Europe...should we join?
Discussion
The United Kingdom, along with the Irish Republic, became members of the (then) EEC on 1 January 1973. In Ireland, a referendum was held in 1972 to give the population the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to join or not. This was compulsory under the terms of the Irish Constitution.
In the UK, no such referendum was required (there is no legal requirement in the UK for referenda as the UK does not have a written constitution). The decision to join was purely a parliamentary one. Ironically, at that time, the Conservatives (under Ted Heath) were very pro-Europe and Labour (under Harold Wilson) were anti. As the Conservatives were in power in 1972/73, the parliamentary vote went in favour of joining. In 1974, Labour won the General Election and promised to hold a "retrospective" referndum on Britain's membership of the EEC. This was duly held in 1975 with the majority of Britains voting for the UK to remain as part of the EEC.
In 1979 the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was set up to "link" the various EEC currencies. Britain opted to stay outside the ERM at that time. However, in 1991, Britain, under John Major, decided they would join just in time for the whole ERM system to collapse. I think this is the single main reason why there is huge reluctance amongst Britains to join the current "Euro" system - which, on the whole, appears to be working reasonably well.
In the UK, no such referendum was required (there is no legal requirement in the UK for referenda as the UK does not have a written constitution). The decision to join was purely a parliamentary one. Ironically, at that time, the Conservatives (under Ted Heath) were very pro-Europe and Labour (under Harold Wilson) were anti. As the Conservatives were in power in 1972/73, the parliamentary vote went in favour of joining. In 1974, Labour won the General Election and promised to hold a "retrospective" referndum on Britain's membership of the EEC. This was duly held in 1975 with the majority of Britains voting for the UK to remain as part of the EEC.
In 1979 the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was set up to "link" the various EEC currencies. Britain opted to stay outside the ERM at that time. However, in 1991, Britain, under John Major, decided they would join just in time for the whole ERM system to collapse. I think this is the single main reason why there is huge reluctance amongst Britains to join the current "Euro" system - which, on the whole, appears to be working reasonably well.
In its current guise, I would stay out of a single currency arrangement, as Europe is currently a Franco-German playing field, totally corrupt, inefficient and strangled by bureaucrats, red tape and political correctness.
I wonder why people assume the UK has to make a decision whether or not we should join.
Who is to say this incarnation of the EU is going to be the final one.
We have seen in recent months the blatant disregard the french have for the spirit of the EU, and the main supporters of the currency ie Germany and France are both trying to waiver the economic rules which govern the limits on inflation due to their economies beginning to fall off the rails.
This fundamentally undermines the concept of the single currency.
In contrast the UK is relativly healthy compared to the world at large and the EU in particular.
Our economy has bobbed along, and generally weathered the storm that hit America without touching on recession.
If we had been in the single currency at the same time as the French/Germans we would be up shit creek right now.
I wonder why people assume the UK has to make a decision whether or not we should join.
Who is to say this incarnation of the EU is going to be the final one.
We have seen in recent months the blatant disregard the french have for the spirit of the EU, and the main supporters of the currency ie Germany and France are both trying to waiver the economic rules which govern the limits on inflation due to their economies beginning to fall off the rails.
This fundamentally undermines the concept of the single currency.
In contrast the UK is relativly healthy compared to the world at large and the EU in particular.
Our economy has bobbed along, and generally weathered the storm that hit America without touching on recession.
If we had been in the single currency at the same time as the French/Germans we would be up shit creek right now.
The flexibility that is being sought is not to do with inflation but with short-term budget deficits. The deficit rules are far too restrictive, but were put in place in a (desperate) attempt to try to force the EU (mainly Germany) to sort out the inflexibilities in its economy (primarily the labour market).
I quite agree that Frrance viz the Franco-German bilateral chats thinks it is in charge. After expansion to 25 members has taken place the will be disabused of this illusion rather dramatically. If they don't chip in with everyone else there will be complete gridlock. At that stage, they will be forced to reevaluate what the EU is about. Given that they will not cede any powers that they current hold odmestically to a body that they can not control, you will begin to see the death of EU federalism, or more likely, a push towards closer integration between a smaller core group of countries, i.e. an official 2-speed EU. That is where the real bun-fight will kick off.
I quite agree that Frrance viz the Franco-German bilateral chats thinks it is in charge. After expansion to 25 members has taken place the will be disabused of this illusion rather dramatically. If they don't chip in with everyone else there will be complete gridlock. At that stage, they will be forced to reevaluate what the EU is about. Given that they will not cede any powers that they current hold odmestically to a body that they can not control, you will begin to see the death of EU federalism, or more likely, a push towards closer integration between a smaller core group of countries, i.e. an official 2-speed EU. That is where the real bun-fight will kick off.
As someone who has been living on the EUmainland now for almost 30 years, I can only say be VERY CAREFUL!!! All EU countries (except us dafties that is) refuse to apply EU law unless it's to their advantage...
e.g.
1) France refused to let GB meat in for 5 years (only one of 142 cases in the EU courts against F for noncompliance, and they'll only get a smack on the wrist)
2) Germany refusing totally to let EU citizens vote (against the basic rights charter, and because there are so many EU citizens in Germany the Germans would hardly have a say with their eagerness NOT to vote!)
3) EU law states that the GB electrical system (square pin plugs et al) was to be applied in all EU countries wef 1.1.1980. Well we're 2003 now and NO ONE is even thinking of applying it.
4) deregulation of state owned companies/utilities does NOT happen. The state whether german county or major player, just fronts up another company (which they own 100%) and let them run it, that's what they call de-regulation.
5) countries owning large companies is illegal! VW belongs to 55% to Nordrhine-Westfalen. Lufthansa is 75% government owned (through a front company)
Ask any of them to comply and one then meets the obfuscation of national then EU then back to national buerocracy at its pinnacle.
A load of overpaid useless buerocrats (sp?) who could all be eliminated without anyone knowing they're missing...........
A few minor advantages are there (in GB being witheld illegally by Cuntstoms and Excuses), beer cheaper, wine reasonable, cross the broder without any buropratts checking, EU-wide car insurance so we don't have to check it everytime we drive 5 miles, same currency which saves rip-off bank charges, but they are NOT necessarily good for GB!
The Franco-German AXIS stil wants to get back at GB for Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Somme, Berlin, Dresden and all the other Fcuk-ups they brought on themselves.
AND they want us to kowtow to socialism as they've a large majority. All to become PC bland grey coloured nobodies who can just pay for the useless burocrats and their high-life hijinks in Brussels and other places.
Cynical Me? NO realistic!!!!!!!!
e.g.
1) France refused to let GB meat in for 5 years (only one of 142 cases in the EU courts against F for noncompliance, and they'll only get a smack on the wrist)
2) Germany refusing totally to let EU citizens vote (against the basic rights charter, and because there are so many EU citizens in Germany the Germans would hardly have a say with their eagerness NOT to vote!)
3) EU law states that the GB electrical system (square pin plugs et al) was to be applied in all EU countries wef 1.1.1980. Well we're 2003 now and NO ONE is even thinking of applying it.
4) deregulation of state owned companies/utilities does NOT happen. The state whether german county or major player, just fronts up another company (which they own 100%) and let them run it, that's what they call de-regulation.
5) countries owning large companies is illegal! VW belongs to 55% to Nordrhine-Westfalen. Lufthansa is 75% government owned (through a front company)
Ask any of them to comply and one then meets the obfuscation of national then EU then back to national buerocracy at its pinnacle.
A load of overpaid useless buerocrats (sp?) who could all be eliminated without anyone knowing they're missing...........
A few minor advantages are there (in GB being witheld illegally by Cuntstoms and Excuses), beer cheaper, wine reasonable, cross the broder without any buropratts checking, EU-wide car insurance so we don't have to check it everytime we drive 5 miles, same currency which saves rip-off bank charges, but they are NOT necessarily good for GB!
The Franco-German AXIS stil wants to get back at GB for Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Somme, Berlin, Dresden and all the other Fcuk-ups they brought on themselves.
AND they want us to kowtow to socialism as they've a large majority. All to become PC bland grey coloured nobodies who can just pay for the useless burocrats and their high-life hijinks in Brussels and other places.
Cynical Me? NO realistic!!!!!!!!
Got to agree about other european countries not complying. There seems to be two schools of thought within the EU countries about what to do about European legislation you don't like:
UK: Argue, debate, discuss, protest but once a law gets passed, implement it.
Everyone else: Accept and agree that the law shoudl be passed without objection. Then ignore it completely.
The UK has a reputation in Europe for being very unco-operative with the other member countries. Yet we have the highest percentage of EU legislation actually complied with.
Whether or not this is a good thing is open to debate
PS Backside covering caveat: some of this info will be a few years out of date but I doubt much has changed.
UK: Argue, debate, discuss, protest but once a law gets passed, implement it.
Everyone else: Accept and agree that the law shoudl be passed without objection. Then ignore it completely.
The UK has a reputation in Europe for being very unco-operative with the other member countries. Yet we have the highest percentage of EU legislation actually complied with.
Whether or not this is a good thing is open to debate
PS Backside covering caveat: some of this info will be a few years out of date but I doubt much has changed.
Hi all,
Here in the states, the EU is viewed as Europe's attempt to band together to represent a consortium equivalent to the US in terms of political and economic influence, in short, a United Europe.
There are fundamental flaws in this Union which are not likely to be solved, at least in the near term. The most basic of these flaws is that the EU does not represent a European Government, rather, it is a system in which nation-states wield authority in cooperation with one another. It is a coalition of the willing, nothing more.
Unlike the United States, a collection of 50 states which are legally bound to a Federal Government with one flag and national identity. A government which can, and has, exerted force upon it's member states to comply with the Federal law. This ocurred in our Civil War in the mid-1800's and as late as the 1950's when Federal troops were sent into the southern states to enforce Federal Civil Rights laws. A state cannot secede from the nation without an affirmative majority vote by all the states. The citizens as a whole hold very little allegiance to the particular state in which they live, but rather hold great allegiance and identity to the Federal Government.
In the EU, on the other hand, nation-states are still driven primarily by national interest. Economic and Commerce laws designed by the EU to benefit each member state equally are seen by many individual states to be impediments to their own international commerce. Should this national interest conflict with the interests of the EU as a whole, the nation state can either ignore the requirements of the EU or secede altogether. There is no recognized, inviolate, overiding authority.
In reality, individual nation-states will still compete with/against one another to gain an advantage, politically or economically, over fellow member states. This already occurs with great frequency both within and outside the EU itself. When the EU attempts to enforce it's rule upon it's members, if the interest of the non-complying member state is the higher of the two priorities, they simply ignore the authority of the EU.
The only way that this can work is for the peoples of Europe to give up their national identities and agree to be bound, as equals, under a single government. Something we're not likely to see in our lifetimes. The EU may be a first step toward this, but, it's likely that it will fail as individual national identity is still such a strongly held view by it's members...Jim '85TE
Here in the states, the EU is viewed as Europe's attempt to band together to represent a consortium equivalent to the US in terms of political and economic influence, in short, a United Europe.
There are fundamental flaws in this Union which are not likely to be solved, at least in the near term. The most basic of these flaws is that the EU does not represent a European Government, rather, it is a system in which nation-states wield authority in cooperation with one another. It is a coalition of the willing, nothing more.
Unlike the United States, a collection of 50 states which are legally bound to a Federal Government with one flag and national identity. A government which can, and has, exerted force upon it's member states to comply with the Federal law. This ocurred in our Civil War in the mid-1800's and as late as the 1950's when Federal troops were sent into the southern states to enforce Federal Civil Rights laws. A state cannot secede from the nation without an affirmative majority vote by all the states. The citizens as a whole hold very little allegiance to the particular state in which they live, but rather hold great allegiance and identity to the Federal Government.
In the EU, on the other hand, nation-states are still driven primarily by national interest. Economic and Commerce laws designed by the EU to benefit each member state equally are seen by many individual states to be impediments to their own international commerce. Should this national interest conflict with the interests of the EU as a whole, the nation state can either ignore the requirements of the EU or secede altogether. There is no recognized, inviolate, overiding authority.
In reality, individual nation-states will still compete with/against one another to gain an advantage, politically or economically, over fellow member states. This already occurs with great frequency both within and outside the EU itself. When the EU attempts to enforce it's rule upon it's members, if the interest of the non-complying member state is the higher of the two priorities, they simply ignore the authority of the EU.
The only way that this can work is for the peoples of Europe to give up their national identities and agree to be bound, as equals, under a single government. Something we're not likely to see in our lifetimes. The EU may be a first step toward this, but, it's likely that it will fail as individual national identity is still such a strongly held view by it's members...Jim '85TE
cnh1990 said: ...it is unfortunate that there is such a large distance between our countries that makes trade and commerece difficult.
Calvin
Not really; it's less of a problem logistically, than trading with the Far East and we seem to do ok in that respect.
Europe is there to be traded with and holidayed in but that's all.
All the time, Chirac pontificates and rails against the USA's 'imperialism' whilst simultaneously sneering and generally retracting the hand of 'Euro friendship' to the new, hopeful, former Eastern Bloc states...
He is simply a jealous politico, a master of the Brugge shuffle, smarting on the international stage from the obvious disdain held in certain quarters to his ludicrous self-preening.
That he personifies much of that very breed of uber corrupt freeloader that so many in Britain fortunately seem to loath, should tell us all we need to know about closer socio-economic and the inevaitable political ties with such a shower.
If you think our lot are bad, you really ain't seen nothin' yet!
Scream NO! At every conceivable opportunity.
>> Edited by derestrictor on Thursday 27th February 16:48
It amuses me to think that the EU is really a fictional entity dreamed up by a couple of enterprising French blokes with an investment in printing and conference facilities.
JMGS4 said:A load of overpaid useless buerocrats (sp?) who could all be eliminated without anyone knowing they're missing...........
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 27th February 16:52
Sorry to dredge this up from page 7 but...
How can we be this EU super-state when we are unable to even agree on a common international policy with regards to Iraq. Just because of geography why should umpteen socially, economically and culturally different countries suddenly be able to agree on anything let alone operate on the same policies?
The EU will be a monetary blackhole beset by beaurocratic paralysis. Still, gives ponces like Neil Kinnock and his chums somewhere to ply their trade...
How can we be this EU super-state when we are unable to even agree on a common international policy with regards to Iraq. Just because of geography why should umpteen socially, economically and culturally different countries suddenly be able to agree on anything let alone operate on the same policies?
The EU will be a monetary blackhole beset by beaurocratic paralysis. Still, gives ponces like Neil Kinnock and his chums somewhere to ply their trade...
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff