Apparently based on the Crossman diaries (A British Member of Parliament)which let the cat out of the bag on how things really work.
So yes it is funny, and yes it does show the difference in government on what we do, and what we’d like to do, and why.
You do know that the “law” regarding cucumber shapes
was introduced not by bureaucrats wanting to micromanage, but by lobbyists of the food industry, because they can fit more straight cucumbers into one box than curved ones, and therefore wanted pressure on the farmers
has now been lifted by the EU; the food industry just continues to buy only straight cucumbers (because of the box issue), putting pressure on the market this way.
And as long as an election to Brussels is considered a second-rate choice for second-rate or older politicans by both a certain segment of the population, and the politicans and parties themselves, so long the EU will be a powerless paper-tiger, making things worse but not better.
We need the brightest and strongest people to withstand the pressure of the lobbyists and do what’s right for the people; instead we get newbies and oldesters shunted sideways there and not enough power to do good.
I disagree, the EU is not a powerless paper tiger, far from it, and it is this that really causes major concerns.
Much of UK law is derived from EU directives, the only part that the EU national parliaments play in this is in devising laws to comply with these directives, and then enacting them in their own legislatures.
Like it or not, we elect our politicians to make law, and this is part of the election manifesto of all the political parties - it is why we put them in parliament in the first place. EU derived law short circuits that process completely, we do not get to debate whether or not we need the law at all, we just get to write the wording of the legislation, but it must still comply with the directive.
EU lawmakers are not effectively accountable to the UK electorate, nor any other electorate for that matter. It is like a federalist way of governing states, except that we do not get to vote for the supreme executive.
So the EU lawmakers can pretty much do what they want, and they do - despite the wishes of the electorate in individual nations. I can think of a huge amount of laws and regulations imposed by the EU and not set by our own politicians.
The next problem is the uniformity of implementation and enforcement of those EU laws and regulations, some countries simply ignore them, others pass the laws but do not enforce them, and at other times these laws may well be delayed by years, decades even.
I have already mentioned the animal husbandry laws that impact directly upon the cost of the end product, and it is no accident that we get cheaper imports from the EU from those EU nations that are not enacting or enforcing the same laws that we have already passed into our statute.
This undermines our producers and our competitiveness, and yet the labyrinthine French laws on type approval of products imported into France are such that they impose a trade blockade, especially upon electronic goods from Japan.
You cannot have one currency and multiple nations directly controlling it, this is like having an aircraft and giving a joystick to each passenger - you just know it will end up in disaster - especially for the passenger who wants to go in a differant direction because he should never have got on in the first place.
The EU would simply collapse if we pulled out. The EU nations seem to regard the UK as a cash cow to support their own failing industries - especially agriculture - and as a nation that has worldwide influence far above its actual importance.
They do not want us as part of it at all, its like having friends with benefits. Seems we are just in the EU because the EU wants to use us, there never has been a partnership.
They blame the fincial markets for all their problems, but it is the dishonesty and mismanagement of various second rate EU nation that has been the true source of these issues.
There is a view that it is better to be part of it to change things from within but we have been at it for the better part of 40 years, and things are actually worse than when we started.
Until the EU states can find some way to report back acurately their own economic data, and are able to effectively enforce their own rule, why the hell would the UK want to be part of it?
Yeah, the whole three of them.
Under the new fiscal agreement the nations promise to limit their deficits to 0.5% / GDP. A reasonable agreement certainly, but when the already existing Stability and Growth Pact states a maximum 3% deficit which is just as universally ignored and generally isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, why should an even stricter agreement be any more reliable. And in fact it was Germany and France that undermined the first pact by simply ganging up and changing the laws when it became uncomfortable for their national interests - Germany made its own bed. There’re precious few Euro-nations – excepting the incomparable Estonians & the Italians – that are anywhere near to fulfilling the requirements of the new fiscal compact. Nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future. It word require dramatic reforms in not only the PIIGS, but also in France and even otherwise comparable sound economies like the German and Danish (& British). It appears the fiscal compact isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. It’s not fine words we want for, it’s action.
For those with the weight and power to make changes to the standards then they are not actually being held to any real fiscal discipline, they will do whatever they want and change the rules to suit, but what happens to those member states that are maybe suffering but cannot gain the support to make those changes?
This is a two speed Europe already within the Euro currency zone, those with power to change the rules at will, and the remainder, I have a feeling I know which group the UK would end up being in - despite the fact that we are actually paying for this.
I have tended to disagree with the right wing parties, and often disagreed with Rune’s view, however it would seem that my eyes have been opened rather.
It has taken me quite a lot of years for me to understand what the right were saying when they talked about the loss of soveriegnty. When this is also coupled to the German, French, Italian and now the Greek track record of ignoring or changing rules to suit themselves, then you can only expect disaster to ensue.
This left winger says we should keep this at arms length, and pay far more attention to world trade so that we are in a better position when the next crisis erupts.
I think that Germany will do everything in its power to avoid a euro collapse.
That is because nations like Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc.,buy a lot of german export goods.
So, in a sense, Germant HAS to continue to buy these nation’s debt-otherwise, Germany risks a recession as well.
Of course, this will (inevitably) lead to a decline in the value of the euro-and GB would be very wise to stary away (until the euro fianlly collpases).
This, to be sure. Switzerland can always rely on Nazi gold (:)) and Norway has oil to tide its economy, rain or shine. The UK and its economy however are thoroughly tied up in continental trade - turning their backs on the biggest facilitator of said trade seems a bit short sighted to me.
But also global trade, which is part of the problem. The EU group includes more than just the Euro, and Sark-Merk want the former to throw everything onto the latter. Britain isn’t going to adhere to those regulations to help germany maintain a big trade advantage.
In case you thought I meant “English-hating”, I chose “Anglo” deliberately. Commentators often contrast the “Anglo-Saxon model”, meaning the more laissez faire economic approach of countries such as the UK and the USA, to that of the big continental European countries. And they suggest that the French, in particular, have disdain for the Anglo-Saxon approach.
If you knew that, and still say that I’m overstating it, then OK.
I don’t think it’s a good argument. We have a global economy. Not helping others is still cutting your own throat. It’s the reason I hold Germany as more responsible than other countries for the EU mess, with their unwillingness to help bail out the failing EU countries.
And I’m all for the UK being kicked out of the EU. As far as I can tell, they never really wanted to be in it anyways.
The EU can’t kick a member out outright. If the EU started suspension measures on the UK for use of a veto it would fall apart faster than a leper in a wind tunnel.
Um, we contribute more money in net towards the EU than France, only bettered by Germany. It wasn’t Britain that was banning the importation of French beef two years after the EU had given it the all clear following a BSE outbreak, who refuses to budge on CAP reform, who vetoed green taxes on diesel to protect their car industry, who has been angling to dismantle the City of London to attract more business to Paris and Frankfurt, ad infinitum. Every damned country in the EU protects their own national interests through the use of vetoes. Try not to buy into the Continental propaganda machine stating that Britain is any worse at it than anybody else.
New agreement is already starting to unravel, as multiple European and International Central Banks refuse to contribute money to any IMF European Rescue fund.
While my antipathy towards the EU has always been more pragmatic than ideological - for Norway to join the EU would be akin to cattle jumping into a pond of piranhas - I’m happy to see Britain become more self-conscious of its’ involvement with Brussels.
The promised fund to support the Euro has to come from somewhere, I just wonder where.
The UK has been the most practical in this, and is the most likely nation to ensure that funds could be raised, and guess what the source would most likely be?
Yup, the London fincial markets, however the Eurozone has prety much killed off this chance by proposing the unilateral tax on transactions - why would the financial institutions put money into a fund that would support a bunch of irresponsible spenders that wants to shackle them?
There have been noises at a low level that the idea of a transaction tax is not necassarily a bad thing, as long as it is implemented across all the trading cetnres around the world. It is not exactly a great thing to have this added cost and try to compete against others who do not. Why can’t the Euros see the simple logic of this? I think its because they are all in the blame game, trying to offload their responsibility for poor management on to ‘the markets’.
The Euros have simply not understood what has happened in terms of globalisation. We have organisations that can simply move trading centres and production wherever they need. National legislation only has meaning to them if there is sufficient demand in a particular state to justify the extra costs that might be imposed. Even regionalised legislation is not going to be effective to much of commerce and especially to financial trading simply because of mobility.
It is not the UK that is the little inward looking nation and against the might continent, far from it. The problem is that the Euros simply do not want to take into account the much bigger picture, despite the UK pointing out the flaws in their proposals.
This is all too confusing.
Why does there have to be full consensus on economic measures? If, for example, 9/10 of countries want to form an economic pact together what does that have to with other EU pacts? I guess what I’m saying is that the freedom to form coalitions or partnerships among EU countries ought to be encouraged.
Also, why not just use our system instead? Hear me out. The U.S sheds money to the States every year in federal aid for transportation, education, health, etc etc. Does the EU have a mechanism similar to that? Collect taxes, give money to member States based on need. It’s not exactly fair that Alaska gets twice as much aid as California but it does ensure that States aren’t on the verge of economic collapse every half-decade.
The EU has ‘own resources’ which is supplied from a variety of sources, and which the EU can spend on projects within the Member States. But the supply is limited, and countries like the UK are in general hostile to granting Brussels further taxation powers.
Yes it does, through regional grants and also the subsidy system called the Common Agricultural Policy.
You then need to ask where the money comes from. Each member state contributes a certain amount, and applies for funds for various projects or through various policies.
Guess what, the UK contributes £100bn of the funding to this budget, and gets back £46bn The idea of that money coming back to the UK is that it is spent on Euro priorities rather than member state priorities, so it is theoretically free of local state government interferance.
France gets back twice what the UK gets, and despite it being a slightly larger economy, but seems to be making much noise about the UK not playing as part of the team.
It should also be noted that the only reason the UK gets back what it does, is because the UK rebate was increased greatly through treaty negotiations back in the 1980’s. Had it not been for this, then the UK would have recieved far less.
Basicly what it amounts to is that the EU is making proposals that would cut the UK economy to the advantage of other states and is offering nothing whatsoever in return. If the UK walks away, the whole EU project would probably collapse completely, there is simply no way the EU could plug the gap that the UK fills each and every year.
Much of what France and Germany contributes comes back to them in the form of advantageous market conditions in other member states for their own goods and services, it is open to debate as to whether the UK benefits on anything like the same scale.
This is pretty much why those EU nations seem upset, they see the possibility of losing all that lovely UK provided money, the Common Agriculture Policy would collapse completely too, and then Euro farmers might just have to fend for themselves in the world agricultural produce markets.
Have a look at the net contributors
The UK share of the budget is set to rise as the rebate is due to be reduced, or at least it will not rise in line with inflation - which is effectively the same thing, it will cost the UK more to be part of the Euroclub.
Now, added to all that, the Euros want us to support a currency that we do not even use, to cover for their own errors in allowing lying local states to escape the consequencies of their profligacy. They want us to take the risks for a situation that is not of our making, and they are trying to put pressure on the financial markets which are responding to the level of risk that these idiots have presented.
There is not one benefit at all for the UK to become more deeply involved, and if we withdrew completely, the Euro project would fall apart and the inward looking little Euranders would probably set up protectionist barriers, which would in turn make their own situation far far worse.
The Euros need us, and are desperately trying any measure to embarass, accuse and also avoid taking responsibility for their own ineptness. Instead of hardening the feeling of UK citizens against them, perhaps the Euros should think about why we are so concerned, maybe even show us why it is such a great thing for us.
If there was an a vote on it, the UK citizen would pull out by a landslide - the Euros should think about that, and what it would do to their gravy train.
The thing about the EU is that was a lie from the beginning. There were essentially three points of view (grossly shortened here; I’m not trying to encompass everyone).
The problem is that Europe wasn’t unified and didn’t become so. The first view has been shown to be utter nonsense. The second, unfortunately, didn’t work out so well, either. The problem is that most who held either can’t admit this in public. Merkel , for example, can’t repudiate the EU, but like Sarkozy she doesn’t care about Europe. She cares about Germany, because she’s German, elected by Germans, and has nothing to do with Greece or Italy. She does what’s best for Germany, and there’s no shame in that except that people have effectively given her power of Greece and Italy.