Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by John of AixWe've been over this several times, they did vote and they have
contiunued to support that choice through subsequent
elections.
that vote passed me by can you remind me?
You probably weren't born.
You obviously wont make a psychic.
Anyway you haven't offered this startling proof.
Come on John the whole nation is gripped by anticipation.
Under Ted Heath concerning Britain's entry into the EEC and in
1975 confirming that entry.
Yes quite right.
However in 1975 67.2% of the public voted in favour of the eu and
yet their is a growing anti eu feeling in Britain now.
That is purely subjective.
Then why hasn't Blair had his referendum already?
Because you do not have referenda about very important international
treaties every five minutes. The British are in the EU, they voted
to be and successive governments have been in favour of that. There
is no justification for calling that agreement into question.
Then why did he mention it?
Who mention what, Blair and the EU constitution? If so then why
shouldn't he mention it, he can have a referendum on that if he wishes
seeing as how it affects the country quite fundamentally, but that is
not a vote on continuing membership of the EU.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHCould it be that the public are now more educated into the real
implications of membership?
I doubt it, I find the British people to be those who know the
least about the EU, mainly because of the years of anti-EU
propaganda
The nonsense has been poored upon us from both media and government.
I make my observations from personal experience talking to people
from the member countries as well as from the media. The British
know the least about the EU.
Well I'm sure a lot of that is to do with the language barrier.
English being a second language in most European countries puts us at
a great disadvantage. Most of the public get their information from
newspapers and as you know we are very bad at foreign languages
compared to Europe.
Partly to be sure but even in the native language press Europe is
treated much more seriously and when I was in Ireland last year I came
across a copy of (I think) the Irish Times and their weekly supplement
on European affairs which was truly excellent, and in English. Of course
everything on the EU sites is translated into English so the info is
there if anyone wants it.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of Aixand a good part of the
various conservative governments and what is left of that party.
The conservative party like all the other main stream parties has
joined in the eu conspiracy. Recently however some enlightened
conservatives have bowed to public pressure.
Which 'conspiracy' would that be then
The gradual way we've been drawn into the eu by all the main stream parties.
How is that different from the way we have been drawn into current
working practices, fast food consumption, TV serials etc. Things change
and evolve. Those who make them evolve, or make the laws governing that
evolution, should be in touch with the people like any representative
but in the end they have to come up with a synthesis of opinion and not
one particular one. The EU has evolved and is evolving. That seems to be
beneficial to the populations of its member countries and to Europe as a
whole and it is the reason why it continues in an entirely voluntary
fashion with a smaller or larger minority of diehard opponents in each
country
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHThe pro eu government propaganda machine had been used to misguide
the public and not educate us into believing its validity.
In the 1975 referendum the government spent £1.9 million into
brainwashing us. The "no" campaign only had £133,610 at its disposal.
They didn't have many supporters then.
You need to read the link more closely. £1.8 million was donated by
industry who already had vested interests in Europe.
Its not surprising there was a lack of support with such an
unbalanced campaign!
Yes, the government supported the campaign for a yes vote as they
considered it in British interests and spent money on it. They were
right
to do so and sour grapes won't get you anywhere.
No you miss my point here.
The government made available £124,000 to both the yes and the no, a
position which is admirable. They then shot themselves in the foot by
accepting £1.8 million from industry. An unacceptable advantage
when they must have had a good idea of their adversary and how
difficult it would be to raise an equivalent sum from scattered
groups. That's more than just sour grapes!
I don't see why. Industry supported the yes case just as some
industrials support one of the parties in an election and so they
contributed to the success of that opinion. That the opposition didn't
receive similar sums shows the weak support they had.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHThe government used the secret service and the media against the
people, we had no response to that.
Yes you did, as did everyone, use their brains.
Their brains were befuddled by the government propaganda machine.
Post by John of AixThey used them, they
voted yes, end of story.
Not untill the true implications are spelt out for the British
Public to vote on.
There are no such things as the 'true implications'.
By those I mean the gradual erosion of our sovereignty, our laws,
boarders, monetary system,our ability to defend ourselves with our
own armed forces etc.
Sovereignty schmovereignty. This word is bandied about and it is fairly
meaningless. Few countries have much real sovereignty in the globalised
world being, as they are, interdependent. This argument is like that of
little independent kingdoms, earldoms or even towns in the Middle Ages
who did not want to give up their privileges to a larger unit, that of a
nation being formed, but that is the way of the world. It's a logical
evolution.
All the nations of the EU have their own military force and the
beginnings of a common defence force are only just being seen. If such a
thing should come about what would Britain be frightened of, the Germans
invading? Not only is this unlikely I would say it is well nigh
impossible given that the Germans are fully part of the EU. So it would
haveto be a threat from elsewhere, outside Europe in which case I would
have thought that a collective defence would be better than azn isolated
one.
Your borders are, and will continue to be controlled by the British
authorities, just as the borders of the various EU countries are, or can
be, controlled by their respective authorities. There is an aim to cease
all controls of the movement of EU citizens within the Union, this is
already the case in those countries that have signed up to the Schengen
agreement. However the work of the Customs services continues unabated
and, if anything, is more acute as they can now check anyone and
anything any time and anywhere in their country and not just at the
borders.
The popular monetarey system objection makes me laugh. About the only
reason I can see for keeping the pound sterling is to keep the LSD, the
libra, solidae et denarii, for its connection to the ancient Romans and
their occupation of Britain, though British money didn't settle on these
names until relatively recently so even that is a bit artificial but
adds a bit of culture nevertheless.
Concerning the actual money, well what difference is there between
changing from 240 pence to a pound to 100 new pence at the time of
decimalsation and the disappearance of many old names of money such as
the half crown, shilling etc? Yes it's sad to see them go but life moves
on and it is a damn site easier in these days of information technology
to use a decimal system. Nowadays no one is bothered about 100p to a
pound except a few monetary flat-earthers, probably friends of Wotan,
and a change to the Euro would be much the same. Practically of course
it would be adavtageous for any ctizen that travelled elsewhere in the
EU for one loses quite a bit on exchange rates. So on the personal level
of the avergae british subject there would be no real probleme other
than an emotional one.
What is far more important of course is the financial management aspect,
Britain would have to give up much of its control over monetary policy
which one could argue against, though I wouldn't of course. IMO to do so
is to show fear, fear that monetary policy would be worse in the hands
of the European Central Bank than with the Bank of England. It would
probably be different because it has wider objectives than purely
national ones but I don't see why it should be any worse overall. So far
the Euro has been a resounding success despite attacks on it a year or
more ago and the low economic growth rate in the Euro zone. Why
shouldn't it be, the fiscal rectitude imposed is pretty stringent even
if some countries let themselves slide over the limit, as France and
Germany did this year, and it is the currency used by about 300 million
people in Europe and the trading currency of many others. Given the
current weakness of the dollar (and the pound relative to the Euro), the
tendancy of the USA to print money to get itself out of trouble and a
certain political stigma that is attached to having ties with the USA
these days, there are rumblings among the oil producing countries and
suggestions that oil be paid for and quoted in Euros. This would not be
good news for the USA of course but excellent news for the Euro and
Europe and, I think, would more or less oblige Britain to join.
In short the Euro is a strong currency and in practical use very well
accepted and easy to use by EU citizens, it is fun even to see coins
from the various countries in your change at the baker's.
Post by SHThese are the implications which should have been spelt out to us
from the beginning. You yourself go on the say how uninformed we are
so you must see that it was imperative that everything was spelled
out clearly at the beginning. It wasn't exactly rocket science.
Instead, even today Blair bleats on about retaining our sovereignty.
Things could not be seplled out in detail at the beginning as they
weren't known. As I've said, the EU is an ongoing process and a unique
one for which there is no model in history. It started off very simply
with the desire of Jean Monnet and others to remove the main cause of
contention between France and Germany which had resulted in three tragic
wars in the space of 70 years: Alsace Lorraine and its coal and steel.
It was removed by the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community
which included the above two countries as well as the Benelux countries
and Italy who thought it was a good idea. The British refused to join
because they would not accept the necessary supranationality it
required. That was in 1951.
In 1957 the same six countries strengthened and widened their union with
the creation of the EEC, which came into being the 1/1/58 and Euratom.
The union continued to strengthen as much for the increased, and
peaceful, contacts it allowed between citizens of the different
countries as for political and economic reasons. So a consciousness of
our common European heritage grew, for as someone pointed out, Europe is
older than its countries, we are all Celts, Latins, Vikings and Huns
a-mixed and we all know Erasmus, Léonardo, Mahler and Darwin. Europe was
considered a good thing and so the European Union was formed, new
members joined and new laws were made to continue progress.
I believe more than 70% of British law is EU law, no one seems to be
suffering from that, on the contrary, there is a court of Human Rights
now to which British citizaens can complain if they feel they are
unfairly treated by their governments and are not given their rights.
Some do and some win, that is good. The labels on food are now choc à
bloc with information and an enormous number of additives have been
banned by the EU, nor can foreign imports that do not satisfy European
criteria be imported, such as US hormone filled beef and veal. Who has
not seen signs out in the middle of nowhere in the far reaches of
Britain saying "This project financed buy the European Union", places
where national government money never arrived but where EU money did
under the principle that every citizen everywhere in the Union should
have equally good treatment, be it in the roads he uses, the schools his
children attend or the protection he is afforded in his work.
Europe is making Europe, there is no master plan and suggestions are
welcome from all. Therein lies the reproach I make about Britain in this
matter, it whinges about certain aspects of the EU (don't worry other
countries do too) but instead of getting in there and making its still
very respected voice heard, it pussyfoots around the edge for fear of
upsetting its electorate.
Post by SHThe EU makes itself
everyday on what its members decide. If the British want it to go one
way then they present their case and it's accepted, rejected,
modified, adapted or whatever. The same for all the countries in the
EU. There is no grand design, no model to follow, this is an
entirely new political entity being created according to what we
have learnt from the past, what we know in the present and what we
hope for in the future, peace and prosperity for all.
No no no you don't get away with that.
Don't tell me the way in which the eu will go forward hasn't been
discussed and decided upon years before its formation. It must have
teams upon teams of policy makers.
Of course but that is only short term stuff when you are talking about
real political union, stuff about road building, world trade etc, normal
civil service stuff in sum. The political union aspect is still a hot
potato for there are lots of different viewpoints. Some want a union,
full stop. Same rules, same methods everywhere. They've got a fat chance
in my opinion for even after all these years Italy is as Italian as ever
just as all the countries have retained their identities and national
quirks. Then there are the federalists who accept than one rule accepted
by all on those things that affect us all, the quality of imported food
for instance, is a good pragmatic and efficient idea but don't want it
to go too far down the legal ladder and affect everything in ther
different countries, which they feel would cause them to lose their
individuality or sovereignty. Then there are those who think it has gone
far enough. They are divided into two camps, those who really don't want
it to go further in its unionising by the creation of new laws or
objectives, recede even, and those who want it to go no further for the
moment because of the difficult task of bringing most of the recently
entered countries up to scratch. Plus all sorts of other ideas from
larger or smaller minorities.
The die is definitely not cast. The proposed constitution only really
enshrines what has already been acquired and in its preamble it is very
vague and diplomatic about the future path of the EU. Non committal in
fact, this after objections to the original wording, no doubt the work
of the very European and very well read Giscard d'Estaing, by Britain
and some other countries. On the web somewhere I found the proposed
Constitution text with the additions, changes and comments at the
request of or made by the EU heads of government when they met to
discuss it. It is extremely interesting for it allows you to seer the
individual input and attitude of those concerned.
Post by SHThe idea that it makes it up as it goes along is a joke.
Its already decided on overall policies it will follow with respect to
global expansionism, the polarisation of capitalism, the competition
of popular nationalism together with social welfare and its own
expansionist policies.
Balderdash.
Post by SHHow has it decided to work with American Imperialism. That hasn't
changed since WW1.
My guess it that it will do nothing to change the status quo because
if it does it will be in direct confrontation with the US.
It depend what you term 'direct confrontation'. Certainly I believe its
opposition to US foreign policy will increase as Europe realizes its
potential as a force in the world, and I don't mean militarily, though I
expect that will come to some degree. Economically of course it is
already in competition, and gaining ground, and that won't change.
Post by SHWhat are its policies on Iran when it sets up its oil borse. Is it
going to allow the middle east the opportunity of creating its own
oil market? The temptation must be there particularly if the Arab
States switch from dollars to euros in oil. More direct
confrontation.
In that yes, I'm all for it personally, I'm not a US American, I'm a
European, I don't owe them any free lunches.
Post by SHOK I wont labour the point as I could obviously go on for ever, but
you can't tell me that over all policy positions have not already
been taken. Admittedly there will be some day to day flexibility, but
that has more to do with the way things are presented to the public
than the strategic way the eu will develop.
No, I don't believe the EU has a strategy in internationla politics, not
yet. In fact the division before the Iraq invasion shows that it hasn't.
I believe it should have a strategy and am fully in agreement with an EU
Foreign Minister to express that on behalf of the EU. However the
strategy itself has not even begun to be discussed, there is just the
occasional consensus on things such as the death penalty when it can
speak with one voice.
Post by SHMy fear is that all that will be created here is another world
superpower which at sometime in the future will clash with the US
destabilising the world even further.
I don't think there will be a physical clash, though I suppose they're
daft enough for anything over there and they certainly have the
weaponry, but honestly, I think the USA is in decline. It is still far
and away the richest nation in the world of course but it is very
dependent on others and the economic status quo. As countries such as
China and India develop, eventually Africa too, economic weight will
shift. For the moment in many things there is still no competition,
hi-tech stuff for instance, but that won't last, once others get their
nose to the grindstone they'll soon work it out. Europe has already
shown that with the success of Airbus and Ariane where previously only
Boeing and US companies reigned.
I think that is just the way of the world for while the USA is a big and
resource rich country, it nevertheless only counts for about 5% of the
population of the world, little more than half that of the EU and way
behind the 20 or more % of China and India.
The decline will be slow but it could get to a point where the US people
feel it hard. After a century of prosperity they aren't going to be
happy, nor are they prepared morally for such troubles I think, in which
case they may lash out and try to get wealth from somewhere else, much
as Bush is doing currently. All the more reason to create a strong
Europe I would have thought.
Post by SHThere is so much injustice in the world that if the eu listens and
acts upon its electorates wishes it will certainly come into direct
and dangerous conflict.
I don't see why, while anti-Bush sentiment is in the majority in all the
EU countries except Poland and while some of it is also anti-American
sentiment most of it is probably not. For the moment there seems to be a
lunatic in the White House from our point of view, but four years ago
there was Bill Clinton who everyone loved, before that Reagan, loved by
some, Nixon voted a twat, Kennedy, voted a legend. It changes all the
time, that's the USA for you Europe looks at it a bit like "the dogs
bark, the caravan passes", it doesn't confuse the USA as an entity,
which is generally admired, with its current president who may be
admired or may be vilified as I say.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixThe band of ex-colonels and 'Disgusted of
Bognor's can just whine forever. Britain is in the EU, will stay in
the EU and the quicker it participates fully in the EU the quicker
it will understand the benefit of it
Why do we have to participate to understand these so called
benefits?
You don't of course, but nor will you profit from them,
There's nothing to say that the eu is going to be successful, so we
may very well profit by not being in.
Well so far it has been a resounding success so I don't see why that
shouldn't continue. It's up to us isn't it?
Post by SHand all British
governments have known that not to would be foolish. Already your
opt-outs mean that the British worker is less well protected than the
average continental worker.
So how is Europe standing up against the TNCs and protecting its jobs
against going to third world countries?
TNCs? I don't know that abbreviation so I can't answer.
The EU can only protect jobs by making it very expensive for companies
to outsource or move, redundancy payments, retraining costs etc which it
does through its social legislation, or by giving tax relief to ensure
that it is commercially viable to stay, although this happens little and
is a delicate question as it could be considered to be a subsidy under
WTO rules. Otherwise it does nothing nor, I think, is there any
particular policy to do anything, I mean you can't ban the practice can
you? Personally I have nothing against outsourcing, it aids development
elsewhere and brings them a little closer to the abundance we have in
the west. We've got plenty and can afford a little less.
Post by SHBritain should be more in Europe, not less,
I'm not anti Europe although I know I sound it. But I am a sceptic
and a patriotic Englishman.
If there is something bad in that, well that's tough!
No, I can see you are not anti-Europe in a silly, knee jerk way. That's
one of the reasons why I've tried to explain my view of the thing. I'm
no official EU spokesman and only have an aware layman's knowledge of
the Union's workings but I try to keep up. I personally benefit from it
in a very practical way, that is to say I am able to live in a country
other than my own, circulate and work freely and even vote in local and
European elections, as well, of course, as benefitting from the same
servicess as anyone else here. It is place with lots of people from
other EU countries too doing the same thing and much visited by
tourists. I see more and more how much we have in common, not our eating
habits, our dress sense or our favourite films but our history, our
aspirations and our love for our continent and its beauty. That is a
good basis on which to build a brighter future. Changes are rarely
gobsmacking but usually gradual, so with the European Union. It is
really making itself as I say and does not have a model to follow, so
far it is doing pretty well IMO.
Sure there is rubbish, mainly too much bureaucracy, not because they're
passing too many laws and writing too many white papers but because
everything is translated into 15 languages, which is quite ridiculous.
Something must be done about this.
The reticence of the other countries to jettison their own language for
English is understandable, not only does it make a de-facto hegemony of
English, which would inevitably chosen, but would put them at a
linguistic disadvantage. There is also the question of pride. I think
almost all countries could be brought round to putting their language on
the back boiler for the greater good of the Union but the French would
have great trouble. French, an excellent language which I speak
fluently, was once the lingua franca of the civilised world and witness
to the glory of France. There is still a popular attachment to that a
bit like the Brits with their action in the war, something to be proud
of.
But those days are gone and they are going to have to bite the bullet. A
compromise might be possible reducing it to three languages in normal
circumstances say, English, French, on the excuse that it is pretty
widely spoken in Africa, and Spanish for the South American and US
hispanic market. We'll see, but something has got to give in this
direction, it is clogging up the works.
Post by SHparticipate 100% and make itself heard as something other than a
wishy-washy whiner on the coat tails of Uncle Sam.
We have friendly and long standing relationships with the American
People that does not mean we agree with their policies. The way in
which Blair has acted is just another break down of democracy, a
highlight of its inadequacy.
Yes I must say I think democracy is not all its cracked up to be but
it's the best we've got for the moment. That does not mean that it
shouldn't be improved and made more direct. The techniques are there in
these days of ubiquitous communication but the political will is not,
too many fat cats snoozing after their excellent lunch paid for by their
electorate.
As for the links to the USA, of course they're old and 'special' but
they are also somewhat stifling, a little like a friend one had in
school who is still there but who has no place in your life any more.
Britain and the USA will continue to share many things come what may
because of the common language and history but there is no real reason
why it should share a common foreign policy, at least not automatically,
their interests aren't the same and Britain always plays second fiddle
and gets second go at the food trough. Britain would be far more
respected and far more influential in Europe and Europe would be far
more influential because of that, it would help put pressure on the Bush
type lunatics of the world.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of Aixas the other member countries do, as do
those countries knocking on its door desperately.
mm I imagine these so called desperate countries are looking for
quick investment fixes we don't need that. We need political reform.
The rules for even beginning negotiations for entry are extremely
strict, as Turkey has seen, and the criteria for entry even more so.
It takes years, there is no quick fix.
What 'political reform' do you suggest.
I believe we need to strengthen our system and make politicians more
accountable.
How we do it? I have no idea at the moment.
Well for a start I think the idea of a double term maximum as they have
for the US presidency is already a good one and I would apply it quite a
long way down the political ladder. There is benefit in an incumbent
being in place for a long time, getting to know the people and the area
for instance, so I think for mayors and local councillors it would not
be a good idea but from then on yes. When trepresentatives are there too
long they forget what it's all about or become corrupt, new brooms
always sweep clean.
I would be in favour of popular referenda too, at all levels local or
national. If a certain number of signatures were necessary to hold a
referendum, a reasonable figure aimed at limiting silly ones, whereby
one could kick out one's MP or town councillor at any time, I'm sure it
would do them a lot of good when it comes to finding out what the
electorate wants as new questions arrive and time moves on.
Another simple thing too would be a staement of accountsd at the end of
the year, once more on several levels if you like. If I buy shares in a
company at the end of the year they'll send me some bumpf telling me
what they've spent and earned and if and where they've made a profit,
how much etc. Almost everyone invests an awful lot more in their country
through taxes and their efforts than they do in any shares yet they get
no real information at all. Sure it's there if you want to wade through
government sites on the net, but why isn't it available to every citizen
in simple, assimilable form. I'd like to know excatly where the money
goes, wouldn't you, and woe betide any minister that has a couple of
hundred thousand a year in dining expenses.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHThe media focused on
personalities of the "no" campaign, particularly Tony Benn who was
discredited as a communist at the time together with other eu
dissenters.
The British media is tripe for about 95% of it, they never focus on
issues but just on superficial nonsense.
Which is why education is so important. Although I do have more
faith in my fellow Brits.
Yes but look at your education system, it is rapidly becoming the
pits with thousands if not millions of kids leaving school as
illiterate yobs. I believe in education too, it is the only way in
the long term but one is not educated uniquely in school but also by
one's parents and family, friends, workmates etc. Education in its
widest sense I mean. But there has been a terrible dumbing down of
Britain in the last 20/30 years from many causes and for many
reasons and until that tide is turned then formal education can do
little.
No you misunderstood. The use of education was referring to the
implications of being in the eu.
OK, although you need one for the other really.
Post by SHI think we've lost touch with our roots in this country and morality
has been on the decline.
I agree and it is rather sad. In essence it hasn't really adapted to the
modern world. Very many people's ideal is still 'merrie England', many
others hark back to the Empire and regret its departure in one way or
another, or are still stuck in Britain's "finest hour". Many others
reject this entirely or don't even know about it. Wishing to return to
former days is pointless, it won't happen. The Church represents little,
the monarchy represents little and the government represents little for
very many people. Britain as a political entity is probably slowly
breaking up too. I expect the day will come when Scotland will be
independent and Ireland reunited, the English know this deep down I
suspect and it is one of the reasons that there is an examination about
their Englishness and a certain resurgence of simplistic nationalism
such as the increasing manifestations of St George flags. Nothing wrong
with that, good in fact as long as it doesn't become jingoistic
bollocks, they do need to find their roots, or rather, in my opnion,
make new ones. Take stock of Britain, or England, take into account its
past, look coldly and clearly at its present and reflect on its future
in order to find a new role and a new ideal, something to believe in and
go for. Why not Europe? Use its wisdom and experience to steer this
experiment along steady lines, make this fascinating and beautiful
little continent a beacon of peace and prosperity for the rest of the
world to emulate and hopefully benefit from.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHhttp://www.andymullen.com/downloads/research4/eu2.rtf
Unfortuantely it is not a reliable source because it has too much
of an agenda, as it says: Published by Democrat Press (Campaign
Against Euro-Federalism) (2004)
You mean the government doesn't have an agenda?
Of course, they were elected to fulfil it.
Not the point. I would be just as sceptical of a government source.
So would I, I'd read both but I'd still need a good independent source
or two.
Post by SHPost by SHPost by John of AixPost by SHOn 9 June 2003, Gordon Brown set out the preconditions for British
entry into the eurozone. The following day, Blair and Brown
announced that they were going to launch a national campaign to
spell out the case for both EU and euro membership; to construct a
new "patriotic pro-European consensus" in Britain (cited in White
and Stewart, 2003). It is unclear whether their efforts by will
develop into Britain's fourth propaganda campaign, or merely
another low intensity operation. Either way, the government's
policy of 'prepare and persuade' exhibits contempt for democracy
and due process.
Of course it doesn't, when governments want any policy to be
introduced, especially radical ones, they do some advertising,
appear on TV and sell their stuff to the public. That is what they
are supposed to do, lead and show the people why and where they are
leading them.
Its both the why and the where I have trouble with. I'm no eskimo
in need of a fridge!
Because things must not only be done but be seen to be done.
That's true, but still ditto above as policies should not have to be
oversold. After the initial introduction they are either accepted
for what they are or they are not. To keep attacking the public with
exactly the same thing put slightly differently doesn't change it's
merits.
No but it does show they either haven't got across or they aren't
accepted, the government has to believe it's the former, they can't help
themselves.