|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does the UK need a in-out referendum on the EU?
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
AFAICS, the main argument against such a referendum is that it will produce the 'wrong' answer - and I tend to agree with the Economist that there isn't really a good option for the UK outside the EU. But if the UK carries on as we are doing then we will become ever more marginalised, so the answer is to have a referendum in the hope that that will, as the last one did, settle the question for a generation. Of course there is a serious danger that the voters will decide that there is an alternative... But it is certainly valid to argue that the terms of the last referendum have been totally breeched - once again politicians proved that they are unwilling to tell the truth to the people; the story then was that we were agreeing to be in a Free Trade Area, and that there was NO PROSPECT of the EEC becoming a super-state.
(To add an amusing coda - one of the most entertaining outcomes would be a vote by Scotland to stay in, and by England to leave. This would allow Scotland to become independent of England - as they might vote in 2014 - and stay in the EU however much Spain would object to a separatist group staying in the EU when it broke from its previous country. This would be on the logic that Greenland left the EU but Denmark remained in.)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, we do want an in-out referendum.
Yes, we do want to be out.
We should strengthen ties and trade with the commonwealth. Europe is failing.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Except that the commonwealth is moving on, trading with the Asia-Pacific group, China, each other, with very limited interest on the economic side with the UK. This is not very nice to say but it captures the general sentiment. The UK is seen as a quaint tourist destination with old fashioned customs, cute accents, inability to understand multiculturalism, except as a social and ethnic problem, and substantial social problems. You have the royals and people with titles who are thought of as interesting and if entertaining social parasites. Sorry. There would be more interest in trade generally with EU if they actually managed the bloc's economy with some semblance of order. The Germans are seen as possibly providing that, and the interest might be improved if some of the failing economies were eliminated from it, like Greece. The Americans are interested in mid-east oil, and the usefulness of the EU for that end may be eclipsed completely by NATO over time.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
One of the arguments being used in favour of Scottish independence is the possibility that a referendum would take the UK out of the EU, when Scotland is generally in favour of remaining in.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
With 20/20 hindsight we should have gone in at the start and helped shape it to suit ourselves.
Heath took us in on a 'at any price' basis, and quite apart from getting us a poor deal, it is quite clear that the British public were conned about what we were joining.
Back in 1974 there were other options, which have now largely vanished. So we are in a federation which does not suit us (but appears to suit most if not all of the rest) and if we come out it will be a massive and risky step.
I would be happier about taking a 'massive and risky' step if I had *any* faith in *any* of our political leaders. I have not - this generation seems to have spawned a race of political pygmies.
My overall conclusion is that the country is in a scary mess, between a rock and a hard place. I doubt it will end well. We could finish up looking something like pre-revolutionary Portugal, but without the sunshine and the seafood.
As my granddad used to say - 'I'm glad I'm not young.'
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
With 20/20 hindsight we should have gone in at the start and helped shape it to suit ourselves.
I thought we were kept out because the French didn't want us.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
No, what we need is for the EU to carve the UK up and give it to other European nations. Then we'd get away from all this horrible xenophobia and racism dressed up as anti-EU sentiment. Not sure it would be better in any other European country, but it couldn't be worse. And it might stop the relentless march of Americanisation we've seen over the last century.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I must admit I tend to do 15th rather than 20th Century history, but IIRC we could have gone in when the initial steel and coal treaty was put together. We chose not to for political reasons, one being that the then-powerful Miners' Union was agin it. The Continentals (bar possibly the French) were keen to have us, but we still saw ourselves as 'different' to them, more focused on the Commonwealth and world trade in general.
Of course, it's all a bit academic as we can't go back to 1951 and change our minds. And now, IMHO, our options are uncomfortably limited.
[ 09. December 2012, 15:52: Message edited by: Sighthound ]
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
If you send Nigel of UKIP off to be your European UK rep, that should put a fairly sturdy nail in the coffin.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
That sort of scenario keeps me awake at nights. But realistically, it overlooks problem no. 1, which is the increasing financial tension caused by differential development rates. Whilst the initial reaction of a move towards fiscal union looks attractive, in the medium term it will make things worse, as resentment at financial institutions (primarily the ECB) will be replaced by political resentment. Matters would likely get very ugly indeed.
Turkey isn't a member of the EU yet of course, though I assume the assumption is that it will be. The extent to which it may dominate things is dependent on many factors. Financially it has an economy that has a reputation for having failed to address inflation - if that continues inside the EU it will be in the same camp as PIIGS group or whatever they are being called now.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
Germany isn't the only dominant nation in the EU - you're forgetting the French.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Having a referendum now seems pointless because the EU itself is in a state of flux.
ISTM very likely that the Eurozone members will negotiate some kind of new settlement to mitigate the euro's various failings and absurdities. However, until we know what such a settlement looks like, we can't make an informed decision on whether we want to be part of a trans-national body that contains it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
Am I a xenophobe for liking Europe and the Europeans but hating the EU?
To answer the original question, I think we ought to have a referendum in the next couple of years. Some say that holding referendums is wrong but if we can have a referendum on AV (for which there was little public appetite) I think we can have one on the issue of EU membership, particularly given that a significant minority and perhaps even a majority are in favour of leaving it.
I don't think it's the sort of thing that can held tomorrow, though. What if, for instance, the majority voted to stay in in an In/Out Referendum? Does that mean stay in as we currently are, pursue deeper integration with the other EU members or something else? More than one question might be needed.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I think we need a referendum, if only to force the issue. If the Conservatives promise to hold a referendum then that should defang UKIP and help us to win the next General Election outright.
I think we should then call the referendum and campaign FOR staying in the EU, albeit with some mandate to get tougher on some of the EU laws we are asked to apply. I also think it should be a 5 or 6 weeks campaign. There are lots of issues to debate and they need to be put before the public.
My own gut feeling is that once the positions have been discussed and debated in detail, the public will vote to remain in the EU, and by a substantial margin. The “significant” minority of “anti’s” is only significant because they are fed the anti-EU stories in the Daily Mail and so on, and I think those numbers are soft.
In a formal referendum, when campaign literature is sent to their homes, and posters go up, and the debates and party political broadcasts start, and continue for 6 weeks, I think the numbers will shift back to remaining in.
It will also force some of the EU-sceptics in the Conservative party to tow the line as we will have a mandate to remain in.
Why should we get the wrong result, if staying in is the right thing to do? If staying in the right thing to do we should make a case for it and let it stand before the electorate. I think we’ll get the right result because the case is good. I suspect the three main parties will all campaign to stay in, as will the SNP in Scotland.
On the subject of Scottish independence, I listened to a report on the Today programme last week and it said that the EU had confirmed that if Scotland left the UK, it would no longer be in the EU as of right because the EU membership is in the name of the United Kingdom. Scotland would be a new country in the eyes of the EU, and would therefore have to apply to join as a new member. This would mean they would have to join the Euro as well. This is a point that we will be making quite strongly before any independence referendum. I understand the SNP were a little upset about it!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On the subject of Scottish independence, I listened to a report on the Today programme last week and it said that the EU had confirmed that if Scotland left the UK, it would no longer be in the EU as of right because the EU membership is in the name of the United Kingdom. Scotland would be a new country in the eyes of the EU, and would therefore have to apply to join as a new member. This would mean they would have to join the Euro as well. This is a point that we will be making quite strongly before any independence referendum. I understand the SNP were a little upset about it!
/tangent It's my understanding that there has been no official statement from the European Commission yet, although there have been a number of people suggesting that this is their view. It is however disputable under international law - which is why Salmond is clinging to the hope that he may get to stay in, and carrying on muddying the waters. If they don't, then the referendum is a dead duck: Scotland clearly does not have a future outside the EU.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Isn't the case of Catalonia going to clarify this even sooner?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
Am I a xenophobe for liking Europe and the Europeans but hating the EU?
On this subject it's worth recalling that Nigel Farage's wife is German ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split? And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
No it wasn't - the Czech Republic and Slovakia both made separate successful applications to join.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
With 20/20 hindsight we should have gone in at the start and helped shape it to suit ourselves.
I thought we were kept out because the French didn't want us.
Only after de Gaulle came to power. The founding six MSs rather hoped we would join them in 1957 but we declined as we still had the Empire, by and large, at that point; the bloody nose of Suez hadn't yet fully registered. Half a dozen years on, decolonisation had firmly begun and we belatedly woke up to the fact that we might just need new trading partners, but were at that point rebuffed by the General's non.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
Indeed. I used to be pretty Eurosceptic, but then one day I woke up to the point that you've just made (that and the fact that it's managed to keep an increasingly large area of Europe at peace for 60 years and managed on the whole to integrate all sorts of potentially difficult countries, beginning with Germany, into liberal democratic western European norms- which are considerable achievements but ones which we could in principle admire from afar). I suppose the last two major 'neither Brussels nor Washington' people were Tony Benn (and that's still his position AFAIK) and Enoch Powell. But whether it's a tenable position nowadays, when even the Swiss are increasingly conforming to EU norms, may be open to doubt. There are all sorts of ways in which the EU needs reforming, but ultimately it's still a Good Thing and we should be fully engaged.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split? And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
As I understand it, there is a concept of a 'successor state' in International Law. When the Soviet Union broke up, for example, Russia was regarded as the successor state and got the Soviet Union's position on the Security Council, etc. Serbia claimed to be the successor state of Yugoslavia but this was not recognised and she had to make a fresh application to join the UN.
If the United Kingdom were to break up completely into four, fresh countries, there would no doubt be some argument as to which of the four countries is the successor state to the UK. But if only Scotland leaves, the UK continues in a smaller form.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split? And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
When Greenland split from Denmark it then had to apply to leave the EU. If the same thing followed Scotland and the disUnited Kingdom would both be EU members.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
/tangent It's my understanding that there has been no official statement from the European Commission yet, although there have been a number of people suggesting that this is their view. It is however disputable under international law - which is why Salmond is clinging to the hope that he may get to stay in, and carrying on muddying the waters. If they don't, then the referendum is a dead duck: Scotland clearly does not have a future outside the EU.
By coincidence this is now on the BBC's web site from Manuel Barroso confirming that Scotland would have to apply in her own right post independance...
New States Must Apply to Join EU
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split?
No. Czechoslovakia was in the Soviet sphere of influence and therefore a member of the Warsaw Pact rather than the EU. Neither of the post-split countries joined the EU until at least 2003.
quote:
And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
I don't think so, because the UK is a union of four constituent countries. The secession of one would not affect the international standing of the UK, there being the important precedent of the UK having previously 'survived' the secession of Southern Ireland without any effect on the UK's treaty obligations, diplomatic recognition or membership of international organisations.
More recently, the secession of South Sudan also did not make any change to the membership of Sudan in any international organisations, and South Sudan has had to apply for their own membership in international organisations since then.
The dissolution of Czechoslovakia without either state being recognised as the sole successor state is very much the exception, and that exception only worked because it was mutually agreed upon and both states pledged to adhere to Czechoslovakia's treaty obligations. That mutual agreement definitely won't be there for Scotland because the UK has too much at stake to give up just over a Scottish attempt to have their cake and eat it too.
Of course, the other members of the EU could force the issue to reach a different conclusion in that organisation only if they wanted. I would consider that extremely unlikely because the EU needs the UK a lot more than it would need Scotland. And then if it got really nasty, the UK has the even bigger stick of having the right to veto Scotland's attempt to gain membership of the UN.
[ 10. December 2012, 11:38: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
Oh, I am at least as Americanosceptic as I am 'Eurosceptic'. And it's EU-sceptic, please. I have nothing, per se. against a continent or its peoples (e.g. I had a rather good week away this summer in Croatia, which is alas, falling into the EU trap). I have a lot against an unelected body like the EU Commission deciding things for me and the 'voters' of EU member states.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
That contradicts what happened with Greenland, so either he's wrong or something has changed.
Does anyone around here understand the Treaty of Lisbon, which seems the likeliest candidate for change in EU policy.
{cross posted = reply to deano}
[ 10. December 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: balaam ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
/TANGENT ALERT
That's Jeremy Clarkson's view as well. He is pro-European, a bit anti-EU, and definitely quite scornful of the USA.
That might not come accross in the soundbite telly he does, but in his books he has stated it many times.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
Oh, I am at least as Americanosceptic as I am 'Eurosceptic'. And it's EU-sceptic, please. I have nothing, per se. against a continent or its peoples (e.g. I had a rather good week away this summer in Croatia, which is alas, falling into the EU trap). I have a lot against an unelected body like the EU Commission deciding things for me and the 'voters' of EU member states.
I'm as pro-EU as Alaric is agin' it but as far as the EU Commission is concerned we're of one mind. The members must be directly elected, rather than superannuated party hacks from the constituent contries, and they must take their lead from the European Parliament not the Brussels machine.
Imagine the British Cabinet formed exclusively from members of the House of Lords, legislation being formulated and put to it by civil service policy branches and the House of Commons being relegated to a debating chamber with no executive power whatsoever.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm as pro-EU as Alaric is agin' it but as far as the EU Commission is concerned we're of one mind. The members must be directly elected, rather than superannuated party hacks from the constituent contries, and they must take their lead from the European Parliament not the Brussels machine.
Imagine the British Cabinet formed exclusively from members of the House of Lords, legislation being formulated and put to it by civil service policy branches and the House of Commons being relegated to a debating chamber with no executive power whatsoever.
I completely understand your position, but the elected legislature was originally conceived with the inherent weaknesses deliberately built in.
If the European Parliament had more authorities, it would be able to claim a mandate and introduce legislation usurping sovereign parliaments and governments. Thus it is individual Governments have to supply commissioners, and the EU Parliament can be ignored.
I doubt whether there will be any appetite anywhere to build more democracy into the EU, as it would undermine the sovereign governments and legislatures. Can you imagine the Germans agreeing to that?
At least the current system allows us to elect or leaders here in the UK, and we then allow them to choose who should be the commissioners in the EU, and we can change them at will. It actually enables more control by sovereign governments. Giving a legitimate mandate to the EU will reduce that control.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
Germany isn't the only dominant nation in the EU - you're forgetting the French.
The EU is increasingly a German sphere of influence with the French playing second fiddle. Hollande recently tried to position France in defiance of German austerity demands and very soon had to back down. I think on a split between performing Euro countries (the northern group) and non-performing Euro countries (the southern med group) France would probably fall into the latter group.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Maybe you could consider what Iceland did earlier this year?
Is Iceland loonie to start using Canada’s currency?
Since Canada and the EU are doing free trade talks, we could perhaps see all of you?
Humour aside, or maybe seriousness aside, we do have to figure out how to get along as nations and while in this age of Mammon (our current emphasis among the seven deadlies) consuming, trade and economics are apparently everything, there is more at stake than mere cash isn't there?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
The problem of what to do with Germany is far older than the EU!
One of the causes of the First World War was a large, economically and militarily powerful Germany wanting to exert more influence over Europe, as befitting her status as the most important state in continental Europe.
One of the causes of the Second World War, was the fallout from trying to tie down Germany and weaken her and to stop her exerting such a powerful influence over Europe.
The EEC was started in order to tie France and Germany together in order to once again restrict Germany from exerting an influence over Europe, and of course it helped that Germany was divided for most of her post-war history.
Now Germany is reunited and is a large, powerful, economically successful country, who has inordinate power over Europe.
What goes around comes around. How do you control a powerful Germany? France has been involved in all the previous attempts to restrict her power and has failed miserably. The only way Germany can reduce her impact on her neighbours is if Germany voluntarily agrees to do so, and if she chooses to not restrict herself, well… ask Greece how much Germany is able to influence Europe in the modern age, and the answer will come back, “completely!”
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
I really don't see anything inherently xenophobic or nationalistic in being against unaccountable, unelected bureaucratic European institutions. It's perfectly possible to love being European and hate the EU as it's currently formed.
The main argument should involve scrapping the European Commission and having simply a European Parliament, and a European Executive being made up of MEPS who would be directly accountable to that parliament. Well this would certainly lance the democratic deficit argument! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 10. December 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
I really don't see anything inherently xenophobic or nationalistic in being against unaccountable, unelected bureaucratic European institutions.
There isn't but proponents of EU membership are finding it increasingly diffcult to find positive arguments so make fatuous accusations instead.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Although of course, as was pointed out upthread, the weakness of the European Parliament (not as weak as it was, by the way) reflects the inter-governmental nature of the original ECSC/EEC arrangements. If you want more directly democratic accountability for EU institutions, you're accepting the EU as a supranational body.
On the question of Germany: of course it's going to dominate Europe. Its big, centrally placed, hardworking, clever, and rich. There is no-one else in Europe to match it on all these counts. The ECSC/EEC/EC/EU has been the best go yet at getting Germany to work with its neighbours rather than against them. You're bothered about German domination of Europe now? Just take a mo to think how much worse it could be- and has been.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
And equally, xenophobic nationalists can hide behind logical-sounding objections to the EU. It cuts both ways.
Obviously the EU is in great need of reform. But abandoning our voice within it seems a strange way of achieving this.
[reply to yam-pk and aumbry]
[ 10. December 2012, 12:31: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That contradicts what happened with Greenland, so either he's wrong or something has changed.
Does anyone around here understand the Treaty of Lisbon, which seems the likeliest candidate for change in EU policy.
{cross posted = reply to deano}
Greenland is not independent. Denmark is still sovereign and has control of foreign affairs.
See Wikipedia.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Although of course, as was pointed out upthread, the weakness of the European Parliament (not as weak as it was, by the way) reflects the inter-governmental nature of the original ECSC/EEC arrangements. If you want more directly democratic accountability for EU institutions, you're accepting the EU as a supranational body.
On the question of Germany: of course it's going to dominate Europe. Its big, centrally placed, hardworking, clever, and rich. There is no-one else in Europe to match it on all these counts. The ECSC/EEC/EC/EU has been the best go yet at getting Germany to work with its neighbours rather than against them. You're bothered about German domination of Europe now? Just take a mo to think how much worse it could be- and has been.
Germany is all those things, as you say, Albertus. But I think you are overlooking the enormous fiscal boost it has received from being a member of a unified currency area. Being successful, hardworking etc. would normally cause its currency to rise in value internationally, so would ultimately make more marginal German industry less competitive. Being a member of the euro means that doesn't happen. It's the direct opposite of what has happened to the PIIGS countries.
[ 10. December 2012, 13:04: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
I've been known to argue that the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
But then I'm a rather unemphatic Wessex Nationalist at heart.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
And the Republic of Irelkand isn't part of the UK (the chances are that Scotland won't be soon either) and Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
So your point is?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
I've been known to argue that the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
But then I'm a rather unemphatic Wessex Nationalist at heart.
Blimey - unless they have two members you must be Alexander Bath.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
For my part, either the EU has to go from being what it is to a supra-national federal democratic state or we need to get out.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
And the Republic of Irelkand isn't part of the UK (the chances are that Scotland won't be soon either) and Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
So your point is?
And in fact Japan dominated China, or tired to, for a spell; India didn't dominate Sri lanka because they were both under colonial or quasi-rule and then India had quite enough to be getting on with elsewhere; and the USA thoroughly dominated Cuba for the first six decades of the C20 and most of the USA's subsequent bad feeling has been about the impertinence of the Cubans in wanting not to be so dominated rather than about Castro's Communism (which was only declared after the USA started throwing its toys out of the pram at having its favourite gambling resorts put off limits).
So, as ken says, so what?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
Yet. But it's coming - Germany will keep insisting on greater and greater control over the PIIGS economies until it gets to the point that it may as well just be running those countries anyway. Then it will just take them over. France won't last a whole lot longer, and the Eastern European countries probably won't even bother putting up a fight. Someone will point out that as the continent is one single country now they may as well move the political capital to the same place as the central bank (i.e. Germany), and Bob's your uncle - the Germans have finally succeeded in taking over the whole continent.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...and this time without firing a shot. If only the Kaiser had waited, eh?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
You know - a series of posts about how the Germans are secretly intent on continental domination really doesn't help dispel the accusation that Euroscepticism is just veiled xenophobia ...
[ 10. December 2012, 14:45: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
