So what exactly are we doing about Europe?

[Eurosceptic]

I was excited when Cameron pledged that we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he has now changed his mind. He is saying now that he will resist any more power gong to Brussels and we are not going to help prop up the Euro, nor are we going to be adopting it soon. I wish he'd come down on one side or the other so we at least know where he stands.

[Expounder]

I was excited when Cameron pledged that we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he has now changed his mind. He is saying now that he will resist any more power gong to Brussels and we are not going to help prop up the Euro, nor are we going to be adopting it soon. I wish he'd come down on one side or the other so we at least know where he stands.

His main and only priority is to keep himself the position of Prime Minister of Britain. He sees it as his day of glory, all policies to keep the Lib Dems on board will be tailored to this end. He's even prepared to run a zombie minority government after getting the 55% majority for dissolution of parliament passed in the event of a coalition breakdown.

[ryoden]

I was excited when Cameron pledged that we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he has now changed his mind. He is saying now that he will resist any more power gong to Brussels and we are not going to help prop up the Euro, nor are we going to be adopting it soon. I wish he'd come down on one side or the other so we at least know where he stands.

He can't do much else since he is involved in a coalition with a pro-EU party. Hopefully we will get more idea of how far they have slid into the pro-Eu camp sooner than later.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Week can't help the Euro at the moment in the tories eyes because they're to scared about the deficit, leaving Europe is a bad idea, Pro Europe Lib Dems might beak over this and it would leave us a small country with less say and allies for the future.

[Midas]

I was excited when Cameron pledged that we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he has now changed his mind. He is saying now that he will resist any more power gong to Brussels and we are not going to help prop up the Euro, nor are we going to be adopting it soon. I wish he'd come down on one side or the other so we at least know where he stands.

Likewise, however once the Treaty was signed the rug was rather pulled away from under Cameron's feet as far as that particular referendum was concerned. I do think that he could have taken the opportunity to replace it with one simply asking "Should the UK stay in the EU or not" though. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies regarding what he's now said about the Euro, transfer of more power etc., and just keep pressing for the whole subject to be rediscussed at a national level in the near future.

[Tantal]

I still can't wrap my head around why the U.K. keeps sending more and more of its sovereignty to Brussels. Do you think you are incapable of governing yourselves? Can someone please explain this?

[uncon]

I was excited when Cameron pledged that we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he has now changed his mind. He is saying now that he will resist any more power gong to Brussels and we are not going to help prop up the Euro, nor are we going to be adopting it soon. I wish he'd come down on one side or the other so we at least know where he stands.

As Cameron was not in power at the time there was little he could do about a treaty already ratified. I supose he could cry about spilt milk now and affect our export market, but that would cause more damage than good.

I am personally pleased to see him spelling out to Merkel that he will not be devolving more power without consent. Merkel appears to be rather impressed and we are not stuck with the Euro (one thing to thank Brown for as Blair was all for early entry) but neither are we blind enough not to see that Europe is still the way forward for trade.

Don't forget too that Germany is also part of the problem when we look at Europe as a whole...they have the surplus which destabilizes as much as the problems in Greece, portugal etc. Germany at one point threatened to pull out and as they campaigned so hard to be THE bank, then financial markets were bound to get a little nervous at that point.

[JacquesMagique]

I still can't wrap my head around why the U.K. keeps sending more and more of its sovereignty to Brussels. Do you think you are incapable of governing yourselves? Can someone please explain this?

I don't have any more of a problem being told what to do by a group of elected representative in Brussels then those in London. I just don't see any difference in it at all.

[Midas]

I don't have any more of a problem being told what to do by a group of elected representative in Brussels then those in London. I just don't see any difference in it at all.

The big difference is that the bureaucrats in Brussels are looking after every other country they represent, not just Britain. 'One size fits all' legislation never works properly and even less so when it's not run from the country it's supposed to relate to, and that's what been happening with more and more stuff coming out of the EU. It's estimated that EU-inspired legislation now takes up between 2 and 3% of all business time and cost, to very little advantage and to a great deal of detriment. Europe needs our goods and services far more than we need them, so we need to get out as soon as we can, then renegotiate advantageous trade deals.

[JacquesMagique]

The big difference is that the bureaucrats in Brussels are looking after every other country they represent, not just Britain.

But you could say the same about cultural differences between the southeast and the north, not to mention the other nations in the UK. I think that the 'national level' is a very arbitrary place to draw the line.

Europe needs our goods and services far more than we need them, so we need to get out as soon as we can, then renegotiate advantageous trade deals.

I'm not sure that's actually true to be honest, I think it shows a certain degree of British chauvinism which appears to be quite prominent among quite a few people. The economic benefits of free movement of labour and free trade for the UK are phenomenal. The EU is not a zero sum game.

[Midas]

But you could say the same about cultural differences between the southeast and the north, not to mention the other nations in the UK. I think that the 'national level' is a very arbitrary place to draw the line.

I accept that there can be significant differences between the north and south of a country, especially those countries which are geographically large, however you have to remember that in the main those countries have developed their identities as an individual unit over a very long period of time. Again granted there are cultural similarities along border regions, but the concept of a 'national level' is something which has been recognised for centuries, millennia in some cases, so it's really the only guideline we have.

I'm not sure that's actually true to be honest, I think it shows a certain degree of British chauvinism which appears to be quite prominent among quite a few people. The economic benefits of free movement of labour and free trade for the UK are phenomenal. The EU is not a zero sum game.

I can't quote sources off the top of my head, but there have been a considerable number of surveys carried out by various companies and trade organisations over the years which have shown that the balance of trade between the EU and the UK is definitely in our favour. I'd also dispute, to a degree, the benefits of the free movement of labour, particularly when viewed in the context of it taking British jobs from British people. I know that's moving into a slightly different area, but it's something which certainly has to be considered in this context.

[JacquesMagique]

I accept that there can be significant differences between the north and south of a country, especially those countries which are geographically large, however you have to remember that in the main those countries have developed their identities as an individual unit over a very long period of time. Again granted there are cultural similarities along border regions, but the concept of a 'national level' is something which has been recognised for centuries, millennia in some cases, so it's really the only guideline we have.

Well I reject this entire concept of a 'national identity'. I don't feel that as individuals we are understood any better by whitehall, by our local council even, than we are by Brusells. As the world economy becomes more and more globalised and integrated, it is clearly going to become a less and less significant concept. I look forward to the day when we can be individuals, rather than having to belong to some abstract concept of the 'nation'.

I can't quote sources off the top of my head, but there have been a considerable number of surveys carried out by various companies and trade organisations over the years which have shown that the balance of trade between the EU and the UK is definitely in our favour. I'd also dispute, to a degree, the benefits of the free movement of labour, particularly when viewed in the context of it taking British jobs from British people. I know that's moving into a slightly different area, but it's something which certainly has to be considered in this context.

We export more than we import? I find that very difficult to believe. But if you can show to be wrong then fair enough. Either way, free trade is almost always mutually beneficial.

The whole immigration/unemployment thing is a complete and utter fallacy, particularly in the long run.

Perhaps it's indeed not something we should be focusing on here, but see:

http://repec.org/res2003/dustmann.pdf

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/1999/wp99124.pdf

I have at least six more where they came from. In contrast, it is very difficult to find a major academic resource which supports the idea of controlling immigration for the sake of reducing unemployment.

#cue tirade against academics#

[Robin Edward Putland]

I still can't wrap my head around why the U.K. keeps sending more and more of its sovereignty to Brussels. Do you think you are incapable of governing yourselves? Can someone please explain this?

We don't continually hand over soverienty to Brussels it has regulority powers throughout Europe to enhance our shared market. It doesn't make laws all the time it makes regulations which any government or council can ignore.
[QUOTE=Open Europe BLog]This also means that the likes of Denis MacShane - who like a stuck record keeps repeating that only 9% of all UK Statuatory Instruments (or SIs) are based on EU laws - are way off mark. There are at least four reasons for why these people are wrong:

1) They do not seperate between budgetary and regulatory legislation, therefore comparing apples and oranges.

2) They also compare apples and oranges in another respect: Directives are usually far-reaching measures with a big impact on the economy. SIs, in contrast, can cover a variety of issues, including public administration – for example a road closure or changing arrangements for parish elections.

3) EU Regulations (as opposed to Directives) usually don't give rise to a new UK law but are directly applicable. Therefore, most EU Regulations are not included in the 9% figure.

4) One Directive does not mean one SI. The Motor Vehicles Regulations in 2007 implemented four different Directives, for instance, making a one-for-one comparison tricky.
Open Europe blog: How many of our laws are made in Brussels? [/QUTOE] Brussels cost 72%of uk money spent on regulation not law.

[Robin Edward Putland]

I accept that there can be significant differences between the north and south of a country, especially those countries which are geographically large, however you have to remember that in the main those countries have developed their identities as an individual unit over a very long period of time. Again granted there are cultural similarities along border regions, but the concept of a 'national level' is something which has been recognised for centuries, millennia in some cases, so it's really the only guideline we have.

The Concept of Chrisendom is as old as most countries in Europe and that managed to unify many countries behind the crusade. The Concept of Europe came about late medieval/early renaissance which was a secular cultural counter part of Chrisendom. These definitions become more or less important over time depending on circumstance, if Europe was attacked by Russia, the Arab world or china it would quickly unify under the European banner for everyones benfit, it not just power crazed beuracts it creates a stable co operting set of nations trading for all participants benefits.

Cutting down on legistration sounds great but schemes like a european wide: phones, laptops, camras etc chargers and plug sockets would reduce a lot of waiste and make any body who travels in Europe lives' far easier.

[Midas]

The Concept of Chrisendom is as old as most countries in Europe and that managed to unify many countries behind the crusade. The Concept of Europe came about late medieval/early renaissance which was a secular cultural counter part of Chrisendom.

Yes, you're quite right, but we're talking of unifying countries at a time when the human mind was still very unsophisticated compared to today, and religion was the power which no-one even thought to question. A whole different ball game to today's world.

These definitions become more or less important over time depending on circumstance, if Europe was attacked by Russia, the Arab world or china it would quickly unify under the European banner for everyones benfit, it not just power crazed beuracts it creates a stable co operting set of nations trading for all participants benefits.

I somehow have my doubts as to whether that would be any the less likely to happen under the EU than if Europe was still separate countries under threat from a common enemy.

Cutting down on legistration sounds great but schemes like a european wide: phones, laptops, camras etc chargers and plug sockets would reduce a lot of waiste and make any body who travels in Europe lives' far easier.

Cutting down on legislation not only sounds great, it would be great! There's no need for the EU for international standards to be agreed, but I don't know when you last travelled across the continent, but last time I did I still couldn't use any of my electronic equipment without an adaptor, regardless of EU 'harmonisation'.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Cutting down on legislation not only sounds great, it would be great! There's no need for the EU for international standards to be agreed, but I don't know when you last travelled across the continent, but last time I did I still couldn't use any of my electronic equipment without an adaptor, regardless of EU 'harmonisation'.

That is the current work of the EU along with other things Such as resource sharing, electricty, fish, skilled workers, cattle etc. The more these areas are integrated and focussed in the same direction the greater the efficiency and coverage our resources will gain and this can be done without giving soverienty to Brussels.

[Robin Edward Putland]

I don't think the renaissance was a very unsophisticated, it where our modern politics, science, philiosophy and technology come from. They did have to be invented a fought for, which takes a lot more skill than living with the benefits.

[DougieG]

Cutting down on legislation not only sounds great, it would be great! There's no need for the EU for international standards to be agreed, but I don't know when you last travelled across the continent, but last time I did I still couldn't use any of my electronic equipment without an adaptor, regardless of EU 'harmonisation'.

You can, however, move without changing your currency or having the huge hassle of border controls. Both EU things.

By the way, you do realise, don't you, that most significant legislation comes in the form of directives, not regulations?

[Midas]

That is the current work of the EU along with other things Such as resource sharing, electricty, fish, skilled workers, cattle etc. The more these areas are integrated and focussed in the same direction the greater the efficiency and coverage our resources will gain and this can be done without giving soverienty to Brussels.

And...

You can, however, move without changing your currency or having the huge hassle of border controls. Both EU things.

I'll agree that there are some aspects of the EU which are positive; the major issue I and millions of other people have with it is that those benefits come at a huge cost, both financially and in terms of the loss of sovereignty. I doubt that there's much which has been of any significant benefit to the UK that couldn't have been achieved by direct negotiation between the countries concerned without our losing any of our political or legislative control.

By the way, you do realise, don't you, that most significant legislation comes in the form of directives, not regulations?

Of course I realise that, I've spent enough time over the years having to deal with the real life consequences of it to business and commerce, and having to work out the cost of doing so! I'd estimate that for the company I was Chairman of up until the end of last year, the direct and indirect cost of complying with it was in excess of a million pounds a year, roughly in line with national estimates, and costs which had to be passed on to our customers and ultimately to the taxpayer.

[DougieG]

Of course I realise that, I've spent enough time over the years having to deal with the real life consequences of it to business and commerce, and having to work out the cost of doing so! I'd estimate that for the company I was Chairman of up until the end of last year, the direct and indirect cost of complying with it was in excess of a million pounds a year, roughly in line with national estimates, and costs which had to be passed on to our customers and ultimately to the taxpayer.

If you were directly implementing directives then I'm not surprised that you were wasting vast amounts of money. They don't have any direct horizontal effect on private individuals or companies.

[Midas]

If you were directly implementing directives then I'm not surprised that you were wasting vast amounts of money. They don't have any direct horizontal effect on private individuals or companies.

Merely complying with the legal requirements Dougie, as every other business has to; nothing more, nothing less. Until you've had direct and practical experience at the sharp end, you'll never get to understand the real, and mainly negative, implications that the EU has on British business.

[DougieG]

Merely complying with the legal requirements Dougie, as every other business has to; nothing more, nothing less. Until you've had direct and practical experience at the sharp end, you'll never get to understand the real, and mainly negative, implications that the EU has on British business.

Sorry Midas, I bow down to your superior knowledge in everything. My pink tinged spectacles and lack of hard-nosed experience oppressing minorities and running a big business certainly mean that I don't understand anything.

Or perhaps your enormous ignorance of the HRA suggests that you have a xenophobic hatred of the EU and make up the business issues with it to prove a point? You certainly made up some stuff about the HRA in another thread.

[uncon]

Sorry Midas, I bow down to your superior knowledge in everything. My pink tinged spectacles and lack of hard-nosed experience oppressing minorities and running a big business certainly mean that I don't understand anything.

Or perhaps your enormous ignorance of the HRA suggests that you have a xenophobic hatred of the EU and make up the business issues with it to prove a point? You certainly made up some stuff about the HRA in another thread.

As many here know, my mum moved in with me. One of the most frustrating things is that she assumes that because she has lived longer, she knows everything. On the other side, my partner assumes that because he has read more, he knows everything.

I see it as two people with limited theory and practice assuming they know best....after all nobody has learnt or experienced everything have they?

With that in mind I like to talk to a lot of different people, some who have experience and others who have studied the issue. I don't like to dismiss either of them offhand, or take their view too readily.

Just saying

[Midas]

Sorry Midas, I bow down to your superior knowledge in everything. My pink tinged spectacles and lack of hard-nosed experience oppressing minorities and running a big business certainly mean that I don't understand anything.

There speaks the youth who's done one year of a law degree and now thinks he knows everything there is to know!! If you weren't so full of sarcasm perhaps you'd realise that whilst you might know more than I do about some of the fundamental technicalities of some law, you'll eventually realise that there's nothing like many years of real, practical experience to know how much of the the law as it affects business, commerce and employment, and in particular those aspects introduced by the Labour government over the last decade and a half and forced upon us by the EU, is often an ass, an expensive and time-wasting ass at that. Perhaps you'll also realise that not once have I even implied "I know it all", as assuredly I don't. Once you get to understanding that, perhaps you'll come down off your 'holier than thou' high horse and stop preaching about things you have little idea of, especially to people who do know even a little bit more than you about some things.

Or perhaps your enormous ignorance of the HRA suggests that you have a xenophobic hatred of the EU and make up the business issues with it to prove a point? You certainly made up some stuff about the HRA in another thread.

You base that remark on what - simply the fact that I, along with many others far more capable of understanding its implications that you or I, think the HRA needs repealing to be replaced by legislation which is based on common sense rather than protecting the rights of minorities in an uncertain world, where more often than not it's those minorities which have made it so?

Like all legislation it has its positive aspects, in theory, but come back in a few years when you've had time to see how it really works and what the real downsides of it are. Ask organisations like the Victims of Crime Trust for a start, then move on to several of the independent think tanks like Civitas, or indeed several other political parties like UKIP for their expert opinion Dougie, but until then, tell us why you think that instances of the HRA being used to protect criminals is good - as in the case of the jeweller who was told by police that circulating CCTV images of a thief in his shop in order to identify and aprehend him would infringe the human rights of that thief, resulting in the jeweller being prosecuted, or why it's a good thing that the nine Afghans who hijacked an aircraft shouldn't be deported to their country as it might breach their human rights, or indeed whether you think that Anthony Rice, the convicted rapist who committed murdered while on parole, shouldn't have been detained longer despite it supposedly 'breaching his human rights'? Oh dear, poor hard done by criminals. Is it any wonder that the UK has such a reputation as a soft touch!

[uncon]

This is getting personal and you are both on warning that it will get taken to TOP unless you get back to the issue

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

theoretical intelligence is rarely a useful substitute for practical experience - it does however provide a foundation on which humility can be built as practical maturity occurs.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland
That is the current work of the EU along with other things Such as resource sharing, electricty, fish, skilled workers, cattle etc. The more these areas are integrated and focussed in the same direction the greater the efficiency and coverage our resources will gain and this can be done without giving soverienty to Brussels.
And...

Making Europe more integrated efficient and cheaper to live in wothout taking more soverienty from nations.

I doubt that there's much which has been of any significant benefit to the UK that couldn't have been achieved by direct negotiation between the countries concerned without our losing any of our political or legislative control.

We don't give our powers away the EU uses the same set of powers to regulate not take a new power away from every country when it wants to make a decision.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Making Europe more integrated efficient and cheaper to live in wothout taking more soverienty from nations.
We don't give our powers away the EU uses the same set of powers to regulate not take a new power away from every country when it wants to make a decision.

Hi,

whereon earth did you find and swallow that particular piece of pernicious propaganda!!!

Clearly you have not read the Treaties or any of the acquis!

OR - YOU ARE ON THE PAYROLE!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Hi,

whereon earth did you find and swallow that particular piece of pernicious propaganda!!!

Clearly you have not read the Treaties or any of the acquis!

OR - YOU ARE ON THE PAYROLE!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

I was stating my opinion not advertisingthe EU. As for being on any pay role I wish I were, but im not. The treaty doesn't say that any new European regulation made will come from taking the national soverienty away of each country. The British media are the only europeans who believe that were slowly being sucked into a crazy over powerful dictatorship. regulations such as bananna curviture and carrots are friut etc are purosefully misrepresented to scare the british public into hating Europe.

[Midas]

I was stating my opinion not advertisingthe EU. As for being on any pay role I wish I were, but im not. The treaty doesn't say that any new European regulation made will come from taking the national soverienty away of each country. The British media are the only europeans who believe that were slowly being sucked into a crazy over powerful dictatorship. regulations such as bananna curviture and carrots are friut etc are purosefully misrepresented to scare the british public into hating Europe.

It's far from just the British media who believe that! Offhand I don't know of one non-politically affiliated organisation who believes that the EU is advantageous to the UK. We're swamped with EU-inspired 'one size fits all' legislation - estimates vary between 50% and 75% of all UK laws are now affected by a plethora of EU directives and regulations (it's up to 84% in Germany) - and the total costs, including all the hidden costs, is estimated as now approaching £2,000 for every single person in the UK. Yes, there are some benefits, but the negative aspects and the costs involved outweigh them without a shadow of a doubt.

It doesn't matter whether it's primary legislation that's affected or whether it's something as mundane as the curvature of bananas; it comes from a hugely bureaucratic, grossly wasteful and politically inspired organisation which is trying to shoehorn disparate countries which have very little in common into a single mould. Long term I believe it's doomed to failure, and the best thing by far the UK could do is to get out now. We need an informed public discussion of all the pros and cons and the public should be given the opportunity to say stay in or leave.

[Robin Edward Putland]

It doesn't matter whether it's primary legislation that's affected or whether it's something as mundane as the curvature of bananas; it comes from a hugely bureaucratic, grossly wasteful and politically inspired organisation which is trying to shoehorn disparate countries which have very little in common into a single mould... We need an informed public discussion of all the pros and cons and the public should be given the opportunity to say stay in or leave.

It is too bureacratic but you can say that about any organisation.
Of course its politically inspired its a political organisation. Most countries wwant to be in the organisation because it benefits everyone including us. Seeing as complying to EU regulations are not compulsery or a comprehensives take over of soverienty it is not shoehorning any country into its mould, it helps buissness intergrate rules so companies can co operate and transfer money around Europe.
I agree that it would be a be good idea to have a comprehensive informed public debate followed by a refurendum on the topic.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

It is too bureacratic but you can say that about any organisation.
Of course its politically inspired its a political organisation. Most countries wwant to be in the organisation because it benefits everyone including us. Seeing as complying to EU regulations are not compulsery or a comprehensives take over of soverienty it is not shoehorning any country into its mould, it helps buissness intergrate rules so companies can co operate and transfer money around Europe.
I agree that it would be a be good idea to have a comprehensive informed public debate followed by a refurendum on the topic.

Hi,

so clearly you haven't read The New constitution! You also seem not to realise that todate Britain is a massive nett loser. Seemingly you are unaware that membership of the EU gives a loss of arount £120 Billion a year - we pay a membership fee of £45,000,000 a day, we hand over a further $6,000,000,0000 in cash a year, we are unable to negotiate International trade and we are obliged to ensure our law complies with the corrupt and undemocratic laws imposed by the EU.

Further no one under 54 had any say in the matter.

There are absolutely no benefits in the existence of this corrupt, malign undemocratic over bureaucratic scam that is being forced upon us that even begins to justify the denial of human rights of self determination, liberty and independence.

For the first time in Modern history due to utter incompetence the EU has reduced EUrope to being net food importers and the CAP has destroyed the economies of many third world producers.

The mismanagement of fish and fishing under the CFP not only nearly brought Britain into war with Canada but has destroyed our fishing stocks and our fishing industry.

Which bit of the evil experiment was it you welcomed?

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[uncon]

I'm hoping we are waiting and seeing