Brussels and babies' bottoms
It鈥檚 fascinating to see how some stories are translated in the oddest places. Take this headline: 鈥淏russels wants to tax our nappies鈥. It is perfectly true. Under , children鈥檚 clothing would lose its exemption.
But Britain has a veto and the government has promised to use it. In fact, it was one of the Conservatives鈥 complaints that 鈥渘ot losing the veto over taxation鈥 was a spurious red line for Tony Blair at the latest EU summit, because there was no such proposal on the table. The government had the good grace to privately admit it was a bit of a con and 鈥減urely presentational鈥. If Britain did lose the veto on VAT changes, or did not exercise it, it would indeed be a huge story and would cost parents a lot of money. The Sun .
But the above headline comes not from a tabloid with a political agenda but , which as far as I can discover is about advice to parents, and doesn鈥檛 declare any political agenda.
The article goes on: 鈥淭he UK government has always resisted attempts by Brussels to call the shots over UK taxation, but thanks to Tony Blair's European ambitions, we could be left without a choice.鈥 Which suggests he gave up the veto, which he didn鈥檛.
It continues, 鈥淕ordon Brown, just like Tony Blair before him, has not mentioned the EU Treaty to the British public because the Govt has always steered clear of an open debate with the British people.鈥 I don鈥檛 know what constitutes 鈥渕entioned鈥 but Blair鈥檚 Commons statement and Brown鈥檚 interviews would seem to count to me.
I would never quibble if this was written by a pressure group or party, or indeed a campaigning newspaper. But it seems a little opinionated coming out of the blue.
Anyway, I鈥檓 keeping my judgements to myself while I am on holiday for a week. Although I hope to catch up with for a pint to discuss the finer points of blogging under canvas. But there will be a regular post on Thursday.
I鈥檝e also responded, rather late, to a couple of points in your thoughts about... the Treaty of Lisbon. You can read my reply here.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mark, I'm definitely going to sound like a British Europhile here, and well, i am. I guess that makes me an endangered species. But as one who has travelled much around the world, i can see the benefit of such a project for all, if we could only disperse some of the politically advantageous rhetoric.
Is it possible that the relationship with other countries in Europe is in fact good for Britain? And not the millstone so many in politics and media claim? Many countries on the continent have joined eagerly, integrated with other nations thoroughly, and yet have seen their economies and lifestyles, freedom of travel choice and purchases, and rights, protected and nurtured by the oft derided 'liberalism.'
There are instances in every country in the Union, where politicians and businessmen don't always follow the rules. That's part of being human. There are those who seek to profit from the 'federated fear factor.' My answer to that is the levelling of the playing field, and the advantage of actively contributing to a trading bloc that can, and if given the chance, will, benefit all in the union, and trading countries beyond. This directive, as amusing as it sounds, has the potential to cause some embarrassment for the current and former GB gov. I find the secrecy in their machinations somewhat ironic, given the public' facts' presented as an excuse to go to Iraq.
We only seem to hear an interpretation of 'bad news' when one of these directives comes out. Have there been any good ones? Freedom of movement? The spreading of wealth? And dare i say it, straight bananas? The EU has a sense of humour too, it seems.
I'll probably get well and truly castigated for this, but it's my opinion that Britain should change to the Euro, as as soon as possible. The practical simplification of common currency alone, outweighs for me any perception of loss of national identity. I find that argument spurious.
So.... Straight Bananas? Tax on nappies? Stationary Window Wipers? One standard for Euro toilet paper? (Soft?)
Entertaining stuff.
It's been popular in Britain for some time to 'blame it on the EU', and that's as much about an islander mentality as much as anything else. It may well be that the EU is actually benefitting those Britons who don't feel they can trust the intentions of their own government, by providing a collective balancing voice.
I hope you enjoy your holiday.
It is not the loss of national identity which matters about the euro, it is the loss of control of the currency. The euro is controlled by unelected bankers in their own best interest. The same bankers who used to insist upon the unnecessary palaver which went on when you wished to change currency. In the UK, we are starting to hear the murmurings caused by the doings of the committee of bankers setting interest rates. This is an exotic topic, and to get an idea of what it is all about you need a very deep knowledge of the US Constitution and constitutional history, and also its economic history. Basically, in the beginning, the US Senate controlled the currency and was indirectly elected. Then, about 1910, the Senate relinquished control to an anonymous committee of bankers made up of the banking families, but became directly elected requiring an expensive state-wide campaign. Then followed the Wall Street Crash, the Depression, etc during which time economic policy was good for bankers, disastrous for everybody else. The same will happen in a diverse Europe with a common currency imposed upon several differing economies. The UK does not need to be dragged down too.
Clearly the veto is an endangered species and is unlikely to last much longer. As a delaying tactic it still has value to save us a few pennies. The EU is money hungry and completing this pyramid will require the sacrificing of many cows.
Not sure about that Mark, you are sounding danegerously patrician in your coments.
You wouldn't quibble if a campaign group or newspaper made comments like that, but the untrained should really not make such statements.
It is a little de haut en bas don't you think?
@ Alex Stone (1): what would these EU benefits be? Because I just don't see any.
The EU is inward looking, afraid of the big bad world (trade barriers, willingness to cast aside democracy in order to become a 'bloc') and is insanely obsessed with further integration at all and any cost. Integration for the sake of it.
In order to have relations in Europe between countries, the EU is not a required element at all. Intergovernmentalism would work too. In fact, countries wouldn't be stuck with laws they feel they don't need.
As for your argument about the level playing field: there never has been any. First of all British officials have always been extremely zealous carrying out Brussels directives and regulations. The French, on the other hand, casually ignore (as long as they can get away with it) anything they feel doesn't benefit them.
I think you may well believe the EU to be a free trade area of some sort (a trading bloc?). Well, the EU isn't a trading bloc. Economically, it is a customs union, a very overregulated one at that. And one that tries to seize the political reins too.
Myself, as an EUsceptic do not see the need for supranationalism. I believe in intergovernmentalism. I am not afraid of the world and would abolish the CAP and CFP immediately.
Maybe you should try to explain to British fishermen how much they have benefitted by being in the EU!
We (Netherlands) certainly 'benefitted' from the unfavorable exchange rate to the Euro, and also from the fact that all other countries cheated to get into the Euro. Yes we are still o so grateful for that (note: sarcasm).
Britain prospered in the years after she left the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) and the non-Euro countries have done structurally better than the Euro countries. This is not a coincidence.
Sometimes, talking to EUluvvies is like talking to a wall. They have an unshakable faith in their 'project' and will not stand for any criticism of it. They cannot see any fault in it and do not believe it to be fundamentally flawed.
Indeed, having lived in the UK, NL and PH, I'd say the EU has certainly benefitted the countries that have worked positively to develop the system. Actually, Wales seems to have done pretty well too -perhaps more than England.
However, I'm not sure that "liberalism" should get all the credit (especially as it is such an easily misinterpreted term). The problems with the British privatisation of the railways definitely had an effect on the Dutch government's plan to "liberalize" their railway -and their plans were put on the back burner as a result. In my experience, German State Railways (DB) are a fantastic example of good customer service being provided outside the free-market system. I use the DB website for travel information even when traveling in Britain -and while 2-3 minutes to change international trains looks frightening in a timetable, in practice it works pretty well. Standards of living also generally seem higher in countries that are less fanatically "liberal" than the UK -although of course the global "liberalism" of one country can economically undermine the "care" provided by others.
Unfortunately, a quick glance at the 91热爆 "Key facts: The global economy" on trade shows a frightening increase of European trade to the cost of most other areas (except US). So the EU may well be generating wealth for its members at a very high cost to the others.
So, if it is true that "charity begins at home" -then perhaps we should think carefully where exactly (in a nation, a trading block, or the planet) our "home" is.
Have a nice holiday -at "home" on the planet!
Enjoy your holiday Mark. 'Tis pity that the 91热爆, having established the European editor post to improve its coverage of EU matters, can't make better use of your excellent reports on its broadcast radio and television news programmes.
Well said Mark and well said Alex - I'm fed up of every debate being taken over by blatantly lying loonies. These people seem to think that just because they're "standing up for Britain" against the supposedly swivel-eyed hordes in Brussels, they can lie - blatantly and repeatedly - and simply ignore everything that's going on outside their window in the real 21st Century.
Presumably the Euroseptics(sic) will volunteer to pay their mobile phone providers twice the cost of their new reduced roaming charges simply so they don't have to submit to the latest hated diktat from Brussels. Never mind, since the Euroseptics' average age, and coincidentally average IQ, is about 93, the rest of us won't have to put up with their mendacious ramblings for much longer.
I'm also confused by this.. Why would a News editor for the 91热爆 wish to limit discussions about ANY political matter to 'Newspapers' like the Sun, pressure groups, political parties and presumably the 91热爆?
Surely one of the problems is that people aren't engaged in politics.. and the introduction of political debate in public forums such as this is surely a positive thing.
I'm also a bit concerned about his investigative skills. On the subject of the site He says
" the purpose of the site is I can discover is about advice to parents, and doesn鈥檛 declare any political agenda"
Which clearly misses the point of this, and any other online forum. By clicking on the front page of the site he could have read the description of the discussion forums which say
"Swap notes on your pregnancy, find a friend in your area to have coffee with, have a heated debate, tell a joke or anything else you like. It's a good place to let off steam, or find advice about anything in your life - someone in the forum has probably been through the same things as you."
Forums such as this have many debates.. many political, sometimes heated. But surely this is a good thing. Why shouldn't parents (who form a large percentage of the electorate) debate political issues with other parents. And if you disagree with one part of the debate, then by all means put your side, quote references, add facts... but using your own blog to condemn it is at the least bad manners, and at worst is using your position to bully those who wish to debate it. As to the out of the blue comment, you do seem to have missed the long history and many other debates that are posted on the site in question.
I notice that you posted a link to your friends blog which describes its self as "Slugger O'Toole records news, commentary and diverse opinion on Northern Ireland."
Why is debate about issues diverse opinions on Northern Ireland acceptable, but debate about diverse opinions on parenting not?
Well put Alex Stone. My take on the 鈥渂lame鈥 game goes like this:
Parish Councils dislike District and Borough Councils because they feel they are the more legitimate but feel unloved and unappreciated.
District and Borough Councils dislike Country Councils and any kind of regional government because they feel they are the more legitimate but feel unloved and unappreciated.
Country Councils and any kind of regional government dislike central Government because they feel they are the more legitimate but feel unloved and unappreciated.
Central Government dislikes the European institutions because they feel they are - well I think you know the rest.
Knowing this you would think a mature Country could be a bit more grown-up about Europe 鈥 wouldn鈥檛 you?
Mark
I've always found this V.A.T. issue very confusing. I'm Belgian, live in Britain and have a three year old daughter. I'm used to shopping for her in both countries and can't say I've ever noticed any difference in the price of children's clothing. I've even often felt that when comparing like for like, Belgium is slightly cheaper. As far as I'm aware Belgium does have V.A.T. on children's clothing, so why isn't there a clear difference with Britain?
Nothing new there then, women's sanitary protection has always been subject to VAT whist men's shaving equipment is not. Babies' nappies are clearly regarded as being something to do with women and therefore non-essential.
I agree with Alex, but as you quite rightly say, we are an endangered species. People love to bleat about the imposition of ludicrous legislation but totally ignore the many positive benefits we have all gained from the mere existence of the Union. The fundamental one I always come back to is: the longest period of peace and stability on this continent since possibly the Pax Romana. Surely that alone is worth celebrating?
Let's join the common currency and make an honest attempt to counter the economic might of, at the very least, the emerging tiger economies of the East, by working together. Economic stability and an ethical "European" leadership of global affairs is sorely needed and far outweigh any arguments about individual sovereignty and "national interest". There can be no national interest in the face of the challenges ahead.
Mark
The more I read about EU directives the more I am coming to believe that there are two things that Britain should do in the very near future in relation to the EU:
1. Have a referendum on whatever stitch-up develops out of the EU's proposed Constitution II/"Reform Treaty" over the next few months, &
2. Have a referendum on what type of future relationship British people want with the EU.
Actually leaving the EU may not really gain anyone anything - ie both the UK & the EU. We both would still be there as neighbours the day after the rupture occurred. But all the pointless directives, & costly EU-centred ambitions (eg the very flawed & costly Galileo satellite project which will only duplicate at great cost existing free ones) are a constant drain - physically, financially, & emotionally. So also is the EU's pernicious practice of never wanting to accept the electorate's vote of "No".
If the EU gets a "No" today, shortly afterwards the whole thing seems to get presented again - hoping that memories will be short, like the current hoop-la over the proposed Constitution II/"Reform Treaty". The amazing thing is that all the EU's heads of government (with the current valiant exception of Poland) seem quite happy to sell their own countries interests out - for what I'm not clear. Maybe for no more than just matiness in the routine EU leaders' photo-call at the beginning of each summit.
If the EU genuinely reflected its citizens' wishes it would accept "No", & curtail its powers, handing them back graciously to member giovernments, instead of its present practice of being an inexecrable octupus, dragging everything into its deep & insatiable centre.
PS: have a good holiday, mate!
I must agree with Liberty Valence.
I can only think that those who want closer integration in Europe have not read many of the articles for and against.
All I can say is if you have read them, and are not angry, then you are not paying attention.
One other thing, in poll after poll it shows that the majority of the British population do not consider themselves as European.
What happened to "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"
Good articles and comments. The Daily Telegraph is a good one for misleading scare stories about Brussels.
That said, beware of calls for tax harmonisation. If companies get together, and decide to coordinate prices for their services, it's called collusion. The companies can be fined, and the directors can go to prison. If countries do the same, its called tax harmonisation.
Belgium and France for example have generous and inefficient public sectors, funded by high taxes, which are causing a brain drain from the country. What should they do? Reform their public sectors - but this is difficult and complicated and loses votes. Far easier to try and force other countries to raise the prices of their services.
Don't get me wrong - lots of good comes out of the EU, but tax collusion is about as welcome as price collusion.
Denigrating your opponents whilst avoiding discussing the issues at hand always leaves me with the feeling that perhaps your arguments can't stand scrutiny. I am happy to tolerate those who draw different conclusions from the same facts without questioning their sanity but I might suspect their motivation.
I am glad the EU has flexed it muscles over the issue of mobile phone charges. Perhaps the group most affected by this would be the army of EU bureaucrats & politicians. It certainly isn't a burning issue for me or I suspect the vast majority of people who might take one annual trip to the continent. I look forward to the EU winning me a refund over from the cartel of EU energy companies who saw the opportunity to fleece us so recently.
I have enjoyed your blog and the lively and more intelligent debates it has stimulated.
Keep up the good work and enjoy your holiday.
Graeme (6) wrote:
"Never mind, since the Euroseptics' average age, and coincidentally average IQ, is about 93, the rest of us won't have to put up with their mendacious ramblings for much longer."
What a mature and measured presentation of your EUrophilic position.... (yeah, right).
Just for the record: Even if (big 'if') I did have to pay double for international roaming charges - it would be a drop in the ocean in comparison to the actual cash cost of EU membership to each British taxpayer.
Graeme continues in #11:
"The fundamental one I always come back to is: the longest period of peace and stability on this continent since possibly the Pax Romana. Surely that alone is worth celebrating?"
Actually, peace and stability in Europe is a direct result of NATO and the US Nuclear umbrella.
Greame continues:
"Economic stability and an ethical "European" leadership of global affairs is sorely needed and far outweigh any arguments about individual sovereignty and "national interest". There can be no national interest in the face of the challenges ahead."
Would you care to put this to the vote in a national referendum? Hmmmm.... I thought not.
I am Spaniard, 40, living in London and during last EU summit I wondered why was UK wanting be member of the EU.
Although I would like British people to be more Europhile, wouldn't it be more coherent for UK to withdraw from EU as you clearly don麓t want more integration?
From my own experience, most people around the Continent want more Europe, especially in those countries with Euro and Schengen, and not less like in here.
In my modest opinion, Europe cannot go further because of Britain, and Britain is afraid that EU goes to further. Is not it a bit schyzofrenic?
Anyway, what I do really appreciate is that this country is much more Europhile than ever.
But hold on... Alistair Darling also told the FT "I do not believe in economic patriotism. I think it is nonsense. Economic patriotism is protectionism and there is no other name for it.鈥
On that basis he shouldn't care less whether there is VAT on nappies or not but of course what he really means is that he doesn't care if the rest of Europe buys all our companies..
Some strange mixed values these politicians have.
Re R Neal`s question- that kind of government is alive and ailing in the USA to which it refers.Britain is an oligarcy and is run on your behalf by Parliament.End of story.
I now live (thank goodness) in France and this country is run by the people, not Brussels and they go out and vote instead of wingeing.Good grief, in Britain there is now an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate for his `changes`-that used to be called a dictatorship,when it happened abroad.It cant be-not in Britain.....
Mark, I wrote the article you have featured in this blog, so thought it worthy of a "horse's mouth" response.
I think your critique is fair in its questioning of the political slant in the article, which, incidentally can be read in full here: . I hold my hands up to letting personal bias colour the piece. I am not a Eurosceptic, because as Graeme says many benefits have come from the Union. I am, however, opposed to the Labour party reneging on its manifesto pledge for a referendum and then Tony Blair signing the EU Treaty on his way out the door. It may not be the Constitution, but it is a step towards greater centralisation, and not only do I believe we deserve a say in that, but we were also promised one.
The reason I said Gordon Brown has not informed the British public is because I do not consider a discussion in the House of Commons to be informing the public in a way that allows the public to engage with the issue. Claiming it's been discussed and therefore that's alright then - no need for a referendum - is not good enough.
However, personal opinions aside Mark, the lack of a declaration of a political agenda on our website is not important, because not announcing an agenda doesn't preclude us from discussing issues of the day.
We are a website for adults who happen to be parents, not a website to tell people how to put on a nappy. Journalist after journalist has reported, at election time, about the lack of engagement from the electorate, so when you see it happening at grass roots level, among parents who vote, you should be glad.
Keep up the good work Mark and I echo everyone else's praise and good wishes.
I must stop reading this blog. It鈥檚 become addictive. I just can鈥檛 help reacting to some of the comments that are made.
Marcel writes: 鈥淪ometimes, talking to EUluvvies is like talking to a wall. They have an unshakable faith in their 'project' and will not stand for any criticism of it.鈥
Let鈥檚 be fair. There is dogmatism on both sides 鈥 among many eurosceptics too. And why is there a tendency to dogmatism on this issue? Because neither side can decisively prove its case. We can鈥檛 unwind European history, so we can鈥檛 be sure whether European peace and relative prosperity would have been possible without the process of European integration. Nor can we foretell the future.
I happen to be for a European federation. I believe that, ironically, it would ultimately lead to less centralisation than the current process of piecemeal reform. Federalism has proven itself to be capable of bringing together peoples of different languages, religions, etc, in a functioning political democracy 鈥 in Europe, in North America, and in Asia (India, in particular).
On one thing I agree with many eurosceptics. The people should decide, precisely because these are important matters and one cannot be sure about the right course. Yes to referendums, if enough people participate in them. But let me warn the eurosceptics. Referendums don鈥檛 always run in the same direction. For example, the Swiss rejected the EEA, but accepted Dublin/Schengen, thus proving themselves to be a little less insular than the British government.
Marcel also writes: As an Eusceptic, I do not see the need for supranationalism. I believe in intergovernmentalism. I am not afraid of the world 鈥 .
I am not afraid of the world either. But I am afraid of Europe鈥檚 murderous past, and believe that democratically accepted federal supranationalism has a better chance of preventing a re-occurence than intergovernmentalism.
In calling for 鈥渁 kind of United States of Europe鈥 (admittedly without Britain) in his 1946 Z眉rich speech, Winston Churchill said: 鈥淎nd why should there not be a European group, which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which the millions of families, speaking many languages, must consciously take part. 鈥
鈥淚f Europe is to be saved from infinite misery and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family this 'act of oblivion鈥 against all crimes and follies of the past.鈥
Admittedly, that is one opinion among many. But it is one based on the bitter experience of two world wars.
We certainly move in these debates. In this case, from babies鈥 bottoms to Churchill!
Liberty Valence;
Whilst my education was mostly geared toward economics, I still kept abreast of the latest developments in the technological and scientific fields as a matter of priority...
As such I must emphatically stress that EU funded Galileo GPS system is NOT merely a duplication of existing technology, but a radical progression thereof.
There are so many more potential uses for a system which can achieve 10cm to 4m accuracy than one which can only reach 20m accuracy. The EU could fund the entire system without private investment and it would still be worth it, simply because of the perpetual facilitation of wealth creation and the public utility.
L.S.,
Just yesterday I read in the New Yorker about Rupert Murdoch's attempt to buy the Wall Street Journal (https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/02/070702fa_fact_auletta), and now I see you mention the concept of a "campaigning newspaper". I wonder if this is some kind of continent vs. Anglo-American divide, but to me the idea of a newspaper campaigning seems simply horrific.
@ R Neal
"If you have read them, and are not angry, then you are not paying attention."
Great logic.
No more valid than the following statement:
"If you post on a blog about European politics and do not bother (or are unable) to use correct spelling and grammar then you must be pro-European."
Seriously though, where is the evidence for "poll after poll" (most of the polling organisations publish their data on the web - I couldn't find anything on this after doing a fair few searches on a popular search engine beginning with "G").
You were also asking what happened to the quote from the Gettysburg Address - penned of course by that great British Democrat Abraham Lincoln. Well first of all, what does this (albeit snappy) soundbite actually have to do with contemporary British democracy? (Can I also remind you that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned political opponents without trial during the American Civil War?)
Our system of parliament is a representative one, we elect people as members of political parties to make the best decisions on our behalf, not to blindly do whatever the majority of people want at a particular moment in time (not to say this doesn't happen).
The British public is too ill-informed to make anything other than an irrational, emotional choice when it comes to issues to do with Europe; we are stuck in a bubble of (almost willing) ignorance - a vicious cycle. Europe only tends to sell papers when it's either a) done something wrong or b) (more significantly) can be made to look like it's done something wrong, and until this changes we should not, in my humble opinion, be allowed anywhere near a referendum.
Sweetalkingguy wrote:
"The euro is controlled by unelected bankers"
Yeah, well guess what? So is the pound - it's in control of Bank of England monetary men.
The Chancellor seems to engage via written letters seeking and sometimes giving direction for consideration but mainly it's your black suited and booted bowler hat type city-men who run the economy; running it because they are greatly intelligent and are in that position to ensure politicians don't mess the economy up over zealous party policy aims.
Economic Union makes sense. The EU has been for too long over tolerant to the UK in respect of opt-outs.
When it comes to the economy leave it to professional economists.
The Commission proposal is about streamlining VAT rates. Thanks to Mark for providing the link so that everyone can judge for himself/herself.
It seems that euro-phobia is now so entrenched in the UK that a rational discussion is almost impossible. People just hear "tax" and "Brussels" and start salivating instantly.
But there are loads of VAT reductions and many of them make sense. Belgium has a low rate on most foods which reflects the Belgian affinity to good eating. Germany has a lower rate for cultural products like books. A lower rate for children's clothing is also common. Only zero rates seem to be a more systematic problem that is now being addressed.
I have to congratulate Mark once more for his excellent blog. It encourages British people to move away from the sterile discussions on "Europe" and actually deal with real arguments.
Alex Stone's post (1) is a good sign that more and more people are having enough of the undemocratic brainwash that the UK tabloids (and in particular a certain Australian with US citizenship) are pushing onto people. However, even Alex still has some nonsensical stereotypes in his head: There is no regulation on the curvature of bananas. There are rules for the grading of bananas and there is a trade regime. The grading of cucumbers includes some rules on curvature, but this all makes sense as any vegetable wholeseller will confirm to you. Stuff that enters markets needs to be controlled in terms of quality. It has been done for centuries, also in England. Only when the EU harmonises those rules, people get exited and fear the loss of their "identity", but in the end it's just an outpouring of xenophobia.
We should judge people on the quality of their arguments, not on their level of uneasiness with "foreigners".
Two final remarks for Marcel (5):
Intergovernmentalism as we had it before 1914? Sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Wasn't it the Netherlands who fiddled with the Euro exchange rate just before introduction so that they could secretly devalue a bit against the German Mark? Frankly, the self-righteousness of the Dutch and their obsession with money is sometimes a bit hard to bear.
@ Ronald Gr眉nebaum (16): is that why you want a supranational government increasingly dominating the national governments?
What existed before 1914 was not intergovernmentalism but (particularly in the case of those who started the war, Austria-Hungary) a case of supranationalism).
Keep in mind we all know how that worked out for the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
And as for 'us' fiddling with the Euro exchange rate, if we did, why did we get such an unfavorable exchange rate? Something smells fishy here.
When I was a child, I loved to play foottball at school.
In my team there was allways a spoiled child who would never pass the ball to others, but wanted to do everything himself.
Once he lost the ball, he would start complaining about the referee, the adversaries and the team mates, ending by crying if he could not get the ball again.
Many English journalists and politicians show the the same attitude toward the EU.
They are frustrated, because they cannot have it their way all the time. So they keep on crying:"Stop! I dont want to play with you anymore!"
The Empire is lost forever, so British people should grow up, get over it, learn to treat other Europeans as equal. Or do you prefer to be USA's puppy dog?
I have lived in London for several years, and UK has gained a lot from EU membership, starting from the multinationals with headquarters in London, to the educated, european workforce in the City, to 5 weeks holidays, to the depuration of river Thames.
Finally, about nappies: they already cost more in UK then in Europe, without VAT, how come? How come shoes in UK cost double then in Europe? Ask your distributors.
Vive le Anglo-euroscepticisme! While Mark refreshes his batteries on holiday, let us bear in mind that to understand Europe you have to be "a genius or French."
Democratic-Centre wrote:
"Economic Union makes sense. The EU has been for too long over tolerant to the UK in respect of opt-outs.
When it comes to the economy leave it to professional economists."
Which 'professional economist' would they be then? The ones in favour of the UK joining the Euro or the ones against? 'Economists' are not a monolithic bloc and their 'professionalism' is hardly a science. They tend to have good hindsight, however, and most would agree that remaining out of the Eurozone has well served British interests.
Why not let us plebs decide instead?
Marcel: Ronald Gr眉nebaum is just reminding you uppity Dutch to keep your lowly position and not make such a fuss when grown ups are talking.
Two things:
1) I've always felt that the trouble with EU legislation in the UK is that (generally) UK legislation is drafted with common sense and enforced with zeal, whereas Continental legislation is drafted with zeal and enforced with common sense. So EU legislation is drafted with zeal but then enforced in the UK with zeal, making it look either draconian or just daft.
2)The problem I see with anti-federalists is that they don't understand federalism. Which country is this, for example? The federal government is relatively hands-off. Demarcation between state and federal authorities is clear and boundaries are well-known. Each state in the federation can raise its own taxes, maintains its own armed forces under the direct command of that state's highest elected official, has its own state flag, its own state capital and its citizens more often than not identifiy with the state first and the federation second. The country? It's the USA. Isn't that the model for a United States of Europe?
Robert Day says: "The federal government is relatively hands-off. Demarcation between state and federal authorities is clear and boundaries are well-known. Each state in the federation can raise its own taxes, maintains its own armed forces under the direct command of that state's highest elected official, has its own state flag, its own state capital and its citizens more often than not identifiy with the state first and the federation second. The country? It's the USA. Isn't that the model for a United States of Europe?"
Sure - if we all spoke English... Actually, what he says is a lot of tosh. Citizens of the USofA pledge alleigence to the US, not to Arizona or Utah. (Texas may be an exeption when it comes to loyalty - but even there interstate migration has made it less so). Americans fight in the US army - when was the last time Montana or New Hampshire fought a war? And they certainly don't have 22 or 23 different languages - not to mention various disparate nationalities seeking independence (Read Basques, Corsicans, Scots, Catalans, Flems, etc). In fact, the homogenous quality (melting pot) of American integration is something that many European states view with envy.
Try again.
@ Max Sceptic (33): yes, I realize that.
The EU-philes all despise us 'lowly' EU-sceptics. They are all so 'progressive' and supranationalism is such a wonderful thing, and eliminating national democracy is even better (in their eyes).
They are perfectly willing to discard democracy to have technocratic rule by an unelected mutually appointed elite.
I despise (self) appointed politicians for the reasons that Stalin and Hitler were both (self) appointed.
Like Alex I am a Europhile. I work overseas and travel a reasonable amount. The Colonel Blimps who maintain that we are a GREAT nation should step back and look at the facts. Britain has to rely on others for prosperity. I agree that the EU may appear overly bureacratic, but have you ever been to a local council to get things done.
Marcel talks about disregarding democracy. How much democracy do we have? MPs are elected under the various Representation of the People Acts. How much representation do we get when they vote on personal conscience or opinions? Does it differ from EU technocrat directives. How many directives are actually harmful to the UK economy? Why do we continue to think foreign is wrong rather than just different. And different is not necessarily wrong.
But, allan clark (37), MP's are at the very least elected.
This is something we cannot say of the Commission or most people on the Council, who were appointed. Most of them appointed by those who were appointed as well.
Did you ever get a vote on whether you wanted a political union? You won't. And why not? Because the E(U)lites know there is likely not to be a majority for it in any EU member state.
And that's what rankles me the most about the EU. The reason we don't get as many referendums on it as we should is not because politicians think that the issues aren't worthy of a referendum. It's because they know they would lose most of them. The few that have been won in the past were won based on deception.
National parliaments are sovereign but do not own that sovereignty. Their peoples do. That's why those national parliaments should never be allowed to give a single power up (to Brussels) without the consent of the peoples themselves.
Marcel writes:
"The reason we don't get as many referendums on it as we should is not because politicians think that the issues aren't worthy of a referendum. It's because they know they would lose most of them. The few that have been won in the past were won based on deception."
There are fanatical football fans like that too. When our team wins, it's because it's better. When it loses, it's because the other side cheated.
When such views prevail, no democratic political system can work. Least of all one based on direct democracy(referendums, initiatives, recalls).