tried to do, the EU very shrewdly chose the weapon of stultifying bureaucracy - it is cheaper, does not damage the infrastructure, does not kill off the cannon-fodder, and is more effective at sapping the will and clouding the judgement of the people. The EU's non-stop, mind-numbing bureaucratic diarrhoea is easy to mock, but it is an essential, and carefully manipulated part of this process.
There is no place for Britain, with its long history of freedom and democracy, in this lumbering, bullying behemoth. And the notion that, despite its infrastructure, expertise, economy and global connections, Britain could not survive outside the suffocating Euro-monster, is simply ludicrous. The last European dictatorship that invited Britain to join was rebuffed with disgust, and this one should be too.
There is a fair amount wrong with the EU democratically, but there is increasingly things wrong with the UK implementation of the state operating system known as democracy. The UK ruling elite all seem to be concerned with reducing citizens freedoms and protections (data and otherwise) often in favour of 'relations' with another powerful state (USA if you dont know) that is only concerned with its allies if it is within its current interests (what a surprise). The EU for all its faults is amenaible to change and challange (see M Thatcher) and increasingly is the only refuge from an increasingly oppresive state - they protect our freedoms more and more better than Parliament, which is appalling.
The method of implementing EU directives etc by gold-plated UK legislation is a rod the UK created for its own back,and probably to ensure the rise of something like UKIP - is that paranoid?
If we are not careful we will end with a state similar to that 'V' fought against, only with no hope of a 'V'.
The mention of Scotland is a red-herring here until they are independent or have voted to be so..
by the way the icon selection appears to have gone wrong, I tried to select Unhappy
Living in Belgium, but being connected to the UK via numerous TV-stations, websites and some friends (who are British but living in Germany), I find it hard to believe that the UK is so negative towards Europe. Especially on forums the gratuitious comments are abound. I wonder if this isn't just a way of getting rid of all unhappy feelings in their life. What will you vilify if you have lost the EU ;-) The tabloids will go bankrupt !
Few things in life have a healthy financial return on investment. Do you get more from the government than you pay ? Do you get more from your insurance-company than you pay ? Your marriage ? Your children ? The EU is no exception, but it is a ticket to power on a global scale.
If you are in Europe you play on a bigger stage. Cameron seemed to want a "forceful" intervention from Europe in the Ukraine... while he does everything in his power to prevent Europe from having such a united say in international politics, let alone military clout. He wanted sanctions that other nations would have to pay, none that would hurt the financial interests of the city... He is not what you would call a loyal partner. He wants the power, without the cost...
We should have European elections for a president, like in the US, with parties working on a European scale, that would change the whole game. Every politician would have to gain votes in every state of the EU. Perhaps Cameron would even be inclined to learn German :-)
Frankly I wouldn't like to stand in his shoes... He is gambling with everyone's future, and what is he hoping to gain ? The US wants him to stay IN, to block every move that might go against their interests (like the data protection act), alas the UKIP is stealing his votes so he has to pretend his has the power to change Europe so he can stay IN, AND promise a referendum to get OUT. Sleepless nights.
For a long time I have wished the UK to become a full member of the EU, leading the way, instead of the grumbling dead weight it seems to become. Still nothing is lost yet.
Can you get your X marker man to shift the X so that we paddies are not shown as part of the UK on the map.
It took us 800 years to extraditable ourselves from your loving embrace, so we are a tweetch sensitive about it.
If the Scotties leave X marker man will have upgrade his photoshop skills!
With regard to the threads of discussion on democracy--
The story is told that upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was accosted by a woman who demanded to know "What kind of a government have you given us?" Dr. Franklin is quoted as replying, "A republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
There is a significant difference between pure democracy and the representative forms of "small r" republican government most Western "democracies" attempt to practice. If I understand what I read, Plato's belief was that true democracy would inevitably degenerate into mob rule.
Our Brit cousins avoided this by turning parliament into the longest running comedy review extant. This is, at least, intellectually diverting and entertaining.
We in the US dodged the bullet by cleverly transitioning directly to an oligarchy of special interests who at regular intervals purchase the services of those who govern us--giving us the leisure to watch such edifying fare as the Kardashians and Duck Dynasty.
Fortunately, both our fine nations still have the power to address this at the polls--something we need to get about in the US before those 2700 armored vehicles the feds bought to protect us get fully armed and deployed.
I think the issue here may be EU wanting to continue strong data protection laws, whilst UK is probably following the US line of "Well, let's 'balance' this against the need for whatever" which means watering down and removing people's rights. If you have UK and only UK (out of EU members) arguing to water this stuff down, then eventually the rest will just quit listening to them.