Why are the British so anti Europe?

SpaceTime

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_278439.pdf

Sample period:

UK goods exports to EU in July 2012 £12.5 bn (48.6%)
UK goods exports to non EU in July 2012 £13.2 bn (51.4%)

I think someone may be quoting trade figures including the domestic economic activity within the UK itself (money being circulated not being earned on global markets) to make the export figures seem less significant.

Be very wary of selectivity quoted stats from tabloids and vested interests of either side of the debate!

The facts would seem to indicate the EU is the UK's single largest trade partner by a very long shot.

The Office of National Statistics and Eurostat are probably your safest sources!

Peregrinus

Yes. Slightly less than half (and not more than half, as I said earlier) of the UK's external trade with is other EU countries. That's very significant to the UK.

It's not the case that, if the UK leaves the EU, this trade simply disappears. As a non-member, the UK can still trade with the EU; lots of non-members do.

What changes is the terms on which that trade is conducted. At the moment, as a member state, the UK enjoys the right to sell goods and services into other EU countries without any barriers of any kind. If the UK leaves, they lose this right, unless they become members of the EEA instead (which would mean giving up many of the advantages which they would hope to gain by leaving, like the right to deny residence rights to EU nationals).

So, are they simply going to walk, and let the trade consequences fall where they may? That's very unlikely, not just because it would be very stupid but also because it would be very contrary to the interests of powerful figures in the British establishment. If they do leave they'll want to negotiate the terms of their leaving, and in particular to negotiate the most favourable access they can to EU markets for the UK's goods and services. My point is that their negotiating position will not be a particularly strong one; they have much more to lose than the EU-26, and if (following a referendum) they have a political commitment to leave they have given away their main bargaining point. And, the more the UK's access to EU markets is restricted or constrained, the further the UK moves from its current right of free trade on terms of absolute equality with other member states, the more the UK's trade with the EU will shrink.

Boroso invites me to say whether I think the UK should stay or leave. I hope they stay, because I think it's in the interests of Ireland that they do. But as to whether it's in the UK's interests, that's not for me to say; it's a decision for the UK. The point is that it's a tough decision; there are significant downsides (from the UK's perspective) to leaving; there are difficult choices to be made, and the UK's bargaining position in leaving negotiations would not be a strong one. And my other point is that to say all this is not to "threaten" the UK.

Philope

I hope they don't leave either, but if they do decide to do so, I'm sure they will be doing so in full knowlege and in their own overall best interests.
The UK is not stupid.

Scofflaw

We don't seem to have an answer here to the question "who threatened the UK?". It's not necessarily a very important question, but the claim was made, has been challenged, and now we seem to be wandering off without answering it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

The thing is that when push comes to shove, the British business lobby does not want the UK to leave the EU and I think you'll find there'll be a rather serious shift in opinion as they start to rollout the big PR and lobbying guns!

You're already seeing a rather serious softening of a lot of senior Tory members' positions and I think that's because they're being given quite a lot of straight talking by the business and banking lobby.

It plays well to the tabloids, but it plays very badly to business people and the financial sector which basically *is* the UK economy.

The UK's also suffering from a pretty serious trade deficit at the moment too which needs to be turned around. Part of that is probably down to £ being over valued and loss of competitiveness relative to the € and $.

Placing any further question marks over the ability of UK companies to export easily to what is the world's largest consumer market, is really risky stuff.

I think this is a discussion you have during boom times, not during a deep recession.

On the immigration issue, it's also quite frightening for UK-based companies in some regards too. If you have a situation where it suddenly becomes difficult to access a pool of talent from continental Europe, the cost of employment would go way up.

There are loads of multilingual and high tech jobs being filled by continental graduates who have specific skills.

In an Irish context for example, our ability to attract major multinationals to Ireland to run customer service and sales facilities comes down partially to our ability to be able to attract in lots of enthusiastic continental Europeans who are attracted to Ireland by availability of jobs, a relatively attractive lifestyle and the fact that it speaks English.

A large number of companies are in the UK for similar reasons to that.

You also have to look at the long game too. The EU has proven itself to be able to encourage economic growth and value-added economics to kick start in countries that have joined.
The Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia and quite a few others have gone from being relatively poor iron curtain states to quite showing very serious promise of being quite major economies thanks to opening up to EU trade.

So, rather than seeing this flood of emigration from the East into the UK and Ireland and elsewhere as a terrible thing. I'd actually say it's a really positive thing. All those people who come to England, Ireland, France, Germany etc tend to mostly only do it for a few years and go back again. However, they build linguistic connections, trade links, transfer ideas, and boost trade.

I really think this whole notion of returning to being insular little states is not going to do anything for the economies that opt for that in the long run.

I'm not saying the EU's perfect, it's far from it and has a lot of problems and flaws that need to be ironed out. However, I think the choice between the EU or a bunch of little nation-states and going back to old animosities really isn't much of a choice at all.
The EU (warts and all) still stands for a very optimistic, positive, vibrant ideal and I think it's being totally lost in this debate.

We need to fix the EU's problems and make it more democratically accountable. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater's pretty stupid.

Scofflaw

It seems the Norwegian PM is, er, 'threatening' the UK:

[Norwegian PM] Solberg says she understands that Cameron uses Norway as a counter-example in his argument and she states that the EEA agreement as an alternative of full membership to EU, Norway has committed , is not something she recommends to the British politicians.

Erna Solberg told Cameron not to push Britain towards an EU exit. Citing the experience of Norway - which is not an EU member but has very close trade ties through its membership of the European Economic Area - Solberg said: "Those in the British debate who look at Norway’s association underestimate how closely connected we actually are with many of the laws and rules they are annoyed with.

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/4248-norway-warns-uk-not-to-exit-european-union

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems the Norwegian PM is, er, 'threatening' the UK:



http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/4248-norway-warns-uk-not-to-exit-european-union

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well that's the other risk, at present the EU has a lot of British influences and has actually followed quite a British-influenced economic model in many areas, particularly on opening up of markets, privatisation and free trade which very much fits into a slightly modified UK-esque model of how to build an economy.

Take the UK out of that driving seat, and you've suddenly got a Franco-German axis at the helm which would be much more fond of draconian regulation of various industries (especially banking!).

The UK would be an EEA member, meaning it has to implement all the EU's rules and regulations with almost zero input into how they're shaped and they could become a lot more like German and French ideas rather than British ones.

The UK has most definitely been one of the biggest voices for liberal economics in the EU right back to the Thatcher days. (Not that I'm a huge fan of Mrs T, but you get my point..)

I would also argue that Norway and Switzerland are quite inappropriate models for a large, mixed, open, trading economy like the UK.

Norway's a one trick pony - small, liberal democratic socialist country living on vast oil wealth.
Switzerland's basically a tax/regulation haven that lives off secretive banking primarily.

Both are quite small, and somewhat 'unusual'.

The UK doesn't have vast mineral wealth that's sufficient to sustain the entire population nor is it small enough to live as a regulation/tax haven.

While the tabloids and the euro-sceptics in the UK may not believe it, the UK actually wields a huge amount of power in the EU and with a bit more engagement, it could actually wield more than France and nearly as much as Germany.

The UK also has a lot of like-minded countries that would probably support it across many issues, more so than they'd be likely to jump in behind Germany or France. A lot of the smaller countries (including Ireland, probably the Netherlands, many new members from the Eastern bloc, even to a degree the Spanish and Portuguese) are probably more aligned to UK-style interests than German ones.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well that's the other risk, at present the EU has a lot of British influences and has actually followed quite a British-influenced economic model in many areas, particularly on opening up of markets, privatisation and free trade which very much fits into a slightly modified UK-esque model of how to build an economy.

Take the UK out of that driving seat, and you've suddenly got a Franco-German axis at the helm which would be much more fond of draconian regulation of various industries (especially banking!).

The UK would be an EEA member, meaning it has to implement all the EU's rules and regulations with almost zero input into how they're shaped and they could become a lot more like German and French ideas rather than British ones.

The UK has most definitely been one of the biggest voices for liberal economics in the EU right back to the Thatcher days. (Not that I'm a huge fan of Mrs T, but you get my point..)

They're the strongest opponents of French dirigisme, and a regular and important ally of Ireland on matters business and financial. I'm not necessarily a fan of the outcomes there, mind you, since I think the yardstick that gets used in the Anglo model to measure success is one unduly influenced by the success of the wealthy.

I would also argue that Norway and Switzerland are quite inappropriate models for a large, mixed, open, trading economy like the UK.

Norway's a one trick pony - small, liberal democratic socialist country living on vast oil wealth.
Switzerland's basically a tax/regulation haven that lives off secretive banking primarily.

Both are quite small, and somewhat 'unusual'.

The UK doesn't have vast mineral wealth that's sufficient to sustain the entire population nor is it small enough to live as a regulation/tax haven.

To be fair, it's hardly just the eurosceptics who consider those countries as desirable models. The Tories are essentially trying to protect their Switzerland in London (supported by the Irish over our Switzerland in the IFSC), while successfully shooting down EU attempts to regulate their possible Norway of shale gas (supported by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic).

Mind you, the UK has actually had a 'Norway' in their North Sea oil and gas, and Thatcher blew it on lowering taxes for the wealthy.

While the tabloids and the euro-sceptics in the UK may not believe it, the UK actually wields a huge amount of power in the EU and with a bit more engagement, it could actually wield more than France and nearly as much as Germany.

The UK also has a lot of like-minded countries that would probably support it across many issues, more so than they'd be likely to jump in behind Germany or France. A lot of the smaller countries (including Ireland, probably the Netherlands, many new members from the Eastern bloc, even to a degree the Spanish and Portuguese) are probably more aligned to UK-style interests than German ones.

This is already the case, but successive UK governments have been happy enough to downplay their influence in Europe. To be fair, though, the UK is the Member State most often in a minority position on the Council - but although that sounds dramatic, it only means 10.5% of the time, so it's on the side of the consensus 90% of the time. The next most regularly outvoted country is Germany (6.5%), then Austria (5.6%). Ireland is in the minority 1.9% of the time, about the same as most countries, and France is somehow never in a minority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

MarkK wrote: »

Trade figures usually refer to foreign trade.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/trade-figures

The I suggest you don't look at the "trade" figures as they give a misleading picture of the overall position.

14% of the Uk's business is done with countries within the EU

15% of the UK's business is done with countries outside the EU

71% of the UK's business is done within the UK.

It's impossible to get any sense of proportion if you say that 48% of the UK's trade is done with countries within the EU, as it's a meaningless figure which does not tell the proportion of british business which is dependant on other countries within the EU.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

The I suggest you don't look at the "trade" figures as they give a misleading picture of the overall position.

14% of the Uk's business is done with countries within the EU

15% of the UK's business is done with countries outside the EU

71% of the UK's business is done within the UK.

It's impossible to get any sense of proportion if you say that 48% of the UK's trade is done with countries within the EU, as it's a meaningless figure which does not tell the proportion of british business which is dependant on other countries within the EU.

External trade is very widely used as an indicator, and is generally regarded as more than slightly relevant to relations with other countries. To be honest, it's pretty obvious that the only reason you want to concentrate on the figures you're giving is because they can be used to make the EU figure look small.

Out of the 71% of business done within the UK, do you have any idea what proportion in turn relates to companies that do external trade? Or what proportion of national GDP relates to external trade as opposed to internal? The UK's trade as a proportion of GDP looks to be about 68%, which isn't exactly a trivial figure, and the UK prides itself on being a trading nation - but perhaps that's all irrelevant?

cordially,
Scofflaw

MarkK

Boroso wrote: »

The I suggest you don't look at the "trade" figures as they give a misleading picture of the overall position.

14% of the Uk's business is done with countries within the EU

15% of the UK's business is done with countries outside the EU

71% of the UK's business is done within the UK.

It's impossible to get any sense of proportion if you say that 48% of the UK's trade is done with countries within the EU, as it's a meaningless figure which does not tell the proportion of british business which is dependant on other countries within the EU.

You still haven't given a source for your figures or the other stuff you have been challenged on.

You are mixing international trade figures (trade between countries) with trade between individual business. So what you are saying does not make sense.

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

External trade is very widely used as an indicator, and is generally regarded as more than slightly relevant to relations with other countries. To be honest, it's pretty obvious that the only reason you want to concentrate on the figures you're giving is because they can be used to make the EU figure look small.

Out of the 71% of business done within the UK, do you have any idea what proportion in turn relates to companies that do external trade? Or what proportion of national GDP relates to external trade as opposed to internal? The UK's trade as a proportion of GDP looks to be about 68%, which isn't exactly a trivial figure, and the UK prides itself on being a trading nation - but perhaps that's all irrelevant?

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you think the figure of 48% of external trade gives a better picture of the amount of british business which is dependant on other countries in the EU, then we differ, rather the the figure of 14% of total british trade. Lets agree to differ and move on.

The figure of 14% if the figure, whether you think it looks small or not. It seems to many that 14% is a huge figure, and not at all small.

The UK does pride itself on being a trading natino ( which nation doesn't) and one of the restricting factors which membership of the EU has brought about is that the UK has been restricted in trading with it's commonwealth, where it has good connections.

Of the 71% of trade done within the UK, you want to know how much of that internal trade "relates" to companies who are also involved in the 29% which is internal trade? I am certain companies like, for example, Nissan are included in the 71% and the 29%, but I don't know the answer to your question.

In any case, even if the UK were to leave the EU (unlikely) all trade would no cease with other countries of the EU, so in many ways its an academic question as the 14% would not become 0%.

SpaceTime

Internal trade is actually not so that relevant.
The key thing is getting in foreign money. Otherwise you're just recycling you're own money and could be analysing credit bubbles...

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

Internal trade is actually not so that relevant.
The key thing is getting in foreign money. Otherwise you're just recycling you're own money and could be analysing credit bubbles...

Which is why the figure Boroso is using is not one you'll find in use in any economic analysis. I'm not sure how it has even been derived in the first place?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

If you think the figure of 48% of external trade gives a better picture of the amount of british business which is dependant on other countries in the EU, then we differ, rather the the figure of 14% of total british trade. Lets agree to differ and move on.

Well, no, I don't think we can do that. You're using a figure which appears in no economic literature, and which you haven't yet sourced. We know nothing about its meaning or reliability, nor is there any explanation of why this figure is supposed to be important in this debate, yet nobody otherwise uses it, and no government department or economic analyst appears to care about it.

It looks like a "political" figure - that is, one drawn up on the back of an envelope by someone who said "cool, that makes it look like EU trade isn't important", and who then farmed it out to EU-exit supporters as a talking point. I can't help but note that you introduce the point that the UK is 'restricted' in trade with Commonwealth countries as somehow important, even though the figure for these is very much smaller than the trade with the EU (most of the non-EU trade is with the US).

Further, we still don't have an answer to the question of who exactly "threatened the UK" over euro membership, and there's really a limit to how many completely unsupported claims one should throw into an argument and then refuse to defend.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

To be honest, any journalist writing and quoting that figure 14%and expecting to be taken seriously really needs to be handed a book on macroeconomics for dummies!

Boroso

I see the latest gallup poll here http://www.gallup.com/poll/166757/leadership-approval-record-low-spain-greece.aspx?utm_source=sitemap&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=leadership-approval-record-low-spain-greece shows record low levels of support for the EU. As can be seen, the UK is not out not step with other countries, and is not noticeably more "anti-Europe" than other countries.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

I see the latest gallup poll here http://www.gallup.com/poll/166757/leadership-approval-record-low-spain-greece.aspx?utm_source=sitemap&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=leadership-approval-record-low-spain-greece shows record low levels of support for the EU. As can be seen, the UK is not out not step with other countries, and is not noticeably more "anti-Europe" than other countries.

Er, first, that appears to be EU leadership rather than the idea of the EU - the question asked was "do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the EU" and frankly I would be answering 'disapprove' to that, although it should be rather obvious I'm not exactly eurosceptical. Second, the EU is suffering from the same scepticism as national governments and parliaments and any other part of the political establishment:



Third, you appear to have moved seamlessly on to a new talking point without justifying the last couple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, first, that appears to be EU leadership rather than the idea of the EU, and frankly I would be answering 'disapprove' to that, although it should be rather obvious I'm not exactly eurosceptical. Second, you appear to have moved seamlessly on to a new talking point without justifying the last couple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, the Gallup poll is new and shiny and fresh. And of course, if anyone wants to imagine that the people in Europe "love the EU , but hate the leadership", then that's entirely a matter for each of us.

Perhaps what's most interesting is the trend, as one poll in isolation doesnt' really tell us as much as the trend.

Sure I could repeat what I said about why I think the 14% figure gives a more balanced view of what the UK stands to lose overall. But if you disagree with that view, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Was that the point to which you refer, or was it something else?

PLUG71

JoeGil wrote: »

The reasons that strike me are are

1. Lack of understanding of what Europe is all about. The concept of peaceful respectful cohabitation and as fair as possible distribution of wealth among it's people is difficult to to understand for the british bulldog mentality.

2. Colonial past means that Britain became accustomed to telling everybody else what to do and can not work easily in a club where everybody else has a say.

3. The loss of Britain's economic power is made more transparent through European integration and this does not sit well with British pride.

4. Bigotry towards cultures which deviate from the British norm.

More anti-brit ****e!:(

Boskowski

I think the EU suffers from the same problem practically all western democracies suffer from.
The electorate has stopped trusting and believing in their elected representatives and ultimately stopped trusting that the system actually works as they think it should. They feel democracy has effectively been suspended for quite some time now.
Political decisions are not beneficial to the majority of people in a lot of cases which surely was the whole idea in the first place. Political decisions are beneficial to lobbying groups who have learned over the years how to work democracy and it's players.
IWhen the electorate points that out we're being told 'you don't understand, you don't have all the facts, trust us. It's for your own good you just don't know it yet. And in any case what's the alternative - if you don't want hitler or Stalin then better stick with it and shut up'.
The EU suffers even more from that because their bodies are more remote.
The local charlatans are still charlatans but at least they're our charlatans. And of course the local ones often justify their actions pointing at the remote ones thus not helping EU popularity either.

But I think ultimately it's a crisis of the western democracy in general. The EU phobia is just a symptom.

SpaceTime

The EU has the added issue of being perceived as quite remote too and the commission isn't directly accountable which doesn't help people trust it.

There's a well-documented democratic deficit in how the EU operates. It's not anything malevolent, it's just because there's a strong political opposition to a federal system yet it's being expected to take on tasks that are increasingly like a federal government when it isn't designed to function like that.

Boroso

SpaceTime wrote: »

The EU has the added issue of being perceived as quite remote too and the commission isn't directly accountable which doesn't help people trust it.

No one should be expected to "trust" politicians. The systems should be in place to have checks and balances and leaving things to "trust" is, obviously, asking for trouble.

The Euro is a good case in point. It was rammed through as a political goal and the economics of the Euro (an economic project) were simply ignored. The effects on countries like Ireland were simply brushed aside for the good of the "grand project", and the people of Europe are put into second place, in second place behind the glory of the project.

The hubris of that is telling about the way the EU works, and about the mindset of those running the EU.

As we can see in poll after poll (and even in the Euro barometer polls), the people in the EU as dissatisfied with the way the EU works, there is a growing realisation that the EU is incompetent and damaging to the people of Europe, and the people seem to be coming to a point where they want change, and no longer want to give more and more powers to the EU, and in many cases want to take powers given to the EU back.

SpaceTime

I think there's a major problem with how the EU functions but I don't think it's all a bad idea.
It needs reform and more accountability to the citizens.

The biggest issue I see is the commission. Each commissioner should be elected rather than just appointed by member state governments.

The issues that I see are ones created by just constantly coming up with messy workarounds that avoid using anything that might be seen as 'federal' and instead sticking with this super national organisation that is kind of morphing out of an intergovernmental organisation.

It's either a federal system with accountability or it's an intergovernmental organisation. What it's trying to be at the moment is something between the two.

Couple that with lousy communications and a perception that it's quite aloof and add in the current economic crisis and you will see why the support rates are so poor.

I just think we need to be very careful that, like the Seanad, we don't just have a situation where a bunch of people decide well that didn't work let's just abolish it instead of reforming it.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

Yes, the Gallup poll is new and shiny and fresh. And of course, if anyone wants to imagine that the people in Europe "love the EU , but hate the leadership", then that's entirely a matter for each of us.

Perhaps what's most interesting is the trend, as one poll in isolation doesnt' really tell us as much as the trend.

Sure I could repeat what I said about why I think the 14% figure gives a more balanced view of what the UK stands to lose overall. But if you disagree with that view, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Was that the point to which you refer, or was it something else?

What I was asking for was for you to give a source for the 14% figure. You seem unable to do so?

If you continue being unable to do so, I'll ask you to stop using it, on the basis that it is presumably made up. It's a little thing we have round these parts, where you don't get to keep using your preferred "facts" unless you can show them to be facts. Your misinterpretation of the Gallup poll does not give much cause for confidence in your reliability on the statistical front.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think there's a major problem with how the EU functions but I don't think it's all a bad idea.
It needs reform and more accountability to the citizens.

The biggest issue I see is the commission. Each commissioner should be elected rather than just appointed by member state governments.

The issues that I see are ones created by just constantly coming up with messy workarounds that avoid using anything that might be seen as 'federal' and instead sticking with this super national organisation that is kind of morphing out of an intergovernmental organisation.

It's either a federal system with accountability or it's an intergovernmental organisation. What it's trying to be at the moment is something between the two.

Couple that with lousy communications and a perception that it's quite aloof and add in the current economic crisis and you will see why the support rates are so poor.

I just think we need to be very careful that, like the Seanad, we don't just have a situation where a bunch of people decide well that didn't work let's just abolish it instead of reforming it.

That last just won't happen. I appreciate people will think I simply think it's unthinkable that it should, but I mean that there are too many issues that need to be handled at the European level for there not to be some kind of EU. Even the eurosceptics these days are nominally in favour of an EC, because that has worked well even by their lights, so if the EU in its current form were abolished it would simply be replaced with another version.

That's part of what makes the whole UK debate unintentionally entertaining, because the things the EU-exit side like to emphasis as being the problems with "the EU" are primarily three - niggling regulations, interference in social issues, and immigration as a drain on the UK economy.

Of those, the first is largely single market legislation (source of 'straight bananas' rules), the second is almost entirely the non-EU ECHR, and the last has been shown repeatedly to be of benefit to the UK economy as regards EU immigration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

It's also quite baffling that the same people who would rant and rave about the EU dictating to them also tend to blame the EU on non-EU immigration too which is entirely a matter for the UK Government as it's not part of any visa union.

The other thing I come across a lot in the UK though (having lived there) is that the EU is used as a scapegoat for a lot of badly or very harshly implemented regulation too. You find a lot of "Elf and Safety" and trading standards type laws in the UK can be implemented with an iron fist by various quangos who will often refer you to European Union requirements if you make any complaint or query about it.

It's a handy excuse for local bureaucracies sometimes when they're implementing some new policy that they don't really want to take responsibility for themselves.

You get a bit of that in the US too where they blame "Washington" for some daft regulation that is being implemented by some state-level board in the most annoying way possible.

In a lot of cases the issue actually turns out to be a locally generated one.

Boroso

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's also quite baffling that the same people who would rant and rave about the EU dictating to them also tend to blame the EU on non-EU immigration too which is entirely a matter for the UK Government as it's not part of any visa union.

The other thing I come across a lot in the UK though (having lived there) is that the EU is used as a scapegoat for a lot of badly or very harshly implemented regulation too. You find a lot of "Elf and Safety" and trading standards type laws in the UK can be implemented with an iron fist by various quangos who will often refer you to European Union requirements if you make any complaint or query about it.

It's a handy excuse for local bureaucracies sometimes.

And yet that doesn't explain why there is growing and substantial opposition to the EU across the other countries in the EU.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's also quite baffling that they tend to blame the EU on non-EU immigration too which is entirely a matter for the UK Government as it's not part of any visa union.

The one thing I come across a lot in the UK though (having lived there) is that the EU is used as a scapegoat for a lot of badly or very harshly implemented regulation too. You find a lot of "Elf and Safety" and trading standards type laws in the UK can be implemented with an iron fist by various quangos who will often refer you to European Union requirements if you make any complaint or query about it.

It's a handy excuse for local bureaucracies sometimes.

The UK has, I think, one of the most egregious records for 'gold-plating' EU legislation, or for interpreting it in a very rigid way.

There's rather a good report by the UK's Institute of Directors called "The Midas Touch", which finds that, contrary to government claims, UK governments regularly gold-plate EU law:

European legislation is frequently blamed for the adverse effects that it has on UK competitiveness and often rightly so. By way of example, as I write, a General Regulation on Data Protection continues to progress through the European institutions. If implemented this EU imposition could spell immeasurable damage to UK businesses.

Despite these very real concerns regarding legislation originating in the EU, far too many UK Governments have hidden their own regulatory zeal behind a ‘fig leaf’ of enforced European requirements.

Successive Governments have reached the conclusion that gold-plating of EU rules is not as bad as claimed by industry; and some administrations have even professed to having eradicated the practice altogether. However, this report’s comparison between EU Directives and their corresponding UK employment legislation shows that over-compliance is significant, common and in cases, still being added to.

http://www.iod.com/~/media/Documents/PDFs/Influencing/Regulation%20employment/2013/The_Midas_Touch

As you can see from the overall tone, it's rather hard to characterise the IoD as a bunch of simpering europhiles, although that won't necessarily prevent someone doing so, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

Boroso wrote: »

And yet that doesn't explain why there is growing and substantial opposition to the EU across the other countries in the EU.

Many of the same reasons apply elsewhere too.

The biggest reason for growing annoyance at the moment is the economic situation which is being blamed on the EU by a lot of commentators.

The EU didn't really handle it as well as it should and the Euro integration project certainly created a few bubbles of its own and accelerated some of the problems. However, the main problem was lack of banking regulation both within and outside the EU.

Banks got rather crazy with new ways of raising money on the markets and the whole thing was running way ahead of regulation.

I think to be perfectly honest the Greeks in particular are being quite unfair in their criticism of the EU and Germany who have bailed them out over and over. If they want to point a finger at anyone, it's their own corrupt and incompetent governments that they elected over the last 30+ years.

Nobody forced Greece to borrow billions and billions that they couldn't pay back and when they couldn't pay, they were propped up substantially.

If they'd wanted to leave the EU or the Eurozone nobody was really going to stop them. In fact, many people would have been delighted I suspect.

You can see how the Germans are getting annoyed because they're seeing lots of their money going to Greece to pay off debts and the Greeks are going around burning German flags and accusing them of being a big bunch of Nazis. From a German perspective, they see themselves as showing huge solidarity towards Greece and getting slapped in the face for it.

I think in Ireland we are a hell of a lot more realistic about what actually happened. The blame's firmly and squarely on the administration at the time the lack of regulation and the speculators and bankers.

I just think in typical European fashion, we've a financial crisis and everyone's blaming all the wrong things. Europeans have a along history of being whipped into hysterical reactions to situations like this and causing wars over them. I would be very concerned with the rise of extreme right wing politics in several countries that is coming about due to this crisis.

It wasn't caused by the EU, it wasn't caused by immigration - it was caused by lack of regulation and crazy financial speculation gone mad in quite a few countries.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

And yet that doesn't explain why there is growing and substantial opposition to the EU across the other countries in the EU.

The existence of a crisis invariably produces opposition to the establishment. As I already pointed out, the growth in opposition to the EU (more dislike or distrust, really) over the crisis period has been matched or exceeded by growth in dislike or distrust of national governments and parliaments over the same period.

I know you'd like the rise to be meaningful, and based on principled opposition to the idea of the EU, but it almost certainly isn't, and the apparent strength of the anti-EU cause in Europe is likely to fade away as the crisis recedes.

This is your moment - use it wisely!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

SpaceTime wrote: »

Many of the same reasons apply elsewhere too.

The biggest reason for growing annoyance at the moment is the economic situation which is being blamed on the EU by a lot of commentators.

The EU didn't really handle it as well as it should and the Euro integration project certainly created a few bubbles of its own and accelerated some of the problems. However, the main problem was lack of banking regulation both within and outside the EU.

Banks got rather crazy with new ways of raising money on the markets and the whole thing was running way ahead of regulation.

I think to be perfectly honest the Greeks in particular are being quite unfair in their criticism of the EU and Germany who have bailed them out over and over. If they want to point a finger at anyone, it's their own corrupt and incompetent governments that they elected over the last 30+ years.

Nobody forced Greece to borrow billions and billions that they couldn't pay back and when they couldn't pay, they were propped up substantially.

If they'd wanted to leave the EU or the Eurozone nobody was really going to stop them.

I think in Ireland we are a hell of a lot more realistic about what actually happened. The blame's firmly and squarely on the administration at the time the lack of regulation and the speculators and bankers.

It's not just about Greece or any individual country. We can see from the Euro Barometer polls or the Gallup poll above that it's large proportions of the populations in almost every country, and a majority in many counties who are increasingly dissatisfied with the EU.

I have no idea if the Greeks are being unfair, or not. And even if they are being unfair, they are allowed to be unfair in a democracy. We all have to make up our own minds on whatever criteria we wish to use to make up our own minds, and even if someone uses criteria we think is "unfair" their vote has rthe same value as someone who we think makes up their mind on "fair" criteria.

SpaceTime

I would actually also add with regard to the UK. It had possibly the biggest incident of social unrest in modern history - the London Riots and from what I've seen there is absolutely no analysis of why that happened going on.
It's just being put down to 'oh a bunch of roughians of some sort'.

There's something very, very disconnected about an aspect of British society at the moment and it's down to lack of economic opportunity and social exclusion largely. If you're somewhere like London you're also finding that accommodation is becoming totally inaccessible to most people on normal incomes.

All that stuff is causing huge strife in British society and it's not being addressed in a reasonable way and instead outrage is being focused on immigration, the EU and general xenophobia from what I can see.

SpaceTime

Boroso wrote: »

It's not just about Greece or any individual country. We can see from the Euro Barometer polls or the Gallup poll above that it's large proportions of the populations in almost every country, and a majority in many counties who are increasingly dissatisfied with the EU.

Yeah, but a large amount of that is being driven by a perception that the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese etc situations are being directly caused by the EU or the Euro.

In the countries with economic crisis situations, the EU's being seen as some kind of malevolent power that's causing the problem because certain countries aren't willing to admit that they drove their economies off a cliff through excessive borrowing (either through property - Ireland, Spain etc or state : Greece and Italy)

While in the countries with well-run economies, you're seeing a very strong degree of "why are we paying for this??" and an increasing lack of solidarity towards those countries, particularly Greece due to the reaction that has been seen on the streets e.g. burning flags, effigies of Merkel etc.

Boroso

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yeah, but a large amount of that is being driven by a perception that the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese etc situations are being directly caused by the EU or the Euro.

I think its very brave to claim you know why motivates millions of others in many countries. For me I am less interested in guessing what might drive others perceptions, and more interested in the trends and what they tell us.

SpaceTime

Boroso wrote: »

I think its very brave to claim you know why motivates millions of others in many countries. For me I am less interested in guessing what might drive others perceptions, and more interested in the trends and what they tell us.

Well, the only things that have changed in the past few years are regarding the economic crash and public opinion shifted rapidly after that.

So, I think it's not really 'brave' to make a conclusion that the two are quite likely strongly connected.

If you read any public opinion polling from the 'wealthier' countries (non crisis hit ones) you'll find it's mostly upset about having to foot a bill.

If you read any similar polls from Spain, Greece, Ireland etc.. it's all about external interference.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, the only things that have changed in the past few years are regarding the economic crash and public opinion shifted rapidly after that.

So, I think it's not really 'brave' to make a conclusion that the two are quite likely strongly connected.

If you read any public opinion polling from the 'wealthier' countries (non crisis hit ones) you'll find it's mostly upset about having to foot a bill.

If you read any similar polls from Spain, Greece, Ireland etc.. it's all about external interference.

Also the effect of recessions on trust in the political establishment is really rather well known.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

sin_city wrote: »

They have good reason to be anti EU.

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

It was great for Ireland. We got so much free money.

Only problem for us was when the EU didnt respect our right to vote no in treaties and made us return with the correct vote

If Norway didn't have North Sea oil, they'd very likely be in the EU.

Switzerland is a different matter. It has ploughed a particular furrow throughout its existence, but one not many others would be able to do without ultimately beggaring each other and their neighbours. Indeed, Switzerland's special status may be coming to an end.

As for Nice 2 and Lisbon 2, those were initiatives taken by Irish governments after appallingly complacent initial campaigns. The electorates endorsed both referenda both times, and resoundingly so in Lisbon 2. No Sir, the EU didn't made us done it!

SpaceTime

Iceland's the only really odd one in that regard. Although they're so small, it's hard to compare to anything else really.
Co. Cork's got a bigger population and economy

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

Iceland's the only really odd one in that regard. Although they're so small, it's hard to compare to anything else really.
Co. Cork's got a bigger population and economy

They have a very large and fertile sea area in comparison to population. Mind you, Greenland also opted out of the EU, so perhaps there's something else at work there too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Scofflaw, I notice posts like this full of wild statistics seem to pass without scrutiny, is it just a case of people arguing from a non pro EU perspective that need citation?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let's get a little bit realistic. Nobody is suggesting that, if the UK leaves the EU, the EU will attempt to ban EU-produced goods from being sold to Britain. The issue is UK-produced good and services; they will no longer have free access, as a matter of right, to EU markets, as they currently do.

Yes, WTO rules will still apply, but currently UK producers enjoy access to other EU countries on considerably more advantageous terms than the WTO requires. Should Britain choose to rely simply on its WTO rights, it will enjoy the same right of access to EU markets as, say, the US or India. That is significantly less advantageous than the current terns.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

There's no doubt that (a) the EU will want more favourable access than the WTO would entitle them to, and (b) that they can get it. But there is equally no doubt that they won't get it on the terms they now have it as EU members. Most likely the best deal they can get will be as EEA members.

The thing is, is this what the UK (or the proponents of UK withdrawal) want? In particular, if you're of the Daily Mail school of euroscepticism, EEA membership is a really bad deal - fully subject to, and bound by, all the "straight banana" EU regulations that the Daily Mail imagines to abound, but practically no right to influence the making or content of those regulations. Plus, still subject to an obligtation to make financial contributions to the Eu budget. If your object in withdrawing from the EU is avoid all that, then you don't want EEA membership either. That leaves you relying on your WTO rights, plus whatever extra you can negotiate with the EU, in a situation where the EU has a much stronger bargaining position than the UK does.

I'm not saying that this could never be in the interests of the UK. I'm saying that there are real risks for, and costs to, the UK in withdrawing from the EU, and pointing that out is not a "threat".

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Scofflaw, I notice posts like this full of wild statistics seem to pass without scrutiny, is it just a case of people arguing from a non pro EU perspective that need citation?

No, the rule applies to any claim of fact which is challenged - you have to be able to back it up or drop it.

The poster was challenged on the single statistical claim in the post you quote - that trade with the EU was more than half of the UK's external trade - and withdrew the claim when it was pointed out that it was 48%, which is not more than half. Boroso, on the other hand, will neither defend/source his 14% claims, nor admit an inability to do, nor drop them.

Obviously as a poster I'm more likely to be challenging the claims of those I disagree with, but as a mod I'm happy to back facts either way. You do need to actually report a situation where it becomes an issue - and there it may be worth you noting that the post you cite as "full of wild statistics" contains only one statistic, which is off by a couple of percent - because I don't otherwise intervene, since the number of made-up statistics is potentially infinite, and if nobody on either side of the discussion cares, then I'm not going to try to force them to.

In this case, your 'side' is benefiting from extra leniency because I'm doing the challenging, which obviously makes my modly intervention less acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

SpaceTime wrote: »

The biggest issue I see is the commission. Each commissioner should be elected rather than just appointed by member state governments.

But the whole point of the commission is that it be independent of national interests?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think in Ireland we are a hell of a lot more realistic about what actually happened. The blame's firmly and squarely on the administration at the time the lack of regulation and the speculators and bankers.

I can’t help but notice the electorate are absent from that list?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I would actually also add with regard to the UK. It had possibly the biggest incident of social unrest in modern history - the London Riots and from what I've seen there is absolutely no analysis of why that happened going on.
It's just being put down to 'oh a bunch of roughians of some sort'.

I might have more sympathy for an alternative explanation if looters were grabbing bread and milk from Sainsbury’s rather than trainers from JD Sports, but that's a discussion for another thread.

SpaceTime

djpbarry wrote: »

But the whole point of the commission is that it be independent of national interests?
I can’t help but notice the electorate are absent from that list?
I might have more sympathy for an alternative explanation if looters were grabbing bread and milk from Sainsbury’s rather than trainers from JD Sports, but that's a discussion for another thread.

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Perhaps have mixed member voting where you vote for some candidates on a pan-EU level and others on a national level. There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

As it stands because they're government appointees, they've even greater split loyalties.

...

On your second point. The electorate made an analysis of the situation and basically fired FF.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting they should do? FF delivered popular policies that were successful looking to most people at the time. When we figured it was a house of cards, they got deservedly punished by the electorate.

...
On your third point, I'm just pointing out that there are some rather serious simmering problems in the UK. A lot of it is about perceptions of fairness and lack of opportunity. The Tories have a history of focusing on everything except those kinds of problems.

oscarBravo

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

There could, but is that inherently and indisputably a good idea?

There seems to be a widespread belief that "more democratic" and "better" are synonymous, but I've yet to see a convincing argument that that's the case. In fact, it's easy to see that it's absolutely not the case: a completely democratic society would require that no government ever made any decisions without the express consent of the people. That's obviously not workable, which means that we accept the need to balance democracy with other considerations.

The EU achieves this balance by having one of its institutions consist of democratically elected MEPs who represent the interests of their electorates; another consists of democratically elected ministers who represent the interests of the member states; and then you have the appointed commissioners, who represent the interests of the union as a whole, who have to be approved by the elected parliament, and who operate on instruction from the council.

I keep hearing that this balance is all wrong, and that it's important that the commission be elected by the people because something something democracy, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing to put the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner in a position where he has to consider the wishes of the Finnish electorate ahead of the best interests of the Union as a whole.

djpbarry

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Well, the commission does have to be approved by the parliament?

SpaceTime wrote: »

There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

I’m not convinced that the commission should be more accountable to voters. Commissioners are already appointed by the elected representatives of each member state and, as mentioned above, the commission must be approved by the parliament. That already allows for significant influence of national interest over union interest.

SpaceTime wrote: »

On your second point. The electorate made an analysis of the situation and basically fired FF.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting they should do? FF delivered popular policies that were successful looking to most people at the time. When we figured it was a house of cards, they got deservedly punished by the electorate.

The house of cards should have been clearly visible to anyone who was prepared to look long before 2011. Hence Bertie’s notorious comment just after the 2007 general election, in which he suggested those questioning the fundamentals of Ireland’s economy should commit suicide. The warning signs were there, but nobody wanted to know, so long as the price of their house kept going up, taxes remained low and welfare remained high.

SpaceTime wrote: »

On your third point, I'm just pointing out that there are some rather serious simmering problems in the UK.

Not disputing that at all, but probably OT for this thread.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Perhaps have mixed member voting where you vote for some candidates on a pan-EU level and others on a national level. There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

As it stands because they're government appointees, they've even greater split loyalties.

They're required not to take any instructions from national governments, and to act in the best interests of Europe. Originally, everyone was pretty sure they couldn't really do that, so the Member States hung onto the 'national' commissioners (or two, in the case of the larger states). In fact, they have proven to be impartial (although not necessarily unideological), which is why the national governments were willing to ditch the idea of a Commissioner each at Lisbon. The Irish electorate, on the other hand, wasn't convinced.

As to electing them - I would oppose that, because I think it really would be impossible for an elected Commissioner to act in the European interest. My reasoning goes like this:

1. elections are competitive - otherwise they're not elections

2. candidates campaign on the basis of what they'll do in office

3. in general, candidates appeal to a particular section or sections of the electorate

It seems to me that that would necessarily give us Commissioners who had put together programmes that favoured particular sectoral or national interests within Europe, rather than considering Europe overall, and who were committed in office to implementing those programmes. I can't see how that's a good thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

McDave wrote: »

If Norway didn't have North Sea oil, they'd very likely be in the EU.

Switzerland is a different matter. It has ploughed a particular furrow throughout its existence, but one not many others would be able to do without ultimately beggaring each other and their neighbours. Indeed, Switzerland's special status may be coming to an end.

As for Nice 2 and Lisbon 2, those were initiatives taken by Irish governments after appallingly complacent initial campaigns. The electorates endorsed both referenda both times, and resoundingly so in Lisbon 2. No Sir, the EU didn't made us done it!

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no. We did this too but we were pressurized into voting again. You can say what you like, if our vote was respected it would not have been necessary to have double referendum votes.

You have given no basis for the rubbish argument of "a different matter" in the case of Switzerland coming to an end.

And Iceland? Oh yeah...if they didn't have the balls to stand up to the bankers...they'd be in the EU too.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no. We did this too but we were pressurized into voting again. You can say what you like, if our vote was respected it would not have been necessary to have double referendum votes.

The reverse, actually. If our vote wasn't respected there'd be no need to hold a second referendum, they'd just go ahead anyway.

What you mean is that you'd like the first result set in stone because that was the result you liked.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

sin_city wrote: »

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no.

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?