Why are the British so anti Europe?

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're invoking the "teach the controversy" fallacy: the idea that an objective fact and a bare-faced lie have equal validity, and that if more people believe the lie than believe the facts, then the lie wins.

Aggressive marketing doesn't make a lie true, and any decision made on the basis of believing something that isn't true is ipso facto a flawed decision.

I dont know what your "teach the controversy" is, and so find it hard to believe I am invoking it. If someone chooses to believe what I may view a lie, then that's their choice. Obviously not one I agree with. I assume we all agree with that.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think there is something called "the truth", and anyone who does not agree with your version of the truth must be making flawed decisions. I know there are many versions of the truth, and am content if others do not agree with my version.

And so if the UK decides to leave the EU for reasons you, or I , think are flawed, that doesn't mean the reasons are flawed for those making the decision. If they, for example, think there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU which makes the EU, for them, a bridge too far, thats a valid viewpoint even if you, or I, disagree with it.

oscarBravo

If your core argument is that nothing is objectively true or false, we don't have the basis for an intelligent discussion.

View

thomas.frink wrote: »

Where we disagree is that you seem to think there is something called "the truth",.

If a newspaper reports David Cameron has made a proposal to turn the UK into a communist state, then it is either true if he has or false if he has not.

thomas.frink wrote: »

and anyone who does not agree with your version of the truth must be making flawed decisions.

If a dedicated Communist votes for Cameron on the basis of such a newspaper report then he clearly is making a flawed decision if the truth is Cameron has made no such proposal.

thomas.frink wrote: »

I know there are many versions of the truth, and am content if others do not agree with my version.

If you want to believe in reports that are factually wrong - false in other words - and regard them as being equally valid as factually correct reports that just makes you delusional.

thomas.frink

View wrote: »

If a newspaper reports David Cameron has made a proposal to turn the UK into a communist state, then it is either true if he has or false if he has not.

And if I were 6 foot 2 I could have been a model. That comes under the category of coulda-shoulda-woulda.

I hope you don't mind me saying that you seem quite idealistic if not a little naive, in that much of the political coverage in most newspapers comes from off the record briefings or nudge nudge wink wink relationships between politicians and journalists. Much of what is reported is designed to sway opinion and much of it untrue or largely untrue.

In the rather ludicrous example given, it would be childishly simple to find out if the speech you talk about was made or not, and for your "dedicated communist" to simply believe one source for what seems an unlikely story seems to suggest he is willing to be deceived, as he could simply find out, as such a highly unlikely story would be easy to corroborate.

View wrote: »

If a dedicated Communist votes for Cameron on the basis of such a newspaper report then he clearly is making a flawed decision if the truth is Cameron has made no such proposal.

Actually, he's making a pretty stupid decision being a "dedicated communist" on the available evidence. Politicians lie. Newspapers make up stories. Some people believe what they read in the newspapers. If anyone is shocked to just now discover any or all of that, then that's probably a good lesson learned.

I still don't know what you propose to do about all that. Politicians lie every day. Newspapers make up stories every day. People vote for things of which I, and probably you, disapprove regularly.

View wrote: »

If you want to believe in reports that are factually wrong - false in other words - and regard them as being equally valid as factually correct reports that just makes you delusional.

I believe little of what I read in newspapers as I know how newspapers work, so your assumption that I want to believe them is not accurate.

What I regard as valid are the opinions of others when they are sincerely held, and what I also regard as valid are the votes of individuals to decide their own future.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

In the rather ludicrous example given, it would be childishly simple to find out if the speech you talk about was made or not...

It's pretty straightforward to find out that most of the euromyths peddled in the UK press are quite simply untrue (that is, objectively untrue, as opposed to a 'valid' opinion), but that doesn't seem to stop them gaining a great deal of traction.

What I regard as valid are the opinions of others when they are sincerely held...

If someone has a sincerely held opinion that the world is six thousand years old, do you regard that as valid?

ewan whose army

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

At least the guys over here were asked, we weren't. People like Van Rumpy came out of nowhere with alot of influence. Its the way it was bullied through by a then very unpopular Prime Minister.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's pretty straightforward to find out that most of the euromyths peddled in the UK press are quite simply untrue (that is, objectively untrue, as opposed to a 'valid' opinion), but that doesn't seem to stop them gaining a great deal of traction. If someone has a sincerely held opinion that the world is six thousand years old, do you regard that as valid?

Sure, but the democratic deficit as perceived in the UK is not a myth and is perceived as a real problem to many in the UK. You and I may disagree that there is a democratic deficit, but then its really not up to us to tell others what they can and cant believe.

There are many who do believe that the world is as recent as six thousand years old. I don't agree that the evidence supports their views which are generally based on religious texts and not based on the best scientific evidence. However, I think it entirely valid they can choose to believe religious authorities over scientific evidence. I am quite relaxed about disagreeing with others, and don't expect everyone else to share my views.

oscarBravo

ewan whose army wrote: »

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

You've illustrated the problem perfectly. Who didn't give you a say on Lisbon? The government of the UK. Who does that leave the people of the UK angry with? The EU.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Sure, but the democratic deficit as perceived in the UK is not a myth and is perceived as a real problem to many in the UK. You and I may disagree that there is a democratic deficit, but then its really not up to us to tell others what they can and cant believe.

I'm never going to tell anyone what they can't believe: I simply reserve the right to consider people who make decisions on the basis of their belief in myths to be idiots.

There are many who do believe that the world is as recent as six thousand years old. I don't agree that the evidence supports their views which are generally based on religious texts and not based on the best scientific evidence. However, I think it entirely valid they can choose to believe religious authorities over scientific evidence. I am quite relaxed about disagreeing with others, and don't expect everyone else to share my views.

Here's the problem with your highbrow tolerance: anyone who believes that the world is six thousand years old is wrong. They are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts.

People can choose to believe that the world was created in a week by a bearded sky fairy; they can choose to believe that the EU prevents them from having referendums. Both beliefs are objectively untrue, no matter what frilly knickers you try to dress up those untruths with.

Lemming

ewan whose army wrote: »

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

At least the guys over here were asked, we weren't. People like Van Rumpy came out of nowhere with alot of influence. Its the way it was bullied through by a then very unpopular Prime Minister.

Whose fault is that exactly? Could it have been the individual member nation perhaps?

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm never going to tell anyone what they can't believe: I simply reserve the right to consider people who make decisions on the basis of their belief in myths to be idiots.

Of course, no one disputes you can consider anyone to be anything you choose. Where we differ is that I am open to the possibility I might be wrong, and if someone decided to believe that the world was made by fairies dancing around a toadstool at midnight chanting Bach cantatas, then I choose to find that charming, rather than deciding they are idiots.

You may well be right to consider such people idiots, but in a democracy even idiots are allowed to vote, and their votes are as valid as members of Mensa.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

Of course, no one disputes you can consider anyone to be anything you choose. Where we differ is that I am open to the possibility I might be wrong, and if someone decided to believe that the world was made by fairies dancing around a toadstool at midnight chanting Bach cantatas, then I choose to find that charming, rather than deciding they are idiots.

And if someone makes a decision that ultimately has an affect on your life on the basis of that belief, that's every bit as valid as someone who makes their decisions on the basis of facts and evidence?

You may well be right to consider such people idiots, but in a democracy even idiots are allowed to vote, and their votes are as valid as members of Mensa.

As are the votes of racists, wife beaters and child molesters.

Your point seems to be that it doesn't matter whether what people believe is true or false, well-informed or hopelessly ignorant; we should pander to everyone's beliefs, because they are all equally valid. That way lies idiocracy, and if that's how you want your country run, you're welcome to it.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

And if someone makes a decision that ultimately has an affect on your life on the basis of that belief, that's every bit as valid as someone who makes their decisions on the basis of facts and evidence? As are the votes of racists, wife beaters and child molesters.

People vote all the time who have different opinions form me, and whose votes have made real differences to my life. Many of them may well vote because they like a politician's nice curly hair, or for whatever reasons they choose. I can't stop anyone choosing their own criteria to vote. I don't have to remind anyone that the Irish economy was, in part, ruined because people voted for politicians for reasons which were not in accord with mine. Everyone in Ireland has had their lives affected by that. That's how democracy works.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your point seems to be that it doesn't matter whether what people believe is true or false, well-informed or hopelessly ignorant; we should pander to everyone's beliefs, because they are all equally valid. That way lies idiocracy, and if that's how you want your country run, you're welcome to it.

Of course it matters what everyone thinks, although why you claim I think we should “pander” to anyone seems a mystery.

Unfortunately, that is how our countries are run, and merely wringing our hands and despairing of it isn’t going to change that.

It’s called democracy, and even those you decide are idiots, hopelessly ignorant and who believe things you think are false all have an equal say in voting as you do. That’s why Ireland chose the politicians it did and why Ireland is in the appalling state it finds itself in. it’s the same in many countries.

Where we seem to differ is that you seem to want to impose some sort of IQ test for voters, and prevent anyone who falls below whatever IQ level you choose from voting. Or if not an IQ test, you seem to want to only let others vote so long as you can be assured they use facts in the same way that you do.

I am not a hand wringer, and know that in a democracy, we must let everyone vote and know that hand wringing is of little value in changing anything.

ewan whose army

Lemming wrote: »

Whose fault is that exactly? Could it have been the individual member nation perhaps?

Well yeah it is.

I didn't say it wasn't, we do blame our government. Its one of the reasons why Gordon Brown was so unpopular. Its made it defacto law now that any new EU treaty would have to be given a referendum.

You are thinking we are all Daily Mail readers, only those lot blame Europe for it. The rest of us blame the government.

I am not anti-EU at all, I just think it needs reform. If two countries say Ireland and the UK both said no to it, as what would have probably happened in that case they would be under pressure to change it, not just have another referendum over here.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

Well yeah it is.

I didn't say it wasn't, we do blame our government. Its one of the reasons why Gordon Brown was so unpopular. Its made it defacto law now that any new EU treaty would have to be given a referendum.

You are thinking we are all Daily Mail readers, only those lot blame Europe for it. The rest of us blame the government.

I am not anti-EU at all, I just think it needs reform. If two countries say Ireland and the UK both said no to it, as what would have probably happened in that case they would be under pressure to change it, not just have another referendum over here.

What kind of reform? Generally speaking.

I mean, if there is an alternative vision it has to be feasible and work more effectively than the incremental, pragmatic one we have at present.

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

What kind of reform? Generally speaking.

I mean, if there is an alternative vision it has to be feasible and work more effectively than the incremental, pragmatic one we have at present.

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

micosoft

ewan whose army wrote: »

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

But which reform are the responsibility of the "EU" and which are the responsibility of the member state?


Pay/Benefits - Herman Van Rompuy is the president of the European Council. He gets pay and conditions commiserate to that position. He is president of a council of the heads of state of every EU country - they decide and elect him in. Therefore there is a democratic link. That said, if the UK wants to, it could hold a vote on it's nomination as president if it wants to.

Waste - there is no evidence that the EU is any more wasteful than say, the UK govt. and indeed likely less so. No cleaning of moats in the EU that I have heard of. The Strasbourg shuttle is wasteful but that was negotiated between governments - the French government insisted on it. It's up to the EU member states to negotiate that with France. Most Eurocrats would be delighted to dump that circus.

Ireland has held second referendums many times on many topics including Divorce. The only people that oppose these democratic decisions are anti-democrats like yourself who oppose giving people the right to choose their mind.

Constituencies in a country are entirely decided by the country or it's electoral commission - nothing to do with the EU.

What gets taught in UK schools is entirely to do with the British Dept. of Education and nothing to do with the EU.

Serious and truthful coverage or lack thereof of the EU is entirely to do with the British Media and nothing to do with the EU.

Greece so desperately tried to get into the EU despite objections from Germany and most reasonable economists that their official statistical agency lied about their economy for a number of years prior to Euro entry. Nothing to do with the EU other then we should not have taken the Greeks at face value. But that would have gone down as EU interference in your book.

You have no clue what you mean by reform because as usual when you look at your complaints they all boil down to:

• Unreasonable standards apply to the EU as compared to standards expected for national governments
• Complaints about things that are in the remit of the national governemnt and nothing to do with the EU

The above is your problem and the UK's problem and I can't take your "I've nothing against the EU line" seriously - you do have a problem.

The issue is that the UK will leave the EU due to misinformation at a grand scale and this will damage every bodies interests. Mostly the UK's but lots of collateral damage.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

TBH this mostly reads like a list of dislikes, not a coherent alternative. It's not enough to say the EU needs to be more accountable and transparent. That's a criticism that can be levelled at practically any western democracy.

Indeed, if there's a problem with transparency and accountability, it's the practice of disinformation practiced by many national politicians against the EU. After all, national governments like the UK's have more real influence over the EU than they ever say to their citizens.

It's my view that EU powers are strictly delineated and very heavily inspired by national initiatives. Accordingly EU action is often very technical, and difficult to sell. That's no excuse though for the quite rancid sneering thrown the EU's way by too many British politicians and press types.

As for Eurobonds, there's no current legal basis for them. There is no sustainable economic or political basis for them either at present. There's no way in the world any creditor EZ member like Germany, Austria, Finland or the Netherlands is going to write a blank cheque for countries in economic difficulty under current circumstances. Neither would the UK had it a dog in the Euro race.

Which is not to say there won't be Eurobonds when the appropriate structures are in place, and all participants are Maastricht-compliant.

ewan whose army

Just a side point.

Why are people so bothered if the UK does pull out the EU, its not going to affect Ireland. Okay my points are based around the UK but its an UK matter not an EU matter.

Is it going to affect Ireland? Probably not

micosoft

A side point that illustrates how very wrong the "debate" in the UK is....

No effect on Ireland or Europe? Did you seriously think that? This isn't a Golf club that you might decide to leave on a whim. The UK leaving the EU will have enormous geopolitical implications as well as economic implications for everyone. Important enough that the US feels the need to intervene: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal

The real question is how individuals like yourself know so little about the wider world and the EU indicating a massive failing in both British Media and Education to impart even a tiny understanding on an institution which is massively influential in their lives.

ewan whose army

micosoft wrote: »

A side point that illustrates how very wrong the "debate" in the UK is....

No effect on Ireland or Europe? Did you seriously think that? This isn't a Golf club that you might decide to leave on a whim. The UK leaving the EU will have enormous geopolitical implications as well as economic implications for everyone. Important enough that the US feels the need to intervene: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal

The real question is how individuals like yourself know so little about the wider world and the EU indicating a massive failing in both British Media and Education to impart even a tiny understanding on an institution which is massively influential in their lives.

The EU isn't making us a case to remain in which I find surprising. The fact that Obama has got involved in UK politics something that isn't to do the US isn't doing them any favours. Alot of people in the UK don't care about the "Special Relationship" and want to see the back of the Americans messing with the UK. Obama is just going to make the EU even more unpopular.

I can't say anything about the EU in schools, we were never taught it. General Studies was an option that nobody took

micosoft

But it's not the EU's place to make this case. It's for British politicians or British civic society. Any hint of the EU doing so would be called "propaganda" just as you have posited that Obama (BTW Republicans are also suggesting Britain remain in the EU) is interference (contradicting yourself in one sentence). In any case you are deliberately avoiding the point again - you posited that UK leaving the EU would have no effect - I showed evidence that even the US is seriously concerned showing the global impact it would have.

But if you must look at the Confederation of British Industries - Britain's largest business lobby group. Front page - 8 our of 10 british business want to remain in the EU. They even conducted a fact finding mission to Norway which showed that their relationship (fax membership) was far worse for the UK's economic interests.

Face it. Your viewpoint is based on a wilful ignorance of the facts. Thirty years of steady drip drip of anti-EU propaganda & lies has warped the mind of the average British voter on Europe to the extent that it looks likely that the UK will leave the EU even though on every possible level, economic, political, social the consequences for the UK will be far worse then staying in. Not me saying this - British Industry saying it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But such is life. The EU will continue as I'm sure a (poorer) England/Wales with Scotland having it's own EU relationship. Ireland will have a mixed bag from it - some sectors winning some losing.

ewan whose army

micosoft wrote: »

But it's not the EU's place to make this case. It's for British politicians or British civic society. Any hint of the EU doing so would be called "propaganda" just as you have posited that Obama (BTW Republicans are also suggesting Britain remain in the EU) is interference (contradicting yourself in one sentence). In any case you are deliberately avoiding the point again - you posited that UK leaving the EU would have no effect - I showed evidence that even the US is seriously concerned showing the global impact it would have.

But if you must look at the Confederation of British Industries - Britain's largest business lobby group. Front page - 8 our of 10 british business want to remain in the EU. They even conducted a fact finding mission to Norway which showed that their relationship (fax membership) was far worse for the UK's economic interests.

Face it. Your viewpoint is based on a wilful ignorance of the facts. Thirty years of steady drip drip of anti-EU propaganda & lies has warped the mind of the average British voter on Europe to the extent that it looks likely that the UK will leave the EU even though on every possible level, economic, political, social the consequences for the UK will be far worse then staying in. Not me saying this - British Industry saying it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But such is life. The EU will continue as I'm sure a (poorer) England/Wales with Scotland having it's own EU relationship. Ireland will have a mixed bag from it - some sectors winning some losing.

Thats assuming Scotland would get independence a big if. Also the EU has not idea if Scotland would get automatic entry in the first place.

I don't think a UK EU exit is likely anyway that is assuming the Tories are going to remain into power, which is highly unlikely to say the least.

I think you miss my point, as I said if there was a Yes / No I would vote to remain in. I am just saying that the EU isn't all bells and whistles that some people think it is. The only real advantage in my eyes is trade, nothing else.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

The EU isn't making us a case to remain in which I find surprising. The fact that Obama has got involved in UK politics something that isn't to do the US isn't doing them any favours. Alot of people in the UK don't care about the "Special Relationship" and want to see the back of the Americans messing with the UK. Obama is just going to make the EU even more unpopular.

I can't say anything about the EU in schools, we were never taught it. General Studies was an option that nobody took

That's simply not the EU's job. It's up to the British to decide what's in the EU for them, and what they in turn can bring to the table.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

I am just saying that the EU isn't all bells and whistles that some people think it is. The only real advantage in my eyes is trade, nothing else.

No political state of affairs anywhere is ideal. Every scenario has its benefits and drawbacks.

On the advantages, I think most European countries see manifold political, security and broader economic benefits. Subconsciously, I think many Europeans feel that cooperation and coordination provides improved infrastructure, systems and opportunities. I think they're also more conscious of potential problems in less stable regions on their doorsteps such as Russia, the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa, not to mention potential threats from China. And that it's smarter to be talking, planning and eventually coordinating militarily and security-wise.

The UK, like Ireland, is insular. It has also outsourced its foreign policy to the US. It still cannot bring itself to throw at least some of its lot in with Germany and France. It's not necessarily all poor judgement on its part. Personally I think France is not a straight-up partner. And the UK definitely feels overshadowed by Germany. But it's dependence on the US means it has abdicated a leading role in Europe, and I think that's a shame.

Why? Because Europe and the EU is far more than a simple trade arrangement. It's a forum and template for future cooperation on projecting Europe's common interests and providing for its common needs. Behind the EU's pragmatic facade there is potential for major political and security gains. That's how I see it anyway.

PercyBlakeney

WE have to realise that the EU, itself, is not the real body which is governing. More rules in fact originate in global bodies above the EU, with the EU just given the task of enforcing thses rules usually by statutory instruments which no individual countries governments are allowed to alter, and no national parliament allowed to question.

Bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) or the Aarhus Convention on environmental issues spring to mind. Like it or not, the EU is a staging post en route to a world government where the people will be so far removed from the political process to render it undemocratic in any valid sense.

Just as the EU will not allow votes on whether or not the citizens of the EU want to

1. Keep the EU,
2. Reform the EU or
3. Abolish the EU

for fear of what they might find out, so no electorate will be consulted about the creep creep creep sleepwalking into handing over more and more bits of democracy. Its called “salami tactics” by the bureaucrats, as slice by slice they control more and more of the agenda and each slice itself hardly noticed, but each slice adding up to the whole salami , eventually.

There are actually some who argue black is white and the EU is more democratic than a time when we actually debated any of this, and when a vote by the people was respected.

oscarBravo

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) or the Aarhus Convention on environmental issues spring to mind.

The Aarhus Convention isn't a body. It's a policy that various countries have voluntarily signed up to, as are the policies of UNECE.

Just as the EU will not allow votes on whether or not the citizens of the EU want...

I'ma stop you there. If you believe that the EU has the power to prevent its member states from holding votes, you're not sufficiently informed for a reasoned discussion on this topic. Go find out how the EU works and come back to us.

PercyBlakeney

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Aarhus Convention isn't a body. It's a policy that various countries have voluntarily signed up to, as are the policies of UNECE.

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both, and then implements the decisions via statutory instruments, which the Irish parliament has no power or competence to even discuss, let alone alter.

My simple point is not about whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but that illustrates the globalisation of decision making, and the increasing lack of power citizens now have about the laws which they have no ability to influence or make, but which they still have to obey.

Most citizens of the EU (and the world) are hazy about this, if they are even aware of where the decisions are made and the laws agreed. Many are still under the assumption that their own national parliaments have the last say or a veto, when in fact national parliaments have no power or competence in this area.

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both,

Ireland actively supported the EU's accession to both such conventions. Hence, Ireland supports measures adopted as a result of these conventions.

Why therefore are we supposed to have problem with this?

oscarBravo

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both...

The Aarhus Convention still isn't a body; it's a convention, which Ireland ratified in June of last year. Ireland has been a member of UNECE since 1955.

...and then implements the decisions via statutory instruments, which the Irish parliament has no power or competence to even discuss, let alone alter.

My simple point is not about whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but that illustrates the globalisation of decision making, and the increasing lack of power citizens now have about the laws which they have no ability to influence or make, but which they still have to obey.

Ironically, the Aarhus convention requires public consultations.

Most citizens of the EU (and the world) are hazy about this...

Indeed.

PercyBlakeney

View wrote: »

Ireland actively supported the EU's accession to both such conventions. Hence, Ireland supports measures adopted as a result of these conventions.

Why therefore are we supposed to have problem with this?

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU). All countries in the EU i "supported" the EU in that sense.

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it. Or that citizens of other countries who signed up understood it or understand it.

"We" have to all decide individually whether this is, or might become, an issue for ourselves, individually.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Aarhus Convention still isn't a body; it's a convention, which Ireland ratified in June of last year. Ireland has been a member of UNECE since 1955. Ironically, the Aarhus convention requires public consultations. Indeed.

I am indebted to your kind attention to detail which is not unimportant.

However the substantive issue is, perhaps, of more import

oscarBravo

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU). All countries in the EU i "supported" the EU in that sense.

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it. Or that citizens of other countries who signed up understood it or understand it.

The citizens of each EU member state elect governments to make decisions on their behalf, including decisions as to what treaties and conventions they should sign up to.

"We" have to all decide individually whether this is, or might become, an issue for ourselves, individually.

Sure. And if enough people in (say) Ireland decide that this is a big enough issue to care about, we'll have a referendum on changing article 29 of our constitution, which gives our elected representatives the power to sign up to such treaties.

I am indebted to your kind attention to detail which is not unimportant.

However the substantive issue is, perhaps, of more import

If you can explain what the substantive issue is without getting your basic facts wrong, we can have a discussion about it.

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU).

This statement is nonsense.

Ireland had a choice which it duly exercised. Not only that but we had a veto on the decision itself.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it.

There is no legislation adopted anywhere that requires ALL citizens to approve it. You'd wouldn't get a local by-law through if you gave each citizen a veto on each of our laws.

PercyBlakeney

View wrote: »

This statement is nonsense.

Ireland had a choice which it duly exercised. Not only that but we had a veto on the decision itself.



There is no legislation adopted anywhere that requires ALL citizens to approve it. You'd wouldn't get a local by-law through if you gave each citizen a veto on each of our laws.

If it's not an issue for you that our duly elected TD's are forbidden to even discuss, alter or vote on some or many of the laws which we are all forced to obey, then its not an issue for you.

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

If it's not an issue for you that our duly elected TD's are forbidden to even discuss, alter or vote on some or many of the laws which we are all forced to obey, then its not an issue for you.

Our TDs are not forbidden from discussing EU laws, indeed both the Oireachtas and the government are notified of proposed laws at the very start of the ordinary legislative process so they can raise objections during the process.

As it is, proposals must be approved by MEPs (in all bar a few cases) and (the Council of) Ministers to become law.

Those procedures have been approved by both the Oireachtas and the electorate in referenda. It sounds like you have a problem with our decisions to approve the 1972 referendum on membership and the subsequent referenda which altered the legislative process.

PercyBlakeney

View wrote: »

Our TDs are not forbidden from discussing EU laws, indeed both the Oireachtas and the government are notified of proposed laws at the very start of the ordinary legislative process so they can raise objections during the process.

As it is, proposals must be approved by MEPs (in all bar a few cases) and (the Council of) Ministers to become law.

Those procedures have been approved by both the Oireachtas and the electorate in referenda. It sounds like you have a problem with our decisions to approve the 1972 referendum on membership and the subsequent referenda which altered the legislative process.

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work, or you are talking about how other legislation gets into law across the EU.

Lemming

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work

Clearly you don't. Who drafts & enacts an SI in Ireland exactly ... oh wait; that'd be the Irish government.

Not the EU.

PercyBlakeney

Lemming wrote: »

Clearly you don't. Who drafts & enacts an SI in Ireland exactly ... oh wait; that'd be the Irish government.

Not the EU.

I am afraid you are, simply, factually incorrect. The Si's are drafted not by the governments, but by the legal office of the relevant government department. SI's from the EU are not subjected to parlimentary or governmental scrutiny, and must be passed into law as a whole and without government or parliamentary interference.

Statutory instruments (SIs) are whats known as a type of delegated legislation.

oscarBravo

Statutory Instruments are used (among other things) to transpose EU directives into Irish law. Those directives are agreed between the elected governments of the member states, under the authority vested in those governments by their respective constitutional arrangements, and are largely subject to scrutiny by the directly-elected European Parliament.

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work, or you are talking about how other legislation gets into law across the EU.

I am fully aware of how SIs work.

What exactly is the problem with a Minister using a legal instrument to give effect to measure agreed to at EU level as part of the EU's legislative process?

We agreed - in a referendum in 1972 - that we would implement EU laws here. Are you saying we should not have done so? Because, if so, we would not be members of the EU today.

McDave

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

WE have to realise that the EU, itself, is not the real body which is governing. More rules in fact originate in global bodies above the EU, with the EU just given the task of enforcing thses rules usually by statutory instruments which no individual countries governments are allowed to alter, and no national parliament allowed to question.

The ideas for rules actually tend to come from local or national bodies/parliaments. Most EU directives are approximations of national laws, harmonising them at European level. The inspiration actually comes from below, catches on in a number of countries, and once a critical mass of interest/relevance is reached, it crosses over into a more pan-national affair.

It is not, as you imply, as if factories of law-obsessed gnomes in international organisations based in Switzerland or New York come up with ideas to force on the people of Europe or the world.

PercyBlakeney

View wrote: »

.

What exactly is the problem with a Minister using a legal instrument to give effect to measure agreed to at EU level as part of the EU's legislative process?

The problem, if there is one, is something that we have to decide for ourselves.
The problem is simple; the countries in the EU are democracies and to most people that means the rule of the people by the people.

In the case of SI’s from the EU, the SI’s are not subject to any parliamentary or governmental scrutiny in any country, and every country has to implement the SI without its parliament or government ( ie it’s people) being able to discuss or change the SI in any way.

You may well decide it’s not a problem, others may, and do, disagree. That’s how a democracy works, where all opinions are valid and allowed to be expressed.

View wrote: »

We agreed - in a referendum in 1972 - that we would implement EU laws here. Are you saying we should not have done so? Because, if so, we would not be members of the EU today.

Most people who voted in that referendum are now dead, and most people of voting age today were prohibited from voting in that referendum.

If I wanted to say “we” should not have done so, then that’s what I would have said. Having said that, it would be interesting to ask every voter across the EU if they agree to be ruled by SI’s today, or if that’s what they thought they were voting for in previous votes or referenda.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Statutory Instruments are used (among other things) to transpose EU directives into Irish law. Those directives are agreed between the elected governments of the member states, under the authority vested in those governments by their respective constitutional arrangements, and are largely subject to scrutiny by the directly-elected European Parliament.

Sure, and to have them “largely” ( whatever that means) scrutinised by the EU parliament might be good enough for you, although it may not be good enough for others.

What is the point of national parliaments if non national institutions have the power to bypass national parliaments and force national parliaments to implement laws the national parliaments are not allow to interfere with in any way?

McDave wrote: »

The ideas for rules actually tend to come from local or national bodies/parliaments. Most EU directives are approximations of national laws, harmonising them at European level. The inspiration actually comes from below, catches on in a number of countries, and once a critical mass of interest/relevance is reached, it crosses over into a more pan-national affair.

It is not, as you imply, as if factories of law-obsessed gnomes in international organisations based in Switzerland or New York come up with ideas to force on the people of Europe or the world.

Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that we are all happy with those “most EU directives” about which you speak. Are you equally happy that laws which come to each EU member country from outside the EU, and which are implemented into each individual countries laws via the EU’s statutory instruments, so that these laws are implemented in a way that no national parliament is allowed to change, alter or in any was prevent those laws being implemented?

It may well be you have no issue with this, and it may well be you think this is democracy in action, but if so there are a growing number who don’t agree with that view.

Scofflaw

In the case of SI’s from the EU, the SI’s are not subject to any parliamentary or governmental scrutiny in any country, and every country has to implement the SI without its parliament or government ( ie it’s people) being able to discuss or change the SI in any way.

That's highly inaccurate.

First, while the Commission initiates EU legislation, it usually does so in response to requests from the Council or the Parliament, usually the former. The existence of EU legislation is therefore driven primarily by the national governments via the Council. The general agenda for the EU is also set by the national governments acting as the European Council.

Second, all draft EU legislation is scrutinised by Coreper, the permanent representations of the Member States in Brussels - these are composed of senior civil servants and national experts under political control, who make recommendations on changes to the legislation.

Third, EU legislation must be passed both by the Council and (increasingly) the Parliament, who both have the power to amend it. That, with (2), means that EU legislation has been discussed and changed by national governments.

Fourth, Lisbon introduced a system whereby national parliaments can oppose EU legislation directly in advance, so there is now an additional channel which goes direct to the national legislatures rather than the national governments.

The EU is not separate from the Member States. It is a joint action framework. All EU legislation must be acceptable to the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem, if there is one, is something that we have to decide for ourselves.

We have already decided this. You seem to have a problem with the decision though.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

In the case of SI’s from the EU,

A SI is an Irish legal measure used to implement Irish law be it of domestic or other origin.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly the EU legal measure you are referrring to when you talk about a "SI from the EU"?

View

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Most people who voted in that referendum are now dead, and most people of voting age today were prohibited from voting in that referendum.

The issue of whether people who voted in a referendum are dead or alive doesn't effect the validity of their decision. It stands unless it is overturned by a subsequent majority decision.

As it is, I should point out that the legal basis for us using referenda is a decision in an 1936 (or 37) referendum to approve the Constitution with its provisions for the use of referenda.

If your argument is the 1972 decision somehow becomes invalid as the electorate of that referendum dies off then as nearly all the electorate of the 1936 referendum are now deceased that means - according to your logic - there is no longer a valid legal basis for us to hold referenda any longer.

Indeed there isn't even a basis for us being independent as the electorate of 1918-22 are now deceased. In that case, will you run the Union Flag up on the GPO for us? :-)

McDave

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that we are all happy with those “most EU directives” about which you speak. Are you equally happy that laws which come to each EU member country from outside the EU, and which are implemented into each individual countries laws via the EU’s statutory instruments, so that these laws are implemented in a way that no national parliament is allowed to change, alter or in any was prevent those laws being implemented?

It may well be you have no issue with this, and it may well be you think this is democracy in action, but if so there are a growing number who don’t agree with that view.

Less posturing and more specifics please. Which laws? Some examples. So we can have a real discussion, rather than useless polemic based on half-baked prejudice.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

We have already decided this. You seem to have a problem with the decision though.



A SI is an Irish legal measure used to implement Irish law be it of domestic or other origin.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly the EU legal measure you are referrring to when you talk about a "SI from the EU"?

I'd presume he's referring to Regulations, which don't require transposition into national law, at least individually (we have a blanket Act that gives them force). They're not really a good analogy for SIs, though, because an SI is created by executive fiat, and is assumed passed unless opposed by the Dáil.

The only close analogy of that in EU legislation is a Regulation created by the Commission where it has been delegated the power to do so, which like an SI, is created by executive fiat and assumed passed unless rejected specifically by the Council. Those are generally very minor in effect, though, typically something like changing the intervention quota for Aeolian Island grapes. They are not policy-making legislation, but implementing legislation, and are subordinate legally to any contradictory Council legislation, which is not the case for Irish SIs, which can be very wide in scope.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

McDave wrote: »

Less posturing and more specifics please. Which laws? Some examples. So we can have a real discussion, rather than useless polemic based on half-baked prejudice.

Unfortunately many people vote on the basis of half baked prejudice and emotion. We can't simply instruct others how to reach their conclusions or how to vote.

Fukuoka Eagle

I'll be voting to leave the EU when the referendum comes along.

The Corinthian

Fukuoka Eagle wrote: »

I'll be voting to leave the EU when the referendum comes along.

Thank you for sharing your well known and respected recommendation.

georgesstreet

It seems to me that there is a view in Ireland that to criticise is to be against something. This is, I think, a cultural difference between Ireland and the UK.

In Ireland many will recognise that often people say "yes" when they mean no and only at the last minute you will learn, often by osmosis, that "yes" in fact meant "no" all along. In, for example, the USA and the UK generally speaking people are more direct and will say "no" at the outset and not waste ones time.

Sometimes in Ireland it is thought that its better to be "nice" and not to say "no" and not to criticise.

Consequently, in ireland it is thought to criticise is to be against something, whereas in the UK it is often the case that one only criticises the things one actually cares about, in the hope of making it better.

I don't agree that the british are any more anti europe than any other nations, but its just they may be more vocal with their criticisms. I'd bet that if a vote were taken , the UK and Ireland would have similar numbers of citizens pro and con.