I've gone off the idea. What it should be is a continent open to all, free trade across borders, easy travel and a closer knit community. What we've achieved so far is more rules, more bureaucracy and a higher cost of living, and just as much bickering between countries as there was before. What we'll end up with is a continent full of look-alike towns and no national identity, and an even higher cost of living. But at least they'll all speak English...
My position entirely The political class has become the new ruling elite. The EU needs us much more than we need them.
The EU is the Commission and the likes of Barroso and Van Rompuy who staged a power grab some years ago. They are drunk on power, exercise it for its own sake and we are their serfs. It could be much worse, but that is no reason to accept it.
which is kind of my point, I don't know the people you've mentioned although appreciate the educational aspect, whilst I don't pretend to be overly interested in politics the fact I don't know them in itself says something is fundamentally wrong with the whole set up. you see I know who the leaders of the countries are, but these Euro politicians just seem to pop up and make decisions based on what and who? Whats wrong with with going back to the old school and each elected country leader doing their job and simply negotiating with the other leaders? Ok now that a large amount of countries share the same currency then of course there would need to be a central financial body of some sort with appropriate measures in place in case partner countries need help (like they did) but it other than that I fail to see the overall benefit of the current set up. It all just seems to be there to line certain pockets and give power to certain people, they hide behind some moral smoke and mirrors routine pretending everything they do is for the benefit of all. i for one have no problem with open boarders, none at all. What I do have a problem with is us as a nation not being in control of what we can and can't do and some chap I don't know being sat in Brussels making those decisions for us.
The whole EU debate is an interesting one, mainly as there isn't much of a precedent for establishing an empire without force! Normally people and nations are coerced into such situations, they don't vote to opt in or not. Consequently the "power" issue crops up frequently and always will as there is limited if any real democratic election of EU politicians/officials, and the Commission had managed to effectively seize power without ever being elected at all. Who knows where this project will go anyway, other than free trade across borders it has achieved little compared to earlier empires as it is little more than a confederation of nation states with a centre/periphery tension throughout. As for the Swiss, I think the vote is naive frankly, the EU needs more immigration not less (aging population anyone?!) but as a test bed for national sovereignty it will be interesting to see how powerful the EU commission now believes it is. They are an arrogant bunch, they may well try it on with the Swiss. But ultimately they will fail. Although I appreciate Glidd has a strong view on the Swiss way of life, Switzerland is the capital soak/hideaway of wealth in Europe, is right in the centre, has access roads, a thriving technology and engineering commercial centre, a tiny population of ultra wealthy inhabitants, critical airport hubs, and a huge financial centre. The EU can throw toys around for a while but ultimately they have to accommodate the Swiss and they know it. Only pressure from the US has finally resulted in a limited amount of opening of the Swiss bank secrecy agreement, after years of pressure which was totally futile from the EU. But the US can genuinely retaliate as it doesn't need Swiss cooperation, it has the Caymans and Bermuda for its politicians and HNWIs to stash their wealth!
That is why there is now a massive disconnect between Joe Public and the MEP's "we" elect. I have not got a clue who, what or when they do anything and only hear the negatives of which there are plenty. UKIP will clean up at the next elections because it's our only way of showing our protest/dissatisfation with the crazy out of control, un-audited Bruselldom.
A recent poll in the UK suggests 58% of Scots and 75% of English would opt for greater control of immigration and asylum seekers. It make those conservative Swiss look like liberals at 50.3%.
Interesting perspective, but you are absolutely right, a power grab by the non elected Commission establishing themselves over Nation States. (OK I know they are appointed by leaders of Member States, but they themselves do not face an electrorate. They have also been in power for quite some time) This assumes the growth paradigm will continue indefinitely; I am not convinced it can, at some point we need to start living within our means rather than passing on debt to future generations; much of our current growth is funded by debt and although there is no theoretical limit I think there are practical limits.
I am sure we would agree on lots of things John. And those we don't we could have an entertaining and enjoyable debate over.
A United States of Europe will never happen. The people of Europe don't want it. That's fine, but there are members of the Commission - maybe even most of them - who do want it. Is it because they have some supra-national vision of harmony, or is it because they would have even more power than they currently do? Who knows. If the EU was staffed by hugely experienced politicians, who had the confidence and vote from the electorate in their own countries, people might have more faith in the EU. But the Commissioners aren't elected, and often aren't even well known politicians. Viviane Reding may be a name in Luxembourg, but Luxembourg has a population of a little over 500'000 people - so a reasonably sized European city. That hardly qualifies her to lay down the law about what the whole of Europe should be (a federal state). Britain's own vice president of the Commission (there are 7 of them) is Catherine Ashton. I have nothing against her (I know almost nothing about her) and she no doubt does a good job, but she has never been elected by anyone in the UK as an MP. Blair made her a peer, and thus she had access to the Lords, from whence her political career took off. The much loved (not) Peter Mandelson has also been a commissioner. You can't say that the whole thing fills you with confidence. Basically, the senior national politicians need to lay down the law to the EU and curb this drift to a United States of Europe. They have to be far clearer and do some tough talking. When there is alignment on what the EU is meant to do, and what it isn't, it might start being a lot more useful than it currently is. There should be no pro-federal commissioners, because they manifestly don't represent European sentiment in their outlook. I am in favour of the EU, but it needs a lot of reform and a lot more clarity.
The problem with the EU is the Euro and a single interest rate for widely different economies; from the introduction of the Euro this was a known problem waiting to happen. At the introduction of the Euro there was much waffle about converging economies and rules for joining but they were ignored for political expediency; the end result was the PIIGS. Even Jacques Delors recognised the problem but his position was that out of the inevitable monetary crisis a political solution would be forged leading to a European Superstate. The project only has one gear, and that is forward to ever greater economic and political union. This is by design. The EU, and its Commission, is not interested in reform. Any talk of reform is only to quell disquiet amongst the chattering classes back home. The elites are in control and they know exactly where they are going, what the people want is irrelevant. This is why I want out of the EU.
I keep getting confused. Is it the Commission that tells the EMPs what to do, or the EMPs who tell the Commission? You know, like here in the UK, we know that the Civil Service tells elected MPs what to do. Or is it the other way around? Confusing.
All these treatys, sneaky back door EU sh1t drives me nuts. The have so many agendas, where do you start. rant over. You's were luck in the UK, not taking the euro was a great move, trust me!
... if they bother to show up for the votes and discussions. It is always alarming in Parliament (Westminster) when you see debates in front of a handful of people. Most of the MPs are not being informed by them. I think it's identical in Brussels, which makes you wonder what the MEPs do all day. The problem though, is that the Commission drafting the stuff on which the MEPs are supposed to vote is a lot less accountable and more whacky than the Westminster government.
