[Merged] The Europe Thread

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by towny

lol, ok you got me - it's alluded to rather than stated explicitly. The website refers to the relevant legislation, whose title does not itself use the word 'curvature'. The legislation itself, however, does use the word 'curvature'. (bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers," Commission Regulation 2257/94 - download it in PDF format at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/hmi/com.../x_bananas.pdf )

So they are contradicting themselves, unless that is they are denying that the regulations say anything about curvature - in which case they are not so much incompetent as outright liars.

I think somewhere in guidance notes (maybe the Trading Standards or someone elses) the curvature is defined in degrees.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you agree that some EU legislation is really stupid?

Yes but some is really good and our country is a better place for the EU forcing us to clean up our beaches, more competitive through the EU driven deregulation of Airlines and Telecoms. Food hygene has probably been increased (even if we follow the rules overzelously).

Originally Posted by SMHarman

I think somewhere in guidance notes (maybe the Trading Standards or someone elses) the curvature is defined in degrees.

This is yet another problem with the EU. Britain has more than enough lunatic bureaucrats of its own (remember, it's British customs and excise that just can't handle the concept of there being no personal allowance for booze and fags - it's them, not the EU, that takes the guidance figure above which you might have reason to be suspicious and applies it as law).

We don't need another level of bureaucracy making up lunatic laws for our own civil servants to beat us round the head with.

Yes but some is really good and our country is a better place for the EU forcing us to clean up our beaches, more competitive through the EU driven deregulation of Airlines and Telecoms. Food hygene has probably been increased (even if we follow the rules overzelously).

There are definitely benefits of being in the EU. I am not in favour of outright withdrawl and my support for UKIP is a protest device intended to influence the policies of the main political parties in the UK. I suspect I am not the only one expressing my political 'influence' in this way. Telecoms is an interesting one though. Given the 80s Tory policy of privatising everything in sight, can deregulation of telecoms in the UK really be attributed to the EU? Did we not get there first, or if we didn't, would we not have done it shortly afterwards anyway?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by towny

<snip>Telecoms is an interesting one though. Given the 80s Tory policy of privatising everything in sight, can deregulation of telecoms in the UK really be attributed to the EU? Did we not get there first, or if we didn't, would we not have done it shortly afterwards anyway?

The 80s tory policy has been seen as a template for the rest of europe. It has indicated what should and will work in a privatised environment (Rail, Telco), what shoudl work (Gas, Electric, Water) though needs sufficient price control that infrastructure repair and investment is possible, and what does not work - Rail - or at least does not work in the model used.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

The 80s tory policy has been seen as a template for the rest of europe. It has indicated what should and will work in a privatised environment (Rail, Telco), what shoudl work (Gas, Electric, Water) though needs sufficient price control that infrastructure repair and investment is possible, and what does not work - Rail - or at least does not work in the model used.

So, when Europe enthusiasts point to EU directives requiring deregulation of the telecoms market, in such a way as to imply that we should be grateful, they are in fact neglecting to mention that we got there first, and the rest of Europe adopted it because we already did, and proved it worked? If that's the case, it pours just a little cold water on the standard defence of EU interference in domestic policy issues: that the dynamic EU is well placed to kick indolent national governments into improving things.

Originally Posted by towny

We don't need another level of bureaucracy making up lunatic laws for our own civil servants to beat us round the head with.

So we just get rid of bereaucracy at the civil service level and go with the European equivalent. These situations don`t necessarily imply more bureaucracy if a country is willing to shift responsibilities around a little.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

So we just get rid of bereaucracy at the civil service level and go with the European equivalent. These situations don`t necessarily imply more bureaucracy if a country is willing to shift responsibilities around a little.

Civil service reform is an interesting topic in its own right but something that could be carried out without membership of the EU. I tend to think, however, that there is a British bureaucratic mindset that would manifest itself regardless of how Government is administered.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by towny

<snip>If that's the case, it pours just a little cold water on the standard defence of EU interference in domestic policy issues: that the dynamic EU is well placed to kick indolent national governments into improving things.

However the partially privatised EU has then allowed still nationalised institutions to take advantage of these privatised entities and become european champions with the protection that they themselves cannot be taken over. Electricitie de France EdF, being a prime case, buying generation capacity throughout europe, but, for example AES a big American Generator being unable to buy them, or buy significant generating capacity in France (in the way they bought Drax, the largest power station in the UK). This actually means that the UK is now dependant on EdF and the undersea transmission cable to mainland europe for power generation. Get into a war with France and they could switch our power off!

Thankfully it has also ensured the failiure of some entities such as Sabina, which the indolent national government would have carried on propping up.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

However the partially privatised EU has then allowed still nationalised institutions to take advantage of these privatised entities and become european champions with the protection that they themselves cannot be taken over. Electricitie de France EdF, being a prime case, buying generation capacity throughout europe, but, for example AES a big American Generator being unable to buy them, or buy significant generating capacity in France (in the way they bought Drax, the largest power station in the UK). This actually means that the UK is now dependant on EdF and the undersea transmission cable to mainland europe for power generation. Get into a war with France and they could switch our power off!

Thankfully it has also ensured the failiure of some entities such as Sabina, which the indolent national government would have carried on propping up.

It is this whole sphere of open markets where the EU ought to do best. The problem for me has always been that they choose to define their remit so widely and with such a swathe of regulation. The curvature of bananas is a trivial example, but really, is there a need for anyone, at national or EU level, to make up such rules? If a market trader or supermarket sells manky bananas, the average shopper has the nous to simply not buy them. A free and open market would function best regulated only by laws and directives designed to enforce openness. Once everything is open and transparent, the market can regulate itself. But of course, the single European market is not an open market, it is a tightly controlled one and designed, in large measure, to keep inefficient French peasant farmers in clover thanks to the CAP.

Some smart-ar$e professor writing in the Independent earlier in the week attempted to repudiate the usual Eurosceptic claim that 'we only voted for a Common Market' by pointing out that what we actually voted in favour of was signing up to the Treaty of Rome - the document that contains that nebulous phrase, 'ever-closer union'. I don't buy that. That might have been the technical result of a 'yes' vote, but Europe was clearly sold to the people as a Common Market and nothing else, and in that case we have a pretty good claim that we are victims of the biggest mis-selling scandal of all time.

[iadom]

Another snippet to delight all UK taxpayers..

If it was a mystery why the new EU member states last weekend all fell so meekly into line on the new constitution - of which several, notably Poland, had earlier been highly critical - one explanation may have been Wednesday's little-noticed announcement that, over the next two years, Brussels is to give them a staggering £16 billion in extra subsidies (more than £1 billion of this from UK taxpayers). Half of this goes to Poland, a good chunk of it to rebuild the Polish fishing fleet which will soon enjoy "equal access" to UK fishing waters.

from today's papers.

[iadom]

More potentially bad news for UK taxpayers.

here

Originally Posted by iadom

More potentially bad news for UK taxpayers.

here

Great, another EU own goal. Keep it up, you bungling Eurocratic idiots, and you'll help our referendum 'no' campaign no end

We pay the European Union TEN BILLION POUNDS every year for the privilege of having them tell us how to fish in our national waters, how to sell bananas, which parts of the UK to re-develop, access to the common market and, if they had their way, how to run our economy. Now they want us to increase that to up to TWENTY BILLION POUNDS. It's extortion.

[kronas]

the £2bn rebate britain recieves from the EU is being discussed.

as britain is the biggest contributer to europes coffers margret thatcher's deal back in the 80s meant that britain would recieve money back as it is the biggest contributer.

but now due to the expansion of the EU the EU's budget minister wants to create a system to rebate other members who contribute.

the british argument is that other countries get far more in subsidy's in the industries such as agriculture, so britain should retain the rebate.

source: BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892527.stm

the EU is good for us ?

btw the plans the EU has is to either reduce or scrap britains rebate.

I'm a complete Europhile. This is a very small amount of our budget and I couldn't actually care about losing it. The more integration the better, and the less chance of another European war. Stopping that alone makes the EU good for us and worthwhile.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Macca371

I'm a complete Europhile. This is a very small amount of our budget and I couldn't actually care about losing it. The more integration the better, and the less chance of another European war. Stopping that alone makes the EU good for us and worthwhile.

£2bn is small i think the economy would miss it, ok i dont know where its spent but atleast its coming back to us, remember we are the biggest contributers not looking for handouts like other countries.

i think we deserve the cash back not because its ours but we are still contributing to europe.

Originally Posted by kronas

£2bn is small i think the economy would miss it, ok i dont know where its spent but atleast its coming back to us, remember we are the biggest contributers not looking for handouts like other countries.

i think we deserve the cash back not because its ours but we are still contributing to europe.

Hmm, I dunno, some of those countries have huge problems. I think helping them through their problems is great. I know we have our own problems but a lot of people in these countries live in poverty, and in comparison, the money would be spent on us for luxury items, not essential ones.