[Merged] The Europe Thread

Originally Posted by towny

Not voting is as much a democratic act as voting for the party of your choice. By not voting, people exercise their right not to influence the political process, and/or to leave the choosing of their political representatives to someone else.

Or, IMO, rather that they consider they're all as bad as each other, so it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

if you are implying that the results are, as a consequence of this, meaningless (as less than 50% of electors voted), then I think you are wrong. Those who were entitled to vote but did not, left the choice to those that did. Therefore the result, regardless of turnout, is legitimised by the choice of the entire electorate.

More to the point, had the UK European Election results mirrored the UK Local Election results, I think it would have been meaningless because people would have just been blindly voting for a party.

However the fact that there were *substantial* differences suggests that many of those who voted were actually doing so on the basis of issues and principles, rather than simple "party alliegence".

Originally Posted by BBKing

I presume then that the reintroduction of capital punishment is next? I'm pretty sure that a majority of people in the UK would support it, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Whilst there is still a bare majority for the death penalty in the UK (55% according to a Gallup Poll for the Guardian after the Sarah Payne, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman murders) it was found that most of those in favour are in the higher age brackets (50-60+) whereas those under 40 were mostly against it. This reflects strongly against 76% being in favour only a decade before.

However this is IMO, frankly, a red herring and off topic for a discussion about Europe, so I'll not address it further here.

if it is explained what the UK will lose by being outside the EU, fewer people would support the UKIP, which has been extremely successful in getting its message across, because it has, er, one message.

But the difference between the votes in the Local and European Elections suggest that people do *not* believe that the UK will "lose" by being outside the EU (but still *within* some form of Free Trade area which is what UKIP is talking about).

Given that the UKIP has today said that they feel no need to work with the European Parliament and in fact want to wreck it, I suggest that anyone who voted for them has voted not to be represented in a democratic institution, and I can't recall anywhere else that has ever happened.

I think these people have voted, rather, not to be *part* of that institution and not subject to its rulings and decisions. That is somewhat different from what you suggest.

I also think Kilroy's comment about "wrecking" the European Parliament was an ill-adviced off the cuff joke rather than a serious suggestion.

I think we need large scale co-operation between nations to provide a balance. In this case, Europe-wide media ownership laws to ensure diversity of media.

I think this is something that can quite easily be handled by national governments, rather that needing some pan-european body to "control" Murdoch's empire.

Incidentally, I recommend everyone read the UKIP website - the number of times they mention 'co-operation with the United States' on the defence section of their website rather precludes anyone opposing the Iraq war from supporting them.

Why? For instance they say "A self-governing Britain will work constructively with allies in North America, Europe and elsewhere, to the extent that this is in British interests. We are not isolationists, but nor do we envisage ourselves as 'world policemen'. British forces have a valuable peacekeeping role, but only in areas of strategic concern or historical ties to Britain."

Now that's somewhat different from the spin you seem to want to put on it which appears to suggest that UKIP would have blithely gone along with the US invasion as Blair did.

They also consider rail privatisation as the consequence of EU membership - a fallacy, rail privatisation was a Tory policy to get the railways off the Government's books.

Actually what they say is...

"Some of the most controversial aspects of rail privatisation, such as the creation of Railtrack as a private monopoly, were introduced to comply with EU rules"

... which, whether it is true or not (I can't prove or deny this at the moment from the searches I've done) is, again, different from what you claim.

They stop short of blaming the EU for France beating England last night, but it's surely only a matter of time.

Resorting to ridiculous statements like this does not help the credibility of your arguments, nor does, seemingly, hoping that nobody will actually rise to your challenge of checking the UKIP site to verify your statements.

Practically every policy they have depends on spending a vapourous 'Independence Dividend' that would come from EU withdrawal. Hmm...

Sorry, how much do we pay nett into the EU each year?

Practically every failure, real or imaginary is the fault of the EU, even when it isn't.

Or, at least, it seems that's what you want people to think.

GM food is an EU policy? Monsanto is a US corporation, last time I looked.

Which has precisely *what* to do with the price of fish?

"Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna today hit out at retiring Irish EU Commissioner David Byrne for being more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational companies than the interests of consumers. Referring to today's decision by the European Commission to lift the ban on selling genetically modified sweetcorn in Europe, she said Mr Byrne has been central to development of the EU's policy on GMOs."

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?n...ticle&sid=5130

Now if that's not a result of EU policy, what *IS* it the result of??

So you can see, plenty to aim at. Why on earth neither Labour or the Tories picked them apart I don't know. Still, their loss.

Probably because if they aimed at the targets you've just pointed out, they'd end up very wide of the mark and looking foolish?

[punky]

The euro-lovers are slating UKIP for being a one issue party, but it isn't just one issue. It is one extremely important issue. Most other things pale into insignificance to the Euro issue.

Votes for UKIP were mostly a protest vote though. I know plenty of people who voted for UKIP, and none like Kilroy-Silk, or anyone else in the party, but they just wanted to pull out of the EU consitition.

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>More to the point, had the UK European Election results mirrored the UK Local Election results, I think it would have been meaningless because people would have just been blindly voting for a party.

However the fact that there were *substantial* differences suggests that many of those who voted were actually doing so on the basis of issues and principles, rather than simple "party alliegence".

Agreed - and for me, this is one of the most heartening things about last week's election results. The clear difference between the local elections, the Euro-election and, in London, the mayoral/assembly election demonstrates that we have become a mature, intelligent democracy that is (generally) capable of voting based on relevant issues and not blind loyalty.

I saw the first signs of this a few years back when, despite Labour's renaissance at Westminster, Liverpool's voters ditched Labour and gave the city council to the Lib Dems. Prior to that, even the blue half of the city would have voted for a monkey providing it was wearing a red rosette. </obscure footballing metaphor>

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Graham

Which has precisely *what* to do with the price of fish?

"Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna today hit out at retiring Irish EU Commissioner David Byrne for being more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational companies than the interests of consumers. Referring to today's decision by the European Commission to lift the ban on selling genetically modified sweetcorn in Europe, she said Mr Byrne has been central to development of the EU's policy on GMOs."

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?n...ticle&sid=5130

That story only gave the Green MEP's side of the story.

I think the EU has actually done (or was doing) quite a good job of "protecting" us from GMOs - against stiff opposition from the US, & some EU member states (such as the UK).

It is because of the EU that there was an (almost) 6 year long moratorium on the approval of any new GM food, which acted as a de facto ban.

It is because of the EU that when GMOs actually are approved, they have to be properly labelled as such, to ensure consumers can make informed choices on purchasing them. (much to the chagrin of the US government - & others - & the biotech companies, as they do not want us to have that choice, as they know many people would be unwilling to buy any GM food or anything containing GM ingredients)

The Commission voted in favour of approving this particular GM sweetcorn after the governments of EU member states had failed to reach an agreement on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html & http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...217227,00.html


Oh, & apparently the UK strongly wanted to give the go ahead, despite opposition from other EU members:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/env...p?story=461997

UK to fight European embargo on GM corn
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
09 November 2003

Britain will try to break a five-year Europe-wide moratorium on new GM foods tomorrow by attempting to give the go-ahead for a modified sweetcorn to be put on sale to shoppers. But The Independent on Sunday can reveal that an official report shows the corn has not been properly tested for safety.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=475142

Europe split over safety of GM corn
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
21 December 2003

Britain is pressing for a genetically modified sweetcorn to be allowed into shops despite an official French report warning that people eating it could suffer "unforeseen effects", The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The report discloses that crucial safety tests, claiming to show the sweetcorn is safe, were in fact carried out on a different type of maize, grown to be fed to animals.

Originally Posted by Graham

Now if that's not a result of EU policy, what *IS* it the result of??

Some people think it may have been due to bullying of the EU by the US & other countries.

The US, Canadian, & Argentinian governments complained to the WTO about the EU's GM moratorium, as they believed it was an unscientific ban, & went against free trade & WTO rules etc.

IIRC, the US also threatened the EU with various things in retaliation, which could have sparked a trade war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html

The timing of the announcement [approval of Bt-11 GM sweetcorn] was greeted with suspicion by anti-GM groups; they said the commission was ignoring public opinion and buckling to outside pressures. The deadline set by the World Trade Organisation for the EU to respond to complaints about the moratorium from the US, Canada and Argentina passed earlier this week.

"It shows how the commission and Europe are being bullied by the US and the WTO," said Sue Mayer of Greenwatch.

And besides, even though it has been approved by the EU...

Public opposition to GM foods means the approval will not trigger a flood of GM sweetcorn into British shops

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

That story only gave the Green MEP's side of the story.

True, but it is, at least, another side to the one previously presented!

I think the EU has actually done (or was doing) quite a good job of "protecting" us from GMOs - against stiff opposition from the US, & some EU member states (such as the UK).[...] The Commission voted in favour of approving this particular GM sweetcorn after the governments of EU member states had failed to reach an agreement on it

Now this is something that gives me problems. If the member states can't agree on something *why* should the EU Commission be able to force something through? Surely the default or fallback position should be "no" rather than "yes"?

The US, Canadian, & Argentinian governments complained to the WTO about the EU's GM moratorium, as they believed it was an unscientific ban, & went against free trade & WTO rules etc.

That's the *USA* complaining about breaches of Free Trade and WTO rules?? The people who were going to ban *cashmere*?!

In our recent 'voting intentions' thread there was a little discussion about the lack of honest discussion on the genuine pros and cons of EU membership. I thought I'd resurrect that train of thought here because this morning's Independent is making my blood boil ... under the headline 'The £23bn question', the entire front page is given over to what is, frankly, scaremongering. Or rather it would be scaremongering if it wasn't such a blatant tissue of lies, half-truths and spin. I have seen better written defences of Europe from 'A' level geography students. Here's just one of the priceless nuggets of nonsense:

In October 2000 Britain incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. By withdrawing from the Convention and repealing this legislation British citizens would no longer be protected by a set of fundamental human rights.

What the &*£$ # ?

The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation that pre-dates the EU. The Convention is adhered to by the EU, it does not belong to the EU. Withdrawing from the EU would in no way involve withdrawing from the Convention. And in any case, the Convention is now enshrined within our own Law. Repealing it would be a matter entirely separate from any concerns about which international organisations we belong to.

Honestly, the anti-Europe camp have been accused of scaremongering and lies but this takes some beating. I'm not proposing to re-type the entire article here (I am supposed to be at work ) but I would urge anyone with an interest in the whole Europe debate to get a look at it.

This is a sad day for rational debate.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by dr wadd
Is it appropriate for a political party to radically change their stance on an issue simply because they lost votes at an election? [...] Listening to the opinions of the public and shaping policy in that manner is one thing. To do a radical about face on a policy is another issue entirely.

Yes, it is entirely appropriate. The government is there to represent the people.

Yes, leadership is required but not if it is against the will of the people (realises he has just undermined his Iraq war argument - Doh).

There is no case to continue down the road of a federal Europe. We have not been in the Euro now for over two years and guess what. The economy hasn't collapsed, millions of jobs haven't been lost all the scaremongering has been showed to be just that.

The country is waking up to the fact that we don't need to be "in" Europe politically. The continental shelf already dictates we are "in" Europe geographically and that is enough.

Originally Posted by towny

"In October 2000 Britain incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. By withdrawing from the Convention and repealing this legislation British citizens would no longer be protected by a set of fundamental human rights."

What the &*£$ # ?

I'd be laughing too if it wasn't so bloody ridiculous! This is the sort of ludicrous nonsense you'd expect from the Tabloids.

This is a sad day for rational debate.

Regrettably very true

Addendum: In fact that article irritated me so much I've just sent the following e-mail...

To the Letters Editor: Letter for Publication.

Sir,

Your paper's article "The £23bn Question" is the most ludicrous scaremongering I have read in a non-red top newspaper for a long time.

It suggests that, by "leaving Europe" we would be forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It begins with rank economic speculation claiming "More volatile interest rates would add to the risks of boom and bust in the housing markets." but why? Our interest rates are under control now, why should they suddenly become "more volatile" if we leave Europe? What exactly will change?

It lists rights we would apparently lose "Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers" and "The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law." But why? If a law is good, what does it matter whether we're in the EU or not?

This whole article is a tissue of nonsense and is not the sort of reporting I expect from a newspaper such as yours.

You should be ashamed of it.

Yours Faithfully,

Graham Marsden

Originally Posted by Graham

I'd be laughing too if it wasn't so bloody ridiculous! This is the sort of ludicrous nonsense you'd expect from the Tabloids.

Ironic perhaps that the Independent went tabloid-only a couple of weeks ago ... Must be a state of mind or something.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by towny

And how often do we repeal legislation? There are laws on the books going back 400+ years. The only legislation I can think of as being repealed is law that is consolidated (all Company Law into CA85), and Hanging.

Originally Posted by towny

Ironic perhaps that the Independent went tabloid-only a couple of weeks ago ... Must be a state of mind or something.

That's why I changed the comment in my letter to "non-red top"

Originally Posted by SMHarman

And how often do we repeal legislation? There are laws on the books going back 400+ years. The only legislation I can think of as being repealed is law that is consolidated (all Company Law into CA85), and Hanging.

It does actually happen every now and again, eg in the passage of the various Criminal Justice Acts assorted old laws get quietly swept up and dropped in the bin, we just don't usually hear about it.

Originally Posted by Graham

Sir,

Your paper's article "The £23bn Question" is the most ludicrous scaremongering I have read in a non-red top newspaper for a long time.
<snip>
You should be ashamed of it.

Yours Faithfully,

Graham Marsden

Way to go Graham!! I might just drop them a line myself.

Some old laws have been repealed, eg (sorry, this is a little biological!) it used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in anal intercourse.

That law is no longer on the statute books at all.

Anyway, that's getting off topic.