EU discussion

[Beef Oven]

Ah, I see. It's easy when you know how. If you want to respond to the first part of a message (rather than all of it one go), you insert [ / quote ] (without the spaces that I've put here purely for illustrative purposes) at the end of the passage to which you wish to respond, then press return and type your response. When you then wish to quote the next bit, you first copy the [ QUOTE=Beef Oven;168457 ] or whatever that you see at the top of the post that you're responding to and place it before the next passage that you;re quoteing and then repeat the procedure (i.e. insert [ / quote ] &c. as I wrote above).

I hope that this makes sense to you.

Thanks very much for the explanation - I will play around with it and see if I can get it to work for me.

[Beef Oven]

I think this has gone a bit downhill. Can we leave particular political parties and what their aim is, and concentrate on the issues - as we, as individuals, see them?

I understand the difficulties the broad left has with an organisation like the EU: powerful international corporatism, the power of the bankers. But why are those on (in a general sense) the right against that? It's what we have in the UK (even under a Labour government) and there is no sense that the anti-EU view, a low-tax libertarianism, would be opposed to this as long as the power appeared to reside in UK organisations.

I'm trying to work out what causes the element of knee-jerkism against the EU. I understand the left-wing position since it's coherent: I find the right position ... muddled. I'm sure this is why phrases like 'Little Englander' are bandied about.

Let me, as a classical liberal and a former Campaign for Social Democracy activist, try to clarify why those people who you describe as being 'on the right' are not in favour of the EU by giving three simple reasons.

1) Free market enterprise. They believe in free-market enterprise with the minimum interference from government. The EU is highly prescriptive and seeks to legislate on every aspect of business and employment. Working time laws, health and safety, energy & waste etc. How many people realise that it is against EU competition laws for a government to subsidise a rural post office because it would disadvantage an Albanian, Portugese, Greek etc firm that might want to bid for the business? Good intentions maybe, but the result - no cross-funding for less busy post offices, so they close and people travel to the next town to buy a stamp or send a parcel.


2) Parliamentary Democracy. They believe in parliamentary democracy. The people who we directly elect make laws in parliament and the country is governed by democratically elected people. However, for us in the EU 75% of our laws are decided by 'managers', 'officials', 'bureacrats' (call them what you want) who have not been elected, are not accountable and cannot be dismissed. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

3) The economic case is weak. They do not believe that such a rigid, stifling and pretty much one-way relationship with the EU makes any economic sense. It costs Britain £50m per day and inhibits free-trade with countries around the globe. There is no reason, they believe, why a free-trade agreement with the European Community countries can't be had without signing away sovereign rights.

It's really as simple as that.

[ahinton]

They believe in free-market enterprise with the minimum interference from government. The EU is highly prescriptive and seeks to legislate on every aspect of business and employment. Working time laws, health and safety, energy & waste etc. How many people realise that it is against EU competition laws for a government to subsidise a rural post office because it would disadvantage an Albanian, Portugese, Greek etc firm that might want to bid for the business? Good intentions maybe, but the result - no cross-funding for less busy post offices, so they close and people travel to the next town to buy a stamp or send a parcel.

Albania is not yet an EU member, actually. Using your post office analogy, EU has neither encouraged nor prevented the forthcoming privatisation of Royal Mail, but subsidising post offices anywhere with taxpayers' money, EU or no EU, isfraught with problems when those post offices cannot make a profit because the some of the services that they offer are not required as much as they once were. State benefits an be paid online, deposits to and withdrawals from National Savings and Investments products can be done online, car tax payments and other facilities traditionally offered by post offices can be done online, most letters can be sent via email instead of in hard copies and parcels can be sent via other couriers, so the need for sub post offices, rural post offices and even some small town post offices is nothing like what once it was.

They believe in parliamentary democracy. The people who we directly elect make laws in parliament and the country is governed by democratically elected people. However, for us in the EU 75% of our laws are decided by 'managers', 'officials', 'bureacrats' (call them what you want) who have not been elected, are not accountable and cannot be dismissed. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

But, as I have said, no more so than the less than democratic behind-the-scenes Whitehall and elsewhere input that ensures that Westminster decisions are influenced and otherwise affected by those who function in and for UK but who are not directly elected in UK; lobbyists aren't elected either, nor are trade unionists and others who can also influence the implementation or otherwise of what is supposedly government policy that is supposedly set out and implemented by elected MPs alone. You have only to consider the succession of U-turns being taken by the present coalition government, mainly though not exclusively in respect of Budget policies (for example, backtracking on the imposition of VAT on pasties sold by charities in caravans) to see that - although, in one sense, one could equally well argue that these are indicative of democracy at work, perhaps along the lines that Sorabji once spoke of when he said that the great thing about changing one's mind is having a mind to change in the first place...

The economic case is weak. They do not believe that such a rigid, stifling and pretty much one-way relationship with the EU makes any economic sense. It costs Britain £50m per day and inhibits free-trade with countries around the globe. There is no reason, they believe, why a free-trade agreement with the European Community countries can't be had without signing away sovereign rights.

I'm not suggesting other than that EU membership comes a a considerable and likely unjustifiable cost, but it dos not prevent UK from importain from and exporting to wherever it like within reason; UK's import/export arrangements are by no means representative of or dependent upon "a rigid, stifling and pretty much one-way relationship with the EU" and the UK economy would be in a considerably more parlous state even than it is now were that actually the case!

It's really as simple as that.

Evidently not!

[ahinton]

All the Greeks should move to Germany....Greece would then be empty so that the Palestinian Question could also be solved by Israel moving into vacated Greece

And where do you suppose that all those Germans displaced by the newly immigrated Greeks would be expected in turn to go? Wouldn't those ex-pat Greeks be obliged to take their debts with them to Germany? Were Israel to relocate to Greece, would that not mean that President Ahmadinejad would have to ensure that his country developed and manufactured more powerful nuclear - er - power stations in order to enable it to wipe the now more distant Israel off a different part of the map?

failing that the New Socialisto [June 17th] Govt should freeze all Bank monies (that which is left) of people with more than say E50,000.... (Particularly those who are identified as having 'milked' the Eurozone system)....they should then hand out E10 /day to each person on street corners....and then ....

The New what? What bank monies belonging to which people where? - and why only those held in Euros? How would you identify beyond all doubt those people who can fairly be accused of "milking" the Eurozone system anyway? Lastly, how and why on earth could anyone trust a government to hand out money on the streets when it can't manage its own budgets in the first place? - and what good would those euros be to those receiving them on the street corners of non-Eurozone countries?

You might think that you may have the answer, but I have less than no idea - and nor, I suspect, do you - what the question would have been...

it silenced Paxman (schtum)....I imagine a producer saying into Paxmans earpiece "leave it Jeremy, leave it"

Paxman surely nmeans "man of peace". That said, I somehow doubt that anyone, producer or otherwise, would likely say "leave it Jeremy, leave it" to Mr Hunt, let alone Mr Clarkson...

[Beef Oven]

Albania is not yet an EU member, actually. Using your post office analogy, EU has neither encouraged nor prevented the forthcoming privatisation of Royal Mail, but subsidising post offices anywhere with taxpayers' money, EU or no EU, isfraught with problems when those post offices cannot make a profit because the some of the services that they offer are not required as much as they once were. State benefits an be paid online, deposits to and withdrawals from National Savings and Investments products can be done online, car tax payments and other facilities traditionally offered by post offices can be done online, most letters can be sent via email instead of in hard copies and parcels can be sent via other couriers, so the need for sub post offices, rural post offices and even some small town post offices is nothing like what once it was.


But, as I have said, no more so than the less than democratic behind-the-scenes Whitehall and elsewhere input that ensures that Westminster decisions are influenced and otherwise affected by those who function in and for UK but who are not directly elected in UK; lobbyists aren't elected either, nor are trade unionists and others who can also influence the implementation or otherwise of what is supposedly government policy that is supposedly set out and implemented by elected MPs alone. You have only to consider the succession of U-turns being taken by the present coalition government, mainly though not exclusively in respect of Budget policies (for example, backtrackingon the imposition of VAT on pasties sold by charities in caravans) to see that - although, in one sense, one could equally well argue that these are indicative of democracy at work, perhaps along the lines that Sorabji once spoke of when he said that the great thing about changing one's mind is having a mind to change in the first place...


I'm not suggesting other than that EU membership comes a a considerable and likely unjustifiable cost, but it dos not prevent UK from importain from and exporting to wherever it like within reason; UK's import/export arrangements are by no means representative of or dependent upon "a rigid, stifling and pretty much one-way relationship with the EU" and the UK economy would be in a consdierably more parlous state even than it is now were that actually the case!


Evidently not!

No, it really is simple.

The question is why do 'right-wingers' not like the EU.

It might be wrong and/or you might not agree, but those are, put simply, the main reasons.

[french frank]

why those people who you describe as being 'on the right'

What I actually said was 'those on (in a general sense) the right', by which I meant rightward-leaning rather than leftward-leaning. The terms characterise certain types of policy. Your 1) and 3) overlap rather, touching on the free-market enterprise and free trade.

Free market enterprise, yes, that accords with the right-wing dogma: laws on working hours and health & safety are aimed at the employees rather than the bosses, and WEEE and energy directives, plus anti-pollution and clean water laws, are very tiresome for those who want to maximise profits for the better off. Does this short-cuts-for-profit policy apply also to the banks and their shareholders?

You would support a government subsidy for a community service business like a rural post office? I'm not sure that that accords with the free market ethos ...

On Parliamentary Democracy: what we actually have in the UK is a representative democracy. In a general election 'the people' give power to those they think best able to run the economy and public services, foreign and defence policy &c, and gives them discretion to do it in the way they see fit. Manifesto pledges, for example, are not binding and should not be considered so. The EU is an equally 'democratic' system. You say: 'for us in the EU 75% of our laws are decided by 'managers', 'officials', 'bureacrats' (call them what you want) who have not been elected, are not accountable and cannot be dismissed. This is fundamentally undemocratic.' By this I assume you refer to the EU Commission - but they can only propose legislation: it still has to be passed by bodies consisting of democratically elected politicians - the Council of Ministers and the European parliament. It's just that not all of them are fine, upstanding, honest British politicians. But why should they be when the legislation affects 27 countries? In the UK civil servants advise, brief and support politicians: should they be allowed to do that since they are unelected, unaccountable and cannot be dismissed at the behest of the public?

There are tiers of government in this country, from parish councils to Westminster, the EU is just one more tier. It seems to me that the opposers of the EU simply want to put up barriers which are becoming increasingly arbitrary.

Does your £50m per day take into account the amount of money that comes back to this country in payments, grants and subsidies of various kinds? As has been pointed out, only 6% of the EU's budget is retained to cover administration costs; the rest is spent in the member countries.

[Beef Oven]

What I actually said was 'those on (in a general sense) the right', by which I meant rightward-leaning rather than leftward-leaning. The terms characterise certain types of policy. Your 1) and 3) overlap rather, touching on the free-market enterprise and free trade.

Free market enterprise, yes, that accords with the right-wing dogma: laws on working hours and health & safety are aimed at the employees rather than the bosses, and WEEE and energy directives, plus anti-pollution and clean water laws, are very tiresome for those who want to maximise profits for the better off. Does this short-cuts-for-profit policy apply also to the banks and their shareholders?

You would support a government subsidy for a community service business like a rural post office? I'm not sure that that accords with the free market ethos ...

On Parliamentary Democracy: what we actually have in the UK is a representative democracy. In a general election 'the people' give power to those they think best able to run the economy and public services, foreign and defence policy &c, and gives them discretion to do it in the way they see fit. Manifesto pledges, for example, are not binding and should not be considered so. The EU is an equally 'democratic' system. You say: 'for us in the EU 75% of our laws are decided by 'managers', 'officials', 'bureacrats' (call them what you want) who have not been elected, are not accountable and cannot be dismissed. This is fundamentally undemocratic.' By this I assume you refer to the EU Commission - but they can only propose legislation: it still has to be passed by bodies consisting of democratically elected politicians - the Council of Ministers and the European parliament. It's just that not all of them are fine, upstanding, honest British politicians. But why should they be when the legislation affects 27 countries? In the UK civil servants advise, brief and support politicians: should they be allowed to do that since they are unelected, unaccountable and cannot be dismissed at the behest of the public?

There are tiers of government in this country, from parish councils to Westminster, the EU is just one more tier. It seems to me that the opposers of the EU simply want to put up barriers which are becoming increasingly arbitrary.

Does your £50m per day take into account the amount of money that comes back to this country in payments, grants and subsidies of various kinds? As has been pointed out, only 6% of the EU's budget is retained to cover administration costs; the rest is spent in the member countries.

governments need to involve themselves with essentials like defence, education utilities and communications infrastructure. these things shouldn't be left to a private sector free-for-all; so yes, it does fit in right alongside the free-market ethos.

I can't go through all your points - I thought you wanted some clarification of the reasons - that's what i did. I didn't realise that you wanted a debate. I don't have the energy for that!

[french frank]

I can't go through all your points - I thought you wanted some clarification of the reasons - that's what i did. I didn't realise that you wanted a debate. I don't have the energy for that!

???

[Beef Oven]

???

'I find the right's view muddled' 'why would they be against the EU'?

1. free market enterprise
2. parliamentary democracy
3. Spurious economic rationale

It's as easy as that. There it is. Agree, disagree, whatever. How do you people get through the day?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i feel it is a noble but futile effort to understand the dislike of the European project in its previous and present forms by thoise more or less on the right ... if you wabt rational reasons BeefOven is as good a list as any and ff gives us a rational case for disentangling what it might be that we are talking about ....

alas for me i have just finished reading both Kahneman and Haidt and am convinced that you are wrong ... they don't like it for simple gut reasons ... "they are bloody foreigners" ... and "no one is going to tell me what to do"

it is a very white male middle aged well off reaction [incidentally the core anti global warming demographic] seat belts any one?

if we were to consider the options that the European Union might present the case is pretty strong but always with downsides ... but the choice of the weight of the up or the down is the gut feel .... so after the economic cataclysms and shortages we may expect within the next decades perhaps the gut feeling might be different .... and middle aged greedy males may have their megaphones taken away ... but it does strike me that the argument for the European Union is in the last resort an argument for the rational and not the gut .... that a slower more inclusive deliberative process in which argumewnt is expressed in civil and non megaphonic debate is the best option and impossible without a full European context to our politics ....

Both the EU and Global Climate Change are truly inimical to the alpha male power and greed urges .....

[teamsaint]

FF mentioned that the broad left might have problems with the power on the banks, national and international.

I think this power is core to a lot of peoples problems with the EU.
UK sovereignty seems compromised by the banks , which " had " to be saved at any price , apparently.
The EU (and the Eurozone in particular) seems to be in the grip of the banks, and especially the unbelievable behaviour of the ECB, and the imposition of compliant governments from the centre.
Personally, I would have a lot less of a problem if the EU was genuinely run by a democratic European Parliament, and not, as it seems to me, by huge vested interests with the banks at the heart of it all. (Check what the ECB is really doing with QE money for proof).

I trust the French or Italian people to elect good politicians, as much(or as little) as I do the British people. What I don't trust is the underlying structure that is allowing big money to run the show, our show,...the tail wagging the dog !

[eighthobstruction]

Thankyou A Hinton for giving even the smallest smidgen of your time considering my solutions....in para 2 [if indeed they are to be called paragraph]....I was of course talking about Greece....you ask who? would indeed be handing this money out E10 by E10 on a daily basis....I would suggest some of those soldiers who wear the girly pom pom gear;as they would be easily seen (Your other doubts could be just easily sorted out I am sure, had I the time to ponder them)[unfortunately I need to walk my dogs]

[scottycelt]

FF mentioned that the broad left might have problems with the power on the banks, national and international.

I think this power is core to a lot of peoples problems with the EU.
UK sovereignty seems compromised by the banks , which " had " to be saved at any price , apparently.
The EU (and the Eurozone in particular) seems to be in the grip of the banks, and especially the unbelievable behaviour of the ECB, and the imposition of compliant governments from the centre.
Personally, I would have a lot less of a problem if the EU was genuinely run by a democratic European Parliament, and not, as it seems to me, by huge vested interests with the banks at the heart of it all. (Check what the ECB is really doing with QE money for proof).

I trust the French or Italian people to elect good politicians, as much(or as little) as I do the British people. What I don't trust is the underlying structure that is allowing big money to run the show, our show,...the tail wagging the dog !

Really!

The Right accuses the EU of being 'socialist' (to some Americans it's 'communist'). As far as some on the Left are concerned it's 'run by the big banks'! and has been described as 'fascist' by both extremes.

Of course, it's always been a largely Centrist concept which is probably why so many on the Right and Left seem so confused about the whole thing ... they simply see the world in black or white or maybe that should be red and blue!

The EU has to exist in the modern world which is capitalist, like it or loathe it. Even Communist China now does and it has a far greater gulf between rich and poor than exists in the EU, and the same applies to the US. The EU has done more than any other bloc to protect the rights of workers. Compare the rights of a worker in, say, Germany or France with that anywhere else in the world, outside Europe itself.

The same applies to 'democracy'. It is ironic that Eurosceptics on both the Right and Left are forever crying out for 'a referendum' on our membership. If they ever get their wish they can blame the Europeans for that as well ... and, inspired by the rantings of the Daily Mail and Socialist Worker, they almost certainly will if they lose the vote.

[teamsaint]

Scotty, why have you bothered quoting me?I said i might be happy with a European parliament under the right conditions.

The banks ARE running Europe.The ECB is spending literally hundreds of billions of Euros to keep the banks capitalised so they can profit from buying government bonds at high prices, when the ECB could do it cheaply on our behalf. it is a scandal
You don't have to be on the left to think that. I don't view myself as being on the left.(Or the Right, come to that).

[french frank]

It's as easy as that. There it is. Agree, disagree, whatever. How do you people get through the day?

I was really querying your comment, 'I didn't realise that you wanted a debate.'. I thought that was the point of the thread, especially since I changed the title to 'EU discussion'.

But ... I don't insist