European Union - for or against?

[JNLister]

The European Parliament recommended in September 2007 that the European Commission propose a directive that would order national governments to introduce a public smoking ban.

 

That hasn't happened. As of this year, several European Union member states either have no smoking ban, or a restricted ban.

 

And in any case, it doesn't actually matter seeing as as the UK government introduced a smoking ban in England taking effect in July 2007.

 

 

So that's one piece of bullshit dismissed by research. In return, I'd be interested to hear which European directive forced the British government to close post offices.

 

(I'll leave aside the comical idea that the EU forced a British bus firm to sell itself to a French company. That's not politics or bureaucracy, that's called trade.)

 

Incidentally, that reply and research just wasted 15-20 minutes of my working day, so ironically we now have a case where UKIP bullshit is directly responsible for imposing unnecessary costs on British business.

[Loki]

Duane, you so remind me of Karl Pilkington - you'll believe any old shite that people tell you.

 

"Eeek, eeek, ohhh its Duaney News"

[Glen Quagmire]

In my last post, I didn't state my stance with the EU so I may as well lay down my mark - I do believe in a viable EU but in a decentralised form, the same way I believe the UK should be decentralised away from Westminster. The function of the EU should be to legislate for matters between countries in the EU (e.g. mobile phone roaming) and if necessary (sparingly) recommend minimal rules to member countries to help meet such requirements, and also provide a common policy in some areas (e.g. environment) which is a matter of crossing international boundaries but other than that, leave each country to freely apply its own laws and rules within their territories where there is no need to centralise matters that high up. An EU of nations rather than a Europe of nations, so an EU with restricted powers that must be granted to it by it membership. So my votes goes to "Somewhere in Between".

 

As for UKIP, it's hard for me to take them seriously. They're little more than a protest vote at European elections at present, and understand very little about holding off on certain matters where their involvement does more harm that good; one good example, the scope of their involvement in the Lisbon II referendum in Rep. Ireland gave the "Yes" campaign publicity they couldn't ever buy.

[Ronnie]

I've got my little EU piggy bank not too far from where I'm typing, though I'm not particularly a huge fan of all that the EU entails.

 

I like the clear, positive aspects: That all benefit from free trade, bereft or punishing protectionist measures; that I can live, work, and travel in the member states, without fear of discrimination, and where I can receive medical treatment should I fall ill; that the various nations have some form of common bond or membership, working in tandem and sharing a voice when faced with economic superpowers elsewhere.

 

However, there are aspects that make me think that the EU goes beyond where I'm comfortable. I remain unconvinced that redistributing money from the Germans, French, Dutch, and British to bring Ireland and Portugal into the 21st century via the "cohesion fund" was a system that I would buy into. Certainly, I would expect tax revenue from affluent cities to find its way into a country's own rural communities, but taking from one country to give to another strikes a discordant chord with me. We're not so integrated as people that I feel we (or the people of other countries) should be funding others at our own expense.

 

Similarly, I don't think that it's appropriate that a solvent country should bear the cost of another's dismal performance, which is what we're seeing with the Germans having to bail out the Greeks. The euro has certain economic benefits (price transparency, elimination of currency-conversion costs) as well as political ones (a sign of commitment and togetherness), but I don't think that these outweigh the adoption of a one-size-fits-all monetary policy, the surrendering of a country's central bank's power to conduct policy relevant to that country's specific needs.

 

On the subject of one country paying for another, there's a personal anecdote that springs to mind which leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth too: At international events I attend at least once a year, there's one guy I see who's been unemployed in Germany for over two decades, and has no intention of looking for work. By his own thriftiness he's able to holiday several times a year on that money, and was showing off his new video camera when I saw him a few weeks back. As galling as I find that particular lifestyle choice, I accept that that's how the system can be played in his country. Nonetheless, he mentioned to me about five years ago that he would be moving to Sweden shortly. I asked him whether it was for love or work, which was a foolish question in hindsight: Under EU legislation a country must apply the same rights to member countries' citizens as to its own, and he went on to spend a couple of years there sponging off the Swedish taxpayer, as he'd done for so many years back home. I find that to be highly distasteful, and I don't think it should be possible for him to have done that.

 

I should clarify that although it appears that I'm anti-EU I'm actually not. I simply feel that the member countries are too integrated politically, too much individual sovereignty surrendered to a body which allows near-dictatorial power (via the single-vote veto which is applicable in some areas) in too many cases. There are many positive aspects brought along by the EU, but I think that the progression of Delors' plans from the Single European Act to the wholesale political tract of Maastricht that saw the birth of a political union from what was previously an economic one were steps certainly in the right direction, but heading much too far thither.

 

I think that the European Free Trade Area (all the economic integration, none of the surrendering of political and monetary sovereignty) that the Norwegians and Swiss run in partnership with the EU is much, much better. Everyone benefits from trade, without having to hand out money from one country to give to another.

[Dynamite Duane]

I noticed over December browsing the Daily Express they've started a crusade to get us out of the EU.

 

Good to see a national paper not frightened to highlight the problems of the EU and campaign against it.

 

 

 

DAILY EXPRESS CRUSADE - GET US OUT OF EUROPE

 

 

THE Daily Express is the first national newspaper to call for Britain to leave the European Union.

From now on, our energies will be directed to furthering the cause of those who believe Britain is Better Off Out.

 

The famous and symbolic Crusader who adorns our masthead will become the figurehead of the struggle to repatriate British sovereignty from a political project that has comprehensively failed people right across Europe.

 

After far too many years as the victims of Brussels larceny, bullying, over-regulation and all-round interference, the time has come for the British people to win back their country and restore legitimacy and accountability to their political process.

 

Following the debacle of the Lisbon Treaty

[Steveo2007]

In an economic sense, free trade between EU nations is beneficial for all those involved. Let's also not forget the reason behind its formation. The Second World War is something that shook Europe to the core and was originally formed as a way of preventing anything of the sort ravaging Europe again. That being said, I strongly believe the Union has overreached its position and is moving into areas which are wholly inconsistent with the purpose of establishing a European free market. The smoking ban, although just a recommendation, shows that the EU literally has the legal competence to create such laws which move way outside the free market idea and that is what I dislike about the Union.

 

Oh, the fact that is a module I'm studying in University is also another reason why I dislike it as EU law, is so complex and dull and you have to think that at least if we weren't a member it would be an optional module rather than mandatory.