And as for my rant, which vanished (too much spleen-venting for the server, perhaps)
[private rant]
And now for what really annoys me about the whole thing. It can quite simply be put thusly: Nobody asks me.
Why did Germany give up the strong Mark? Nobody asked them.
Why did Britain find itself in a fledgling federal system when the public were asked to join a trading partnership? Nobody asked them.
Why are Europeans finding integration racing ahead, despite the fact that support for this does not seem to be strong? Nobody asked them.
Why are Europeans given directives by people who were rejected by their own national electorates? Nobody asked them.
And so on and on.
The EU gives the impression that it knows better than its inhabitants; no offense, Sparc, but your posts speak the same language. The whole “nation building is a long process and a process that will encounter setbacks on the way” thing drives me absolutely barmy. (I know you are just voicing a personal opinion here, but the langauge we get out of EU reps is exactly the same; I have heard identical words from Commissioners and other EU members lamenting the UK’s decision to not join the Euro.)
The fact that the public don’t support “nation building” is labelled as a “setback”! The fact that the UK does not want to join the Euro is seen as a problem that must be overcome! Ireland rejects the Treaty of Nice, and their own Prime Minister described it as a “setback” that must be overturned in order for the EU to enlarge!
We, the peple, are not “setbacks” - we are the groups the EU is meant to be representing. How dare the EU and politicians describe (in their official capacities) the will of the people as a “setback”. The EU and our national governments are here to do what the people want; they are not there to try and influence public opinion to support their grand dreams.
If a nation doesn’t want the Euro, then it doesn’t want the Euro. End of story.
If a nation doesn’t want to ratify a treaty, then it doesn’t want to ratify it. End of story.
If Europeans do not support integration, then they do not support integration. End of story.
My personal feelings are that the EU cheerfully disregards public opinion because the “powers-that-be” have decided that what we think is irrelevant; they know best. A superstate must be built at all costs, even if the people do not want it. Much of Europe is given a single currency, despite the fact that the electorate did not want it. The countries that are actually given a choice reject it, and so charm offences are launched to change our minds.
The process seems to be to do something, and then convince the people that it is right.
The EU needs to be more open, honest, representative and all the rest - but until it learns to stop arrogantly deciding what its citizens should think, I cannot support it.
I take the points which you make, and there is a lot of merit in your criticism of EU structures as opaque and unaccountable.
But I think your more stringent criticism, especially in your “private rant” are in fact aimed at national governments, not the EU.
For instance, the EU may have launched the Euro, but it was the decision of the German and UK governments to join and not join, respectively. If the Germans joined despite the fact that “nobody asked them” and they are presumed or believed to have opposed it, it is the German government which should be criticised, not the EU.
Similarly your substantial thesis that “nobody asks” the people of the EU member states what they want is a criticism of national governments. We in Ireland do get asked, regularly, because our constitutional arrangements require it. Traditionally we have said “yes” to most of the proposals put to us; more recently we have rejected the Nice Treaty. If the people of (say) the UK do not get asked, that is a criticism of the UK government and the UK constitution. (And, a moment’s reflection will show, it is a criticism which has implications which go well beyond issues relating to the EU. Were the people of the UK ever consulted about NATO membership? No. Is this not just as horrifying?) And if the Irish prime minister seems reluctant to accept the verdict of the Irish people (as he does), that is a criticism of the leader of the Irish government.
The EU institutions have such powers as the member states decide they will have. The Commission may bring forward “proposals” for the expansion and closer integration of the EU, but the member states decide whether, and how far, those proposals will be given effect. The constitutional arrangements by which member states address these questions are matters for the states themselves.
You are, perhaps, impliedly criticising the broad European movement, and its objective of “ever closer Union”. You can, of course, disagree with the objective, but I don’t think you can criticise a policital movement or idea on the grounds that it lacks popular support. All political movements – Euro-federal, national sovereignty, socialist, democratic, whatever – seek to lead, not to follow. They advocate certain ideals and hope to implement them. They do not advocate them because they are already popular, but because they think they should become popular. You may argue that the ideals of the European movement are being implemented before they have won democratic support, but that again is a criticism of those implementing the ideals – national governments – more than of the ideals themselves or of the institutions which have been established.
And here we have a real problem. If (most) European national governments are so undemocratic as to implement a federal Europe against the wishes of their people, why is the continued power of those national governments worth supporting and defending?
[sup]Quick disclaimer - the rant was just a round-up of my gut-feelings on the EU; I accept a reasoned analysis may be “slightly” different, but it explains why I, for one, do not share the grand European dream.[/sup]
Spot on UDS - our national governments share as much blame for riding roughshod over public opinion as the EU does. Take the UK for example - even though the overwhelming majority do not want the Euro, the Labour government is still spending money preparing the country for entry. Why is Tony Blair hell-bent on something the electorate do not want? Who can tell? However, he can stay in power to carry out his plans as the Euro issue was not part of the major election issues - it was carefully washed over.
However, the beef with the “European movement” putting the cart before the horse is much more important than you describe.
Yes, normally a political movement will not represent the majority, and so has to influence public opinion in order to gain prominence. However, the European federal movement is starting from the other corner. It does not have popular support, so, as you say, its proponents are working on changing public opinion. The problem is, though, that the federalists are already in power in the EU.
It is one thing to try to build support for your ideas. It is quite another to carry out your plans against the wishes of the people.
Why are the national governments getting away with blatantly disregarding the wishes of the people who elected them? This touches on the whole dis-enfranchisement issue.
One of the reasons they get a stab at it in the first place is that European issues are rarely very prominent in national elections. Look at the UK for instance - the Euro was very carefully kept out of the whole election debate, which can be done very effectively because, given a choice between pressing national issues or European ones, the electorate will want to sort out the national ones. The state of the NHS or the railways is a more important election issue to a UK voter than the Euro because the debate didn’t feature the Euro.
(Incidentally, we see the same thing across Europe with immigration at the moment. This is another topic that is strictly “off-limits” during election time, and mainstream parties from both sides avoid the issue - with the result we saw in France.)
The reasons that European issues can be avoided at election time is that it is such a hot potato. Neither side wants to stake a clear claim on either side of the fence because that will alienate a large group of votes. So, it is better to let your general views known, whilst avoiding strong debate when you are chasing votes.
The result is, of course, two-fold:
Voters disengage from the political process, since they do not feel that their vote makes any difference. Look at how the proportion of people bothering to vote is falling right across Europe.
The low-turnouts, coupled with the fact that people want to deal with the big issues result in more extremists getting through the process. We have seen almost a fifth of France voters choose Le Pen, a man who is anti-immigration and anti-EU.
The public’s views will always find their way out eventually; trying to steamroller over them in the hope that the public will soon share the vision may not have the consequences that the central federalists want.
But suppose that (say) most leading politicians in country A broadly believe in the European ideal, and believe that implementing it is in the best interests of the people. They may differ on questions of emphasis and degree, but not on those two broad questions.
We would not suggest that they should abandon these beliefs because they are unpopular, would we? We would have no respect for them if they did so, and they would certainly not be the kind of people we would wish to have as our leaders.
If the electorate in country A doesn’t agree with those views and is not willing to be persuaded and gets sufficiently steamed up about it, they will vote for someone who opposes these views. He may be a fringe figure to begin with, but he will rapidly become a central figure in politics if he secures broad support in the electorate.
If the electorate doesn’t do this, then the politicians who are returned to power are right to do what they think is in the national interest and, if that involves advancing the European project, so be it. It is desirable that they should carry the electorate with them, but in the end of they day they should do what they judge to be best, and not what they judge to be popular. This is how representative democracy ought to work.
You can argue that democracy – particularly the UK’s version of democracy – is not sufficiently representative. The electoral system is designed to minimise the practical choice offered to voters, and such choice as they can express through the ballot they must express in the broadest and crudest terms. Parliament can do literally anything, which in practice means that the executive can do amost anything, so a government, once elected by this highly imperfect system, has few restraints. There are no constititional mechanisms to limit the powers of government on any specific issue which might required them to secure either direct popular support, or at least broad national support, for the implementation of any policy. A government, having been elected on (say) a pledge not to raise taxes can them implement radical policies on fundamental issues which were not a factor in the election, without any formal external control or restraint.
The result of all this is that it is difficult for the British public to signal to its government that it view the European project with great concern (assuming that that it the case) and that its views are strongly-held, except by voting for “fringe” candidates and so abandoning any attempt to influence the government on any other matter.
But, as I say, this has more to do with the UK constitution than with the European project, and persuading UK policiticians not to implement the European project would not solve the problem. In fact, somewhat ironically, the constitutional structures of the EU are vastly better than the UK’s structures in this regard. A much more elaborate system of checks, balances and qualified majorities ensures that member states are directly involved not merely in the selection of those who will lead the Commission but in the formation and implementation of policy on all issues, and that policy can only be formed and implemented with the support (or at least assent) of a number of different countries within the EU.
I don’t understand this complaint. They aren’t elected because european governments don’t want to give them a democratic legitimacy. An elected commissioner could basically send packing any head of state/prime minister . This is done to limit the commission power. So, if someone were to complain about the Commission having too much power, he should thanks god that they aren’t directly elected.
Second, they are appointed by democratically elected heads of states/governements and this appointment is approved by a democratically elected parliament (and since the resignation of the previous commission, this is no more a formality).
Finally, ultimately, whose who decide where the EU is going are our governments. If people were really that unhappy about the evolution of the EU, and the participation of their country, they could elect another government which would say “Now, let’s stop !”. They don’t. As long as it is so, it seems legitimate to me to assume that citizens are grumbling, but don’t really want to put an end to the european integration.
A sidenote about the German chancellor stating that there was nothing he could do about the employment because he didn’t have enough control anymore. I’m pissed off by this commonplace attitude. It’s now a habbit of politicians to blame the EU for everything which goes wrong : “Oh! It’s not my fault! It’s the evil EU which prevent us to do what we want/should”.
Do you think that, when the unemployment dropped by 1 million during the two last years in France, Jospin said : “Really, I did nothing. I’ve no control over these things. Unemployment has been reduced thanks to the EU”?
Of course not. The EU became a convenient scapegoat. The credit to the government, the blame to the EU. How could the citizens not have a negative opinion of the EU? Of course, our ministers have a totally different and more realist stand when negociating in Brussels than when adressing their constituents.
Finally, all the elements of the european system seem to want to increase the power of the EU . Very recently :
-The Council (in particular Aznar, Blair, Chirac) expressed its wish of a long term presidency of the EU
-The Commission expressed their wish to be in charge of a common EU foreign policy
-The Parliament voted at a large majority a resolution about widely increasing the EU responsability in several domains : social policies, foreign affairs and defense in particular
-And of course, the Convention on the future of Europe is apparently currently working on a project to strenghten the european institutions and reduce the influence of the national governments.
First off, let me say that this is not just about the UK, but Britain does serve as a good example of the type of European politics that is resulting in the problem: the UK has a largely anti-federalist (not anti-EU) population, but a pro-federalist government. As a result, I’m going to focus on the UK in particular here.
Getting steamed up and voting for a politician with opposing views is not as easy and natural as you might think. Forget for a moment the electoral system in the UK that works against fringe parties; in theory, as you say, a very much anti-federalist population ought to vote for the man who shares their views.
But this assumes that European integration is the number one issue on people’s minds. It isn’t. Take a look at the UK at the moment: it has a crippled transport system, its health service needs bucking up, and its armed forces are fighting in Iraq, clearing up in Afghanistan and keep having to pop into trouble spots in Africa. There are simply more pressing issues than Europe come election time - and the main parties happily play to this. This is not some great deception, mind - it is just normal politics.
Look at Germany - people didn’t want the Euro, but anti-Euro candidates couldn’t dent the main parties come election time. This wasn’t a mandate for the government to then accept the Euro - it just meant the question hadn’t been properly asked.
Back to the UK again - in '97 James Goldsmith set up a “Referendum Party” for the general election that year. His only policy was to hold a referendum on leaving the EU - and millions of people supported his ideas. However, come election, his party got trounced - many people liked the idea of a referendum, but they thought it was more important to sort the country out.
So, the main parties don’t really debate it, but this doesn’t hand votes on a plate to those who will debate, since there are too many other issues.
But all this talk of electing anti-federalists is kind of side-stepping the issue. Yes, it would be nice if we could find politicians who could represent our views on everything; sadly that will never happen, so we have to compromise on various issues. Not all left-wing voters, for instance, will agree with raising taxes, but they will accept it in exchange for other policies they do like.
However, the European business is bigger than such small compromises. The people of Europe don’t seem to want further integration. This isn’t a case of compromising on policies when choosing a government - we are talking general opposition here.
In such a case, whether it would be nice to wait for a politician to come along who does represent our views is completely beside the point.
The governments are not merely doing something that not everyone agrees to - they are doing something that most are opposed to, and that was never an election issue.
This I disagree with completely. For ordinary matters, your statement is true. But when we are talking about fundamental changes to democracy and nationhood, politicians have absolutely no right to go directly against the very wishes of the electorate. Governments have no mandate in cases such as this - they are operating in full knowledge that it is against the express wishes of the public.
If they truly believe that such changes are in the national interests, then they should show the courage of their convictions, debate it openly and convince us - and then they can act.
Governments are our representatives, not our leaders.
You are right again, but only in ordinary matters. I submit that federalisation is too big an issue for a government to “judge” for us. Again, this is what I was talking about earlier about politicians arrogantly assuming that “they know better than the dumb electorate”.
And to use the term “representative democracy” to justify a process which clearly is not representative of the people’s wishes is a bit of a joke.
Finally (stop fidgiting at the back)… no democratic system in the EU is perfect - each has their flaws. You say the EU model is better; I am not so sure. However, this is irrelevant as that comes down to opinion (besides, I’m not exactly un-baised ;)). The strengths and weaknesses of the relevant democracies should not be the most important factors - all that matters is that no politician has the right to embark on such a grand project whilst the people are opposed to it. If it is such a great idea, then show us, convince us, then bring us.
If you want citizens to “buy into” the project, then you have to let them decide for themselves how fast to proceed, not constantly try to push them faster. Like I say: “Who asked me?”
I don’t understand this bit - they resigned, but only on condition they got their jobs back.
But this isn’t true - it Britain, for example, the public do want to end integration. This is not just “grumbling” by a content electorate.
This is an interesting point - but in the case of Chanceller Schröder, he wasn’t blaming the EU for high unemployment, he was explaining that the remaining avenues he had to stimulate the economy were now closed to him.
[1/4 inch social studies recording from 1956]
Europe is a continent with many geographic aspects that lend themselves to a variety of productive, healthy and entertaining human activities. Several of the continents cities are amongst the world’s most influential cultural centers. The regions of Europe contribute significantly both to Western culture and economy. Historically a warring bunch of argumentative xenophobes the Europeans have recently decided to be moderate and forgiving and come together as one nation under the sun…
[/1/4 inch social studies recording from 1956]
Or?
Politics obviously isn’t a fair game in Europe and this needs for bettering, one of the places we are in deep agreement. Although I don’t know how the argument went in Britain in the 1970s, I was around and voted in the referendum in Sweden and I followed the other referendum debates around the same time. In the 90s the original plan of a federal Europe was brought up in all those places. The nay side used this as one of the main reasons to say no. The join side deftly pointed out that a federal Europe was not yet implemented and would be fought against from the inside if this should be the will of the people. A ‘if you can’t fight them join them’ argument. Sweden held true to such opposition in the beginning. Denmark, Finland and Austria still do. I can’t say if Sweden’s more moderate position in the federal debate is due to a popular change of mood or if it is a case of duping the electorate. Whether or not Britain was truly duped, the fact remains that the British representatives have remained some of the strongest opponents to a federal Europe throughout. If we take for granted that the principles of democracy are working, engaging in such a struggle could lead to loosing it and having to assume the consequences.
As UDS points out this is not criticism of the EU, but of the national government of Great Britain.
Well, I can’t say that I ever harbored the idea that first Single Market and then EU was not meant as a construct aiming at a federal union. Then again I have since childhood been fascinated by history and I am ridiculous enough to bother to poor over historical documents. You criticize two different things here. First you point to a lack of general education regarding the nature of our Union, which might be a large part of the problem overall. Second you ask for the use of fair rhetoric in public debate, which I addressed in the previous paragraph.
But you see it is, if the Union is to be a stable, lasting and democratic unit it needs to be able to exercise the people’s powers with some discretion. A bunch of quibbling national governments with a pan national cooperation organ, without apparent immediate democratic liability is what has brought us to the present situation. You yourself bring these charges. IMHO there are only two ways to go, a loose Union based on trade and economics or a strong Union based on common policy and law. Right now we are in limbo between the two and that’s neither practical nor is it very democratic. This semi federal institution exercises powers over us, but when they jumble they can hide behind the member state governments to obscure their errors. Likewise the accountability of the member state governments lessens when they can push blame for unpopular or mistaken policies on the EU.
Good question, but how many actually know their representative in the local member state governments? In my experience most people I meet in Germany know at the most that Gerry is Chancellor and Josh is Foreign Minister… and then? I’ll posit something here; Europe is suffering from a severe case of democratic sclerosis. Years of trusting our lives into the hands of faceless bureaucrats and politicians and an overprotective state machinery has led to a lack of political awareness and engagement by the public. Maybe even that this engagement never existed and only now when we are changing the systems of governance are the failures of European Socialism becoming apparent. The member state governments are finally becoming accountable and funnily enough they’re not getting the brunt of the criticism, but the institution that forces them to come clear on their failures is. The swing towards populist extremism with the goal of dissent is one of the nasty effects we now suffer - is that what we want, or would we rather have a fair, cooperative and accountable governance with the goal of unity?
Can’t say that I’m a big fan of the Commission myself. OTOH your statements begs for some rectification. As many before you, you confuse the role of the Commission with that of the Council of The European Union. The role of the commission is:
While then based on their proposals as above the Council’s role is:
That is our government… and you know what? This is how the ministers of the Council are appointed and accountable:
Again your criticism of the EU collapses on that it isn’t the Union per se that you feel has disenfranchised you, but the member state in which you are citizen (a situation I deplore by the way; why is it that I am represented by a minister appointed in a state where I haven’t lived for the greater part of my life?).
I take no offense. However, you are mistaken. UDS has just posted a rather well argued statement regarding the possibilities of influencing this state of affairs and your power over them. Further; since we have concluded that federalism is at the heart of the European project (like it or not) and that this gives that until such a goal is revisited; membership and the rules of democracy demands that we play along with it. Let’s see; 54% of the EU citizenry supports continued membership and 67% want a common constitution. How on earth do you read out of that that the majority does not support a federal EU. I’d say that with the overlap between support to stay in and having a constitution, even those opposed to membership are going; “Well fine I can’t get my way all the time, but as long as it is the way it is, let’s have it be fair and regulated with a proper constitution”, or have I gone barmy? The desire for a constitution is actually more indicative of the desire for a federal EU than the support for membership is.
More importantly, your rhetoric is rife with argumentum ad populum. If I recall correctly we have representative democracy simply because government by everyone and direct democracy is rather unpractical. Granted that there are levels of this and maybe the UK has too little of it, as UDS points out Ireland has a more direct democracy than the UK, and still there are many decisions that do not go through the process of referendum. Further Ireland is smaller and the sheer complexity of a more direct democracy has lesser problematic consequences. Maybe governance according to the Swiss would be nice? They have the edelweiss, they invented Absinthe, Zurich is a great party town, and this charming little direct democracy granted women full suffrage already in 1971, some cantons even held that affront to good taste off until the 1990s! :rolleyes:
I’m not sure if you agree with Schroeder’s Keynesian politics sirjamesp. It is obvious that a majority of the German people did in the latest elections, we might not be so unlucky this time around. Disregardful of that, in several places you equate the recent recession with European integration. The causality is tenuous at best. I understand that you speak of public opinion in many cases ant not the facts at hand, but still. This hits the problem spot on if you ask me. Time and again European Socialists have failed to redress the economy in down periods. Time and again the economy has been redressed by the dynamics of the market. As if this never happened and if it did as if it was just by chance, the people scream for state intervention and get it. How very convenient is it not that Schroeder can hide behind hands supposedly tied by the EU this time around. But not even Schroeder would be so daft as to argue that the Euro has failed. That it fell with some 30% against the dollar is actually not a failure per se, out of an import/export perspective it serves the economy. Sure it sucks golf balls through straws for me when I go visit my family in the States, I’d rather say the citizens of the Euro zone can live with that little setback. That Germany would take a slightly harder beating in the Euro introduction was expected, the idea was to equalize and integrate these economies, if you might remember. The popular fear was that we’d have rampant inflation. As I pointed out earlier that’s true in restaurants and hotels, but overall Germany only saw a price increase of 2.5% since the Euro. A situation largely offset by the increased revenue from exports due to a weaker Euro. Let’s also remember that we were in a mild recession until a week ago.
That some of these same politicians are sitting in the EU and trying to create a new and greater subsidy based lumbering bureaucracy modeled on their own failure is what I will use my vote to try and thwart. With a little luck the far more democratic structure of the EU, and the greater need for compromise will make my chances greater of getting some of my will through this time around.
In full agreemen with clairobscur’s outrage: Finally, I can only deplore the failure of the EU to get through the information barrier set up by regional and state politicians who try to avoid accountability by pushing the blame on big Europe.
I did, but you assume to answer for all of Europe.
First, let me nail my colours to the flagpole. sirjamesp has saved me an inordinate amount of typing, since I wholeheartedly agree with his position and am grateful that he has explained it so clearly and succinctly.
We seem to have concluded (I hope) that it is pointless to take the position that if the majority of voters in the UK are unhappy with our government’s position on European issues they should just vote for another party; this is a daft argument at best. There are so many other issues at stake with changing party allegiance that it’s a non-starter.
That said, the last time the UK populace had a valid say (in the form of a referendum) was in the 70’s. At the time, not only was there no mention of the eventual goal of a federal Europe, it was actively denied (a fact that makes Ted Heath, imho, something between a liar and a traitor, since he is on record since as saying that ‘of course’ a federal Europe would be the eventual outcome).
Notwithstanding the other arguments about the five economic tests, which I agree are loosely worded enough to be essentially meaningless, I don’t think enough emphasis has been given to the issue of interest rates, should we join the Euro.
I have no great affection for the pound. I couldn’t care less if they scrapped it tomorrow and paid us in groats. I don’t mind what the notes and coins look like. Really. The issue is that (due to an unusually brave decision by TB & GB et al) the MPC sets interest rates for the UK.
It could be argued that the UK could do with 2 rates, one set to stimulate the economy in the north and one set to dampen it in the south. Clearly this can’t happen, because we have a single currency. Further, within Europe the UK is almost uniquely sensitive to interest rates because we traditionally have a higher percentage of home-owners (= mortgage holders) than most of continental Europe.
We simply cannot allow ourselves to become hostages to fortune in this way.
Your fundamental thesis is that the people of the EU do not want further integration. It is clear that, whatever their views may be, only a small minority feel strongly enough on the subject to make it the focus of their votes in elections – even their votes in elections to the European Parliament.
You respond that this tells us more about the inadequacy of electoral systems as methods of expressing views on policy issues, and there is a point here. But the fundamental thesis – that the public do not want more european integration – remains to be established.
In the EU as a whole, a majority consider that integration is not proceeding as fast as they would like. Only in two countries is the reverse true (and the UK is not one of those countries).
In the EU as a whole, and in all member states, a majority of people want the EU to have the same or an increased role in their lives in fives years time compared to now. In the UK only 27 per cent of people would like to see the role of the EU reduced in the next five years, and that is the highest figure for any country.
As regards the euro, a majority in each of the eurozone countries favoured the euro. In Germany, 50% of those polled favoured the euro; 31% opposed it. Of those countries which have remained outside the euro, the Swedes favouredthe euro, the Danes were almost equally divided (47% in favour, 48% against) and only the UK was strongly opposed (58% against, 27% in favour).
In the EU as a whole, and in every country except Finland, more people favoured further enlargement than opposed it.
There were negatives as well. In particular people did not feel well-informed about issues. Nevertheless there is little support in these figures for the notion that the people of the EU are unhappy about the European project, that they oppose further integration or that they want to slow the whole thing down.
Could it be, sirjamesp, that European government leaders are just better at getting the sense of what their electorates want than you are?
You have educated me about the internal workings of the EU. The fact that there is so much ignorance, though, says quite a lot about the engagement people have with these institutions.
I’m not sure whether the Brits will be happy at losing this game they didn’t know they were entering…
Of course, the German government didn’t think to ask the German people whether they thought this was a price worth paying.
You see, here we have a couple of examples of just the sort of thing which cannot help people to “buy in” to the politicians’ dream of a United Europe. You’ve mentioned the fact that there will be “winners and losers” (paraphrasing, I know, but bear with me) – the thing is, without active engagement before these gambles are taken, citizens will feel cheated when they “lose”, and the EU will get the blame.
Remember - these decisions are too big to be taken against the will of the people. To repeat my new mantra: “Who asked me?”
Ask me, and you might get my support. Don’t ask me, and you will get nothing but contempt if it doesn’t work.
Thusly: only 54% support continued membership (i.e. 46% do not, which is worrying in itself). Clearly not all of these 54% also support a federal Europe.
I think you confuse “support continued membership” with “support continued integration”. Any British poll will show you that there is a definite distinction in people’s minds.
So – the majority do not support a federal Europe.
!!!
I think not!
How can you say that support for further integration can outstrip support for continued membership? The support for a constitution is, I would say, a support for written rules. These can be used to limit the powers of the EU or to further them. However, this number can in no way be taken as “support for federalisation” – remember, the same poll has shown that 46% want out!
So which way should we go? Why not ask the people? Or should the politicians decide for us? ”Who asked me?”
Again with the “there is no choice” argument. The Union does not “need” to exercise power. It can carry on as a trading agreement between sovereign nations. There is no “need” for further integration.
!!!
Again, the stark choice: do you want extremists or a nice federal system?
Well, that is misrepresenting the choice somewhat; once again, the language suggests that federalism is the only, natural way to go.
The extremists are rising as a result of the public’s reaction to the way the EU is going. So what is the answer? Power harder ahead and hope everything sorts out OK, and that the extremists don’t get too strong in the meantime? Or take stock, listen to what people want, and give them what they want?
According to the polls, I do.
[sub]Though that isn’t what I meant by “Who asked me?”, of course.[/sub]
The honorable member xerxes has lost me completely.
I think I got this much. You agree with our conclusions about a federal EU as the original goal and you agree with the honorable member sirjamesp’s analysis of the British referendum as being based on a fraudulent platform. Likewise you agree with the honorable member’s opinion that changing political color won’t stop the outrage under way. Did I get it right?
Independent of which; I invite both honorable members to provide cites of the pro federalist agendas of the governing bodies and the opposition in the Kingdom of England and Scotland as well as the Principality of Wales and the protectorate of Northern Ireland. It’s not that I doubt the intention of the honorable members in any way, but I might harbor a suspicion that the monochromatic picture of the situation might need some examination. I would humbly request that these cites be more diversified than the Euro debate, only so as the Euro albeit significant is arguably not equal to a federal EU.
It would also be helpful to the debate, maybe even the world if someone could forward an alternative way forward for the Brits, now that the UK democracy has failed.
As for the last bit of the post by the honorable member xerxes I am at a loss to both understand it per se and to see what the significance to the debate at hand might be. I would therefore humbly request that the honorable member restate the forwarded position in such a way as to make it comprehensible.
Respectfully
Sparc
PS. The question was do the Europeans want to be part of the EU and this is becoming do the Brits want to be part of the EU. We now know the answer to that one it would seem. :rolleyes: DS.
UDS: Your link takes me to a non-page. Is it definitely correct? I’d like to read it for myself, if I may.
Sparc: Quick point - I do not think that changing political colours would be ineffective; I think that it is a non-starter as there are two many other issues involved at election time.
PS - Xerxes, as a European, is on topic if he is explaining why he doesn’t want to be a part of the EU. Let’s keep the rolleyes out of it and stay civil like we have so far.
Thank you UDS for a) finding the complete survey and thereby b) furnishing the proof that the opposition does not have one inch of ground to stand on should they not retreat to the Island Kingdom.
For the sake of temporal accuracy I might only add that polls post the one we base our argument on show a popular regret at adopting the Euro in Germany as pointed out before. But hey, life isn’t always as easy as we thought it would be and in economic reality the effect has been overal positive.
Maybe the opposition would like to say a few words now?
sirjamesp?
xerxes?
Anyone?
Seriously though, it is a serious situation that the UK citizenry stands so far apart from the rest of Europe, but maybe that’s another thread.
Thank you UDS for a) finding the complete survey and thereby b) furnishing the proof that the opposition does not have one inch of ground to stand on should they not retreat to the Island Kingdom.
For the sake of temporal accuracy I might only add that polls post the one we base our argument on show a popular regret at adopting the Euro in Germany as pointed out before. But hey, life isn’t always as easy as we thought it would be and in economic reality the effect has been overal positive.
Maybe the opposition would like to say a few words now?
sirjamesp?
xerxes?
Anyone?
Seriously though, it is a serious situation that the UK citizenry stands so far apart from the rest of Europe, but maybe that’s another thread.
It wasn’t my point to refute your arguments with sarcasm - I merely intended it to not come across as a serious part of my post, but I see your point. No need for mudslinging.
Last but not least my previous post was simulposted with yours and I guess that you already said something, so disregard that gentle taunt please.
If it works, it should take you to a page headed “Recent Standard Eurobarometer” and a few lines down should be a link to “Eurobarometer 56”. Follow that, and it should take you eventually to a .pdf document with a full report of the survey.
For someone ‘completely lost’, Sparc you seem to have grasped what was being said.
Ok, you may have misunderstood here. The point is that you can’t find any pro-federalist agendas on behalf of the government, simply because (whether they are pro or not) they dare not use the term ‘federal Europe’. The conservatives are definately anti-federalist. I’ll try and find cites, but I think you’ll find everyone in the UK, on either side of the political divide, will agree with you on that.
By the way, I agree that the euro debate is different from a federal Europe debate, and I’m sorry if I narrowed it a bit. From a UK perspective, it’s the Next Big Thing[sub]tm[/sub] on the agenda, hence its importance (to us in the UK, at least).
I don’t know if you’re being tongue-in-cheek here, so I’m not quite sure how to respond. Insofar as we don’t have referenda for every single issue, ours is not a direct democracy. As far as it goes it’s very little different (in essence, perhaps not in detail) from most of the Western democracies.
If you’re talking about interest rates and the importance attached to them, which bit did you not understand? I’ll reiterate a little.
Up until 5 years ago interest rates were set by the government (this is not unusual, many countries do/did). What tended to happen was that they could and would be manipulated for political, rather than economic, reasons (for instance to give a feel-good factor in the months leading up to an election). What this government did was to entrust the setting of the rate to an independent body (the MPC) with the sole goal of maintaining an inflation rate of (I think) 2%. This means that rates are set for economic, rather than political, reasons.
Ok so far?
Now, the bit about the UK wanting 2 rates (in theory of course) is that we have an economically depressed north, and a boom in the south. If we could have 2 rates, we’d like a low rate in the north to stimulate the economy, and a higher one in the south to dampen it. We can’t, of course, because we have a single currency. Compare this to the EU, where they have a single currency. Whilst the economies are roughly in synch, they’re ok. God forbid that they ever get out of kilter, because they cannot use interest rates effectively to smooth out local hot or cold spots.
You are (I humbly submit) misrepresenting here. Noone I’ve seen in this thread is advocating leaving the EU, certainly not me. Are we annoyed that what we signed up to seems to have gone a lot further than we thought? Yes. Are some of us happy with a free trade arena without federalism? Yes. Do you equate EU membership with increased federalism? Absolutely. Must it be so? I don’t think so.
(just saw this from Sparc as I was previewing)
We’re not talking about retreating to the island kingdom. You seem to be implying that anyone or any country who is not completely signed up to the idea (which was never voted on, for heaven’s sake) of further integration and federalism is about to strike his tent and go home. That’s not the position of most of the euro-sceptics I know. We see the benefit of more free trade. We just don’t want federalism. Free trade would of course mean that some legislation would have to be Europe wide. Not a problem. Just don’t get carried away.
