[Monster]

xbl, on 06 May 2011 - 22:18, said:

We've got five years of this! Its a triple prong attack...


1. Too wee, too poor, racist braveheart lovers (aka the negative prong).

2. We'd join Europe and Europe is bad (aka the Eurosceptic prong).

3. The Union is great and there are so many benefits to being in it (aka the missing prong).

We've got five years of this:

Pretend everything that suits your crusade is superb so that it fits into a zealot argument.

[xbl]

Monster, on 10 May 2011 - 10:19, said:

We've got five years of this:

Pretend everything that suits your crusade is superb so that it fits into a zealot argument.

Enjoy!

[flogelsleftpeg]

The annoying thing about the Euro being so obviously fucked is that we still cant get a decent exchange rate. Still only basically 1:1 I want cheapness when I go to diddy countries.

[T_S_A_R]

Pink Freud, on 06 May 2011 - 22:17, said:

Hey, it's your decision. I think that the EU is a malevolent wart on the history of Europe, and the sooner its nasty, poisonous, self regarding beauracracy is kicked into the long grass, the better. The notion that nations gain power from being part of it is ludicrous.
.

whit?

there have been no wars in member countries of the ECSC/EEC/EU since it began.

compare that to the thousand years before it existed (or even just the previous 40). the EU is surely a shining light of co-operation, equality and integration compared to a millenium of slaughter and fuedalism.

and i'll state again they can't leave the euro. imagine you're greek and all your funds are in euros, clearly you would either move your money out the country before the change to drachma happens or empty it out the bank and stick the euros under the bed. it would be a disaster.

[Ad Lib]

T_S_A_R, on 10 May 2011 - 23:47, said:

whit?

there have been no wars in member countries of the ECSC/EEC/EU since it began.

compare that to the thousand years before it existed (or even just the previous 40). the EU is surely a shining light of co-operation, equality and integration compared to a millenium of slaughter and fuedalism.

and i'll state again they can't leave the euro. imagine you're greek and all your funds are in euros, clearly you would either move your money out the country before the change to drachma happens or empty it out the bank and stick the euros under the bed. it would be a disaster.

If we disbanded the EU tomorrow, I guarantee you there would be no war between any of the member states for at least a century.

The point being, of course, that it's correlation not causation. The lessons learned from the post-War cock-up from 1918 and the emergence of Cold War and nukes did more to stabilise Europe than any collective of European political institutions. That's moulded a stable and autonomous set of countries with no interest in warmongering among each other.

This post has been edited by Ad Lib: 11 May 2011 - 00:13

[Tryfield]

Ad Lib, on 11 May 2011 - 00:08, said:

If we disbanded the EU tomorrow, I guarantee you there would be no war between any of the member states for at least a century.

The point being, of course, that it's correlation not causation. The lessons learned from the post-War cock-up from 1918 and the emergence of Cold War and nukes did more to stabilise Europe than any collective of European political institutions. That's moulded a stable and autonomous set of countries with no interest in warmongering among each other.

Well said. No dots left or I would have given you a greeny.

The scaremongerers just can't give it up, a bit like those who think Britain would go extinct without paying to trade with our near neighbours.

[T_S_A_R]

Ad Lib, on 11 May 2011 - 00:08, said:

If we disbanded the EU tomorrow, I guarantee you there would be no war between any of the member states for at least a century.

The point being, of course, that it's correlation not causation. The lessons learned from the post-War cock-up from 1918 and the emergence of Cold War and nukes did more to stabilise Europe than any collective of European political institutions. That's moulded a stable and autonomous set of countries with no interest in warmongering among each other.

i was responding to his exact phrase that the EU is a 'wart on the history of europe'. it clearly isn't.

i generally agree with that but i think that the EU deserves a bit of credit, the ECSC was desinged to encourage stability and co-operation and that's what's happened. there is no point in wondering what might have happened when what actually occured is such a success.

[vikingTON]

Ad Lib, on 11 May 2011 - 00:08, said:

The point being, of course, that it's correlation not causation. The lessons learned from the post-War cock-up from 1918 and the emergence of Cold War and nukes did more to stabilise Europe than any collective of European political institutions. That's moulded a stable and autonomous set of countries with no interest in warmongering among each other.

In what possible way did the Cold War stabilise Europe into a stable, autonomous set of countries? This would be the same Europe utterly dominated in political and military terms by two global superpowers, with two Germanies, strong ideological divisions and far less stable countries? (coups and revolutions in France, Spain, Portugal, all of Eastern Europe)

It was economic co-operation within the ECSC then its successors which drove growth and interdependence of markets. That stabilised Europe. It has been tremendous for the development of the European economy from 1951 to the present day.


You have simply tacked on your narrative of events and tried to force the evidence around it. And you have failed miserably it seems.

[Ad Lib]

vikingTON, on 11 May 2011 - 00:55, said:

In what possible way did the Cold War stabilise Europe into a stable, autonomous set of countries? This would be the same Europe utterly dominated in political and military terms by two global superpowers, with two Germanies, strong ideological divisions and far less stable countries? (coups and revolutions in France, Spain, Portugal, all of Eastern Europe)

Absolutely it was the basis for stability. Just because the two global superpowers happened to use Europe as their tension point, doesn't mean Europe was any less stable. If anything it was rendered more stable as the sheer dominance of those two states made any attempts at all-out war between European states a suicide note. The post-War response to the economic issues that needed addressed, particularly with reference to foreign aid, did far more to shore-up friendly relations between previously warring states than the European Union. The division of Germany was relatively stable and there was no realistic prospect of Germany waging war on anyone. Most challenges to Europe came from intra-state dispute and the risk of contagion into a continental war like that seen twice in the preceding 30 or so years was drastically reduced by the imperative on the part of Washington and Moscow to avoid the use of their nuclear arsenal.

Quote

It was economic co-operation within the ECSC then its successors which drove growth and interdependence of markets. That stabilised Europe. It has been tremendous for the development of the European economy from 1951 to the present day.

I never said it didn't have a role, but it's hugely overplayed. Certainly elements of it have outlived their useful purpose and I don't think it's credible to say that without it, such economic interdependence would not still have come about. The free-trading agreements reached under its various guises since WWII certainly facilitated economic interdependence, and most probably sped it up a bit, but they could, and probably would, have been achieved by much looser multilateral or even a series of bilateral, agreements. The collective determination not to have another continental war and to achieve that by greater interaction was the reason institutions like the ECSC, ECC and EURATOM came into existence; not the other way around.

[vikingTON]

Ad Lib, on 11 May 2011 - 01:10, said:

Absolutely it was the basis for stability. Just because the two global superpowers happened to use Europe as their tension point, doesn't mean Europe was any less stable. If anything it was rendered more stable as the sheer dominance of those two states made any attempts at all-out war between European states a suicide note.

So... the collapse of the Soviet Union happened, why did the Netherlands and Belgium not fight each other?

And lets not forget the severe instability within countries such as the entire list mentioned above. Very convenient to just brush aside the fall of the Fourth Republic as a testament to Cold War stability.

Quote

The post-War response to the economic issues that needed addressed, particularly with reference to foreign aid, did far more to shore-up friendly relations between previously warring states than the European Union.

If this is a reference to Marshall Aid, the evidence simply does not point in this direction ie it is absolutely wrong. Milward's calculations on the actual economics of Marshall Aid underlines its insignificance.

The European economy saw a golden age in growth from 1948-1971 and that growth was - and still is - helped by integrated markets and removal of trade boundaries. That required the role of the central European authority at each and every stage, which is precisely why the Europeans set that up and didn't hope for the biliateral deals.

Quote

The division of Germany was relatively stable and there was no realistic prospect of Germany waging war on anyone. Most challenges to Europe came from intra-state dispute and the risk of contagion into a continental war like that seen twice in the preceding 30 or so years was drastically reduced by the imperative on the part of Washington and Moscow to avoid the use of their nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear missiles did and do in no way whatsoever prevent every and any two European states fighting one another. European integration drew the western sphere into peaceful co-existence through the forerunners of the EU. Eastern European states were co-erced into co-existence by the Soviet Union.

Quote

The collective determination not to have another continental war and to achieve that by greater interaction was the reason institutions like the ECSC, ECC and EURATOM came into existence; not the other way around.

Had that been the case then they'd have extended it across Europe initially rather than to a few select countries (Benelux, France, Italy, West Germany). They saw the benefits of economic integration and took it. Their collective determination against war failed miserably with the plans for a European army, They quite clearly separated the issues, embraced NATO and left the rest of the military issues to that organisation.

This post has been edited by vikingTON: 11 May 2011 - 01:27

[Ad Lib]

vikingTON, on 11 May 2011 - 01:26, said:

So... the collapse of the Soviet Union happened, why did the Netherlands and Belgium not fight each other?

Because peace and interdependence breeds peace and interdependence. I didn't suggest that these tensions were somehow static or that it was only the immediate external pressures following the War that prevented the warring between these countries. The degree of interdependence by the fall of the Berlin Wall was simply irreversible. No amount of institutional posturing would alter the reality that stable, economically interdependent democratic neighbours had less than zero interest in pointing guns at each other.

Besides when, exactly, was the last time Belgium and the Netherlands fought each other on mainland Europe? Surely you aren't putting that down to the presence of the European Union?

Quote

And lets not forget the severe instability within countries such as the entire list mentioned above. Very convenient to just brush aside the fall of the Fourth Republic as a testament to Cold War stability.

I never passed comment on internal stability of these countries. Put your irrelevant posturing away.

Quote

If this is a reference to Marshall Aid, the evidence simply does not point in this direction ie it is absolutely wrong. Milward's calculations on the actual economics of Marshall Aid underlines its insignificance.

It was a reference beyond the immediate economic impact of the Marshall Plan. It was absolutely pivotal in the rebuilding of West Germany, itself a recognition that the opposite approach of pummel and punish as under the Versailles Treaty was not an expedient way to prevent historical repetition. As part of a different political approach to the German question it was absolutely responsible for creating the conditions in which European trade this side of the iron curtain could thrive.

Quote

The European economy saw a golden age in growth from 1948-1971 and that growth was - and still is - helped by integrated markets and removal of trade boundaries. That required the role of the central European authority at each and every stage, which is precisely why the Europeans set that up and didn't hope for the biliateral deals.

No, the European economy grew during that period because less domestic revenue was wasted on building up munitions to aim at one another and tariffs reduced substantially. It didn't "require" a central European authority at each and every stage. Certainly it helped (note I never said this wasn't the case) but it only worked in the context of an already more stable, more cooperation amenable Western European system.

Quote

Nuclear missiles did and do in no way whatsoever prevent every and any two European states fighting one another. European integration drew the western sphere into peaceful co-existence through the forerunners of the EU. Eastern European states were co-erced into co-existence by the Soviet Union.

Of course they were at the centre of it. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the divide between East and West would have been as fragile as the Versailles provisions relating to the Saar coalfields. It was MAD that helped entrench those spheres of influence and make co-operation rather than international bitchfighting a no-brainer for those under both spheres of influence. The competing regional hegemonies not only balanced the power between the US and USSR, but it also necessitated a normalisation of relations between antagonistic states under the same sphere.

Quote

Had that been the case then they'd have extended it across Europe initially rather than to a few select countries (Benelux, France, Italy, West Germany). They saw the benefits of economic integration and took it. Their collective determination against war failed miserably with the plans for a European army, They quite clearly separated the issues, embraced NATO and left the rest of the military issues to that organisation.

You missed the crucial part of my two-pronged point there. "And to achieve that by greater interaction". The reason the early agreements had so few signatories was down to the conditions under which certain countries were willing to pursue the objectives by those specific multilateral means. Disagreement far more over specifics than the principle.

And of course they kept specific military alliances separate through NATO. That wasn't the point. The real issue is that they recognised the tension leading to war amongst each other in the past was a consequence of a fusion of both military and economic aggression. By making a point of separating the two and focusing on cooperation they had already won half the battle. The particular institution or set of treaties or bilateral tariff agreements didn't really matter. It was the spread of actual consensus that was reducing the risk of conflict; not the fora on which they reached it.

[doulikefish]

So nothing in any of the main news outlets about this,have the greeks pulled the plug on the euro yet??

[xbl]

doulikefish, on 11 May 2011 - 08:06, said:

So nothing in any of the main news outlets about this,have the greeks pulled the plug on the euro yet??

Not that, but I saw this:

Its a disaster, its a calamity, its a farce!

Quote

The economy of the 17 countries that use the euro grew by 0.8% in the first three months of 2011, up from 0.3% in the previous quarter. Germany was largely responsible for the better-than-expected figure, reporting growth of 1.5% in the period. There was a surprisingly strong 0.8% growth rate from debt-laden Greece.

[Pink Freud]

xbl, on 13 May 2011 - 12:23, said:

Not that, but I saw this:

Its a disaster, its a calamity, its a farce!

You didn't read the whole article did you? Allow me to highlight the key point from a Scottish perspective if I may:

"Ken Wattret at BNP Paribas said: "Big picture-wise, once again the theme is divergence between the core and periphery and the core countries account for the vast majority of euro area output.

"The periphery are getting the worst of both worlds. The core countries like Germany are doing really well and that's keeping the euro strong, and it's making the ECB [European Central Bank] more inclined to tighten policy."He added that what the countries on the periphery really needed was low interest rates and a weaker euro. "

So once more - this is good news for a small economy how? Greece grew by 0.8% - and is still nearly %5 smaller than a year ago. Portugal slides back into recession. Spain and Italy are growing worse than the UK.

It is a farce. It is a calamity. And it will be disaster for Portugal and Greece at least, and still probably for Spain and Italy.
Seriously, stick to your "it'll be fun" argument. You look a lot less daft.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Pink Freud, on 06 May 2011 - 22:17, said:

Hey, it's your decision. I think that the EU is a malevolent wart on the history of Europe, and the sooner its nasty, poisonous, self regarding beauracracy is kicked into the long grass, the better. The notion that nations gain power from being part of it is ludicrous.

By all means, independence if it makes sense to you, but within the Euro and the EU? You're off your nut.

You really are a foaming-at-the-mouth loon on this.

No one's denying that the EU suffers from many deep rooted and intractable problems, and it may be that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of its expansionist aspirations. The current Greek/Portuguese/Irish/Spanish crisis may yet unravel the Euro, who knows.

However, to describe it as you have in the terms above is an absolute joke, historically. The roots of the EU project were in post-war reconstruction, reconciliation and in pulling the peoples of Europe closer together, as well as making travel and cultural exchange across the continent easier. In that at least, it's been largely a success, even if it makes Union-Jack-kex-wearers like yourself boil with rage in a totally unreasonable and unhinged manner.

Honestly. You're making Bill Cash look reasonable with this pish. To think that you voted Lib Dem- the most Europhile of all the parties- last year, as well.

[Pink Freud]

Ivo den Bieman, on 13 May 2011 - 13:09, said:

You really are a foaming-at-the-mouth loon on this.

Get over yourself sweet cheeks. It's a point of view that I can back up in a dozen different ways, and it doesn't mean I'm against European integration - just against the bloated corpse of second rate parliamentarians playing at government in the way that they do.

Quote

No one's denying that the EU suffers from many deep rooted and intractable problems, and it may be that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of its expansionist aspirations. The current Greek/Portuguese/Irish/Spanish crisis may yet unravel the Euro, who knows.

ANd yet I should be cheering Scotland into this mess? Really? As we prepare to spend hundreds of millions to bail Greece out again, after doing the same with Ireland as a result of their inability to control their bank rates and currency, due to an experiment that we weren't even part of?

Quote

However, to describe it as you have in the terms above is an absolute joke, historically. The roots of the EU project were in post-war reconstruction, reconciliation and in pulling the peoples of Europe closer together, as well as making travel and cultural exchange across the continent easier. In that at least, it's been largely a success, even if it makes Union-Jack-kex-wearers like yourself boil with rage in a totally unreasonable and unhinged manner.

So you say. Where did I complain about the EEC? When did I complain about the Common Market? The EU is just like health and safety - an utterly neccesary set of agreements and rules blown up to create jobs for the boys and meddling in national affairs that they utterly fail to understand.Plenty of good stuff comes out of European integration, in particular the Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights. Just about everything from the EU, however, seems to be a hotchpotch of one size fits all for countries with widely varying cultural and economic needs.

Quote

Honestly. You're making Bill Cash look reasonable with this pish. To think that you voted Lib Dem- the most Europhile of all the parties- last year, as well.

I AM Europhilic. I just hate the EU. The two are most certainly not mutually exclusive. The idea of a federal Europe appeals strongly to me. THe idea of an unaccountable beauracracy of poor politicians, and a set of books that has failed to pass audit for well over a decade does not.

This post has been edited by Pink Freud: 13 May 2011 - 13:38

[Ivo den Bieman]

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

Get over yourself sweet cheeks. It's a point of view that I can back up in a dozen different ways, and it doesn't mean I'm against European integration - just against the bloated corpse of second rate parliamentarians playing at government in the way that they do.

Physician, heal thyself

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

ANd yet I should be cheering Scotland into this mess? Really? As we prepare to spend hundreds of millions to bail Greece out again, after doing the same with Ireland as a result of their inability to control their bank rates and currency, due to an experiment that we weren't even part of?

er, the UK government that was responsible for that. I'm not sure who's asking you to "cheer Scotland into this mess" other than xbl winding you up, very successfully, yet again

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

So you say. Where did I complain about the EEC? When did I complain about the Common Market? The EU is just like health and safety - an utterly neccesary set of agreements and rules blown up to create jobs for the boys and meddling in national affairs that they utterly fail to understand.Just about the only good thing about the EU is the Court of Human Rights. EVerything else is a hotchpotch of one size fits all for countries with widely varying cultural and economic needs.

Of course the present EU didn't at all derive from the EEC and the Common market. They're completely separate and unrelated entities. Of course.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

I AM Europhilic. I just hate the EU. The two are most certainly not mutually exclusive. The idea of a federal Europe appeals strongly to me. THe idea of an unaccountable beauracracy of poor politicians, and a set of books that has failed to pass audit for well over a decade does not.

How do you achieve a federal Europe without some kind of political structure? Certainly not by throwing your lot in with the they'll-take-away-our-red-telephone-boxes- and-make-our-Cumberland-sausages-straight brigade. Keep sobbing away what's left of your credibility, though.

[xbl]

Ivo den Bieman, on 13 May 2011 - 13:41, said:

How do you achieve a federal Europe without some kind of political structure? Certainly not by throwing your lot in with the they'll-take-away-our-red-telephone-boxes- and-make-our-Cumberland-sausages-straight brigade. Keep sobbing away what's left of your credibility, though.

Not by getting involved and trying to improve things anyway! The best thing to do is to stay outside of it, whining about how terrible it is, how it isn't perfect, and refuse to offer anything constructive until its perfects. That is definitely the way to achieve a Federal Europe with us at the heart of it.

[Pink Freud]

Gents, you're welcome to your opinion. We'll see what happens.

Ivo, so far as what came from what, you're missing the point: I was talking about European integration as a concept - what the EU is is now no longer to do with representing Europeans - it represents itself and its own interests. You only have to look at the sheer arrogance of the MEPs demanding pay rises, larger budgets, and ring fenced conditions whilst most of the member states are struggling with all sorts of issues, most of them financial. And xbl, see what effect Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal can have working within it.

I find it beyond credence that either of you can be enthusiastic about this mess. But fill your boots. You both appear to be anti Westminster, feeling that it has failed and is finished, but which would surely be easier to fix "from within", but have no problem beleiving that this state of affairs would be oh so much better when comparing Scotlands interests with say England, France and Germany. NEither of you, I notice, have responded to the post I made detailing the link from the BBC site that xbl was wetting himself over. THis is NOT going to get any better in the medium term. Something has to give, and if you can't see that, it's a damn shame.
Edited to say: Oops, you did Ivo, apologies.
So far as a Federal State is concerned, you won't get it within the EU in its present form, and it won;t be changed from within because of the vested interests it has in its own survival.

This post has been edited by Pink Freud: 13 May 2011 - 14:25

[Ivo den Bieman]

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 14:09, said:

Gents, you're welcome to your opinion. We'll see what happens.

Ivo, so far as what came from what, you're missing the point: I was talking about European integration as a concept - what the EU is is now no longer to do with representing Europeans - it represents itself and its own interests. You only have to look at the sheer arrogance of the MEPs demanding pay rises, larger budgets, and ring fenced conditions whilst most of the member states are struggling with all sorts of issues, most of them financial. And xbl, see what effect Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal can have working within it.

As I acknowledged in my first post on this thread, the EU does suffer from fundamental structural problems, a democratic deficit, and very shoddy fiscal accountability. I'd call for the Commission to be democratically elected (and accountable) and for budgetary accountability to be overhauled completely. I don't actually disagree particularly with the idea that the current EU is a facade of high-tined political flatulence masking a self-serving realpolitik. It may well be broken beyond repair, but I think our country (currently the UK) should be part of the attempts to try and fix it rather than shouting impotently from the Eurospcetic sidelines.

Most voters in the UK are totally disengaged/disinterested in the EU project politically. Hence mediocrities, timeservers, posturing egomaniacs and downright greedy self-enrichers are elected almost un-noticed by 70% of the UK electorate. It's as clear a case as any for folk getting the politicians and the broken political system they deserve by their utter lack of engagement.

I guarantee this: the EU won't be fixed by moaning about it and listing its many failings as though the moaner is the only person to have seen all this. The EU feels it can run itself in such a shoddy manner as they can justifiably believe that aonly a minority of people actually take any notice/care.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

I find it beyond credence that either of you can be enthusiastic about this mess. But fill your boots. You both appear to be anti Westminster, feeling that it has failed and is finished, but which would surely be easier to fix "from within", but have no problem beleiving that this state of affairs would be oh so much better when comparing Scotlands interests with say England, France and Germany. NEither of you, I notice, have responded to the post I made detailing the link from the BBC site that xbl was wetting himself over. THis is NOT going to get any better in the medium term. Something has to give, and if you can't see that, it's a damn shame.

I'm not particularly anti-Westminster. I also think that in the event of Scottish independence, a referendum should be held on our continued participation in the EU. Participation only works if people genuinely want it, rather than going along with it in a surly manner because of money/no other alternative/can't be arsed thinking about it (in which case the mediocre nonentities you deserve become MEPs) etc.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 13:26, said:

So far as a Federal State is concerned, you won't get it within the EU in its present form, and it won;t be changed from within because of the vested interests it has in its own survival.

Tru dat. Don't think that acknowledging that fact makes a case for immediate withdrawal, though.

[xbl]

Ivo den Bieman, on 13 May 2011 - 14:28, said:

As I acknowledged in my first post on this thread, the EU does suffer from fundamental structural problems, a democratic deficit, and very shoddy fiscal accountability. I'd call for the Commission to be democratically elected (and accountable) and for budgetary accountability to be overhauled completely. I don't actually disagree particularly with the idea that the current EU is a facade of high-tined political flatulence masking a self-serving realpolitik. It may well be broken beyond repair, but I think our country (currently the UK) should be part of the attempts to try and fix it rather than shouting impotently from the Eurospcetic sidelines.

Most voters in the UK are totally disengaged/disinterested in the EU project politically. Hence mediocrities, timeservers, posturing egomaniacs and downright greedy self-enrichers are elected almost un-noticed by 70% of the UK electorate. It's as clear a case as any for folk getting the politicians and the broken political system they deserve by their utter lack of engagement.

I guarantee this: the EU won't be fixed by moaning about it and listing its many failings as though the moaner is the only person to have seen all this. The EU feels it can run itself in such a shoddy manner as they can justifiably believe that aonly a minority of people actually take any notice/care.

I'm not particularly anti-Westminster. I also think that in the event of Scottish independence, a referendum should be held on our continued participation in the EU. Participation only works if people genuinely want it, rather than going along with it in a surly manner because of money/no other alternative/can't be arsed thinking about it (in which case the mediocre nonentities you deserve become MEPs) etc.

Tru dat. Don't think that acknowledging that fact makes a case for immediate withdrawal, though.

I agree with all of this post. I've long said on this site that the current system isn't very good, and I agree absolutely with ivo regarding both involvement and disengagement, which is a very interesting point regarding us getting the system we deserve. I also agree that we should hold a post independence referendum on Europe. It makes sense.

[Pink Freud]

Ivo den Bieman, on 13 May 2011 - 14:28, said:

As I acknowledged in my first post on this thread, the EU does suffer from fundamental structural problems, a democratic deficit, and very shoddy fiscal accountability. I'd call for the Commission to be democratically elected (and accountable) and for budgetary accountability to be overhauled completely. I don't actually disagree particularly with the idea that the current EU is a facade of high-tined political flatulence masking a self-serving realpolitik. It may well be broken beyond repair, but I think our country (currently the UK) should be part of the attempts to try and fix it rather than shouting impotently from the Eurospcetic sidelines.

It's the very impotence that makes it so loathed though. Adn the voting figures suggest very strongly that it isn;t just the UK voters who hold it in contempt.

Quote

Most voters in the UK are totally disengaged/disinterested in the EU project politically. Hence mediocrities, timeservers, posturing egomaniacs and downright greedy self-enrichers are elected almost un-noticed by 70% of the UK electorate. It's as clear a case as any for folk getting the politicians and the broken political system they deserve by their utter lack of engagement.

No, not really. Realistically, we never had the chance to decide if we even wanted to be in it. This apathy is a direct cause of that IMO - we have an effectively unelected rump of uselessness, from quite a few of the countries in the Eu, and when as in the case of the Irish, they do show interest, and express the desire to say "no" they are simply asked the same question, only this time with menace, until they capitulate.

Quote

I guarantee this: the EU won't be fixed by moaning about it and listing its many failings as though the moaner is the only person to have seen all this. The EU feels it can run itself in such a shoddy manner as they can justifiably believe that aonly a minority of people actually take any notice/care.

THis argument can be seen very differently though. It can be seen, that as is the case with national politics, that people are disenchanted with the whole thing. Even the Scottish election last week had a turnout of about half. Now, I don't disagree with you at all, it needs to happen, but let's not make a virtue out of legitimising the bunch of crooks.

Quote

I'm not particularly anti-Westminster. I also think that in the event of Scottish independence, a referendum should be held on our continued participation in the EU. Participation only works if people genuinely want it, rather than going along with it in a surly manner because of money/no other alternative/can't be arsed thinking about it (in which case the mediocre nonentities you deserve become MEPs) etc.



Tru dat. Don't think that acknowledging that fact makes a case for immediate withdrawal, though.

Yep. I basically agree with you, but refer you back to my "health and safety" analogy. Basically, the only people in Britain who really wanted us in there in the first place were politicians. We've never had a democratic say on it. If the Nationalists were to do that, I'd take my hat off to them.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 15:34, said:

It's the very impotence that makes it so loathed though. Adn the voting figures suggest very strongly that it isn;t just the UK voters who hold it in contempt.

I seem to remember you making this claim on an EU thread last year, and being shown up for it.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 15:34, said:

No, not really. Realistically, we never had the chance to decide if we even wanted to be in it. This apathy is a direct cause of that IMO - we have an effectively unelected rump of uselessness, from quite a few of the countries in the Eu, and when as in the case of the Irish, they do show interest, and express the desire to say "no" they are simply asked the same question, only this time with menace, until they capitulate.

It has evolved from the Common Market referendum in 73. We voted for that. Them's the breaks. The apathy is nothing to do with a referendum nearly forty years ago, and everything to do with an absolute refusal to engage with Europe politically by most voters. European politics is very complicated and "not sexy", and I;d say a majority of voters are still only fleetingly aware of how much the EU now influences laws passed in this country. Further, there is no incentive whatever for individual MEPs to work their constituency, and little relationship between voters and European politicians.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 15:34, said:

THis argument can be seen very differently though. It can be seen, that as is the case with national politics, that people are disenchanted with the whole thing. Even the Scottish election last week had a turnout of about half. Now, I don't disagree with you at all, it needs to happen, but let's not make a virtue out of legitimising the bunch of crooks.

It's this kind of emotive drivel that means few take you seriously on this subject. You are pathologically incapable of discussing the EU without this kind of tear-stained rhetoric. The current EU set up was established by cold, cynical, calculating logic. Only that kind of thinking will see any meaningful change to it come about. Screaming and shouting about warts on history and crooks only makes you look an idiot. As Michael Corleone advised: "Never hate your enemies. It only clouds your judgement".

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 15:34, said:

Yep. I basically agree with you, but refer you back to my "health and safety" analogy. Basically, the only people in Britain who really wanted us in there in the first place were politicians. We've never had a democratic say on it. If the Nationalists were to do that, I'd take my hat off to them.

We did have a democratic say on it, in the 70s. I'm pretty sure more than politicians voted in favour for it, otherwise that referendum would have been lost. I'm also not sure why the EU is deemed to be at fault for the UK government's failure to hold any subsequent referenda on the subject.

In the even of independence, though, the constitution would have changed so fundamentally that there would be an argument as to whether we should stay in the EU or do a Norway, as effectively we would be a new state in the EU. Of course, as a seceding member of a supranational state entity, we would automatically be EU members when independence is granted. A referendum in independent Scotland, therefore, would be on whether to secede from the EU, or stay in.

[Pink Freud]

Quote

I seem to remember you making this claim on an EU thread last year, and being shown up for it.

No, I don;t think I was. VT rightly pointed out that it is popular in some countries - not by any means all. I didn;t claim it was universally ignored, just that many countries have a very similar outlook to it that we appear to have.

Quote

It has evolved from the Common Market referendum in 73. We voted for that. Them's the breaks. The apathy is nothing to do with a referendum nearly forty years ago, and everything to do with an absolute refusal to engage with Europe politically by most voters. European politics is very complicated and "not sexy", and I;d say a majority of voters are still only fleetingly aware of how much the EU now influences laws passed in this country. Further, there is no incentive whatever for individual MEPs to work their constituency, and little relationship between voters and European politicians.

Sorry, according to you when I mentioned not being against the EEC or Common Market, that wasn't relative.

WE most certainly did NOT note for what we have now. We voted for a single European market.

Quote

It's this kind of emotive drivel that means few take you seriously on this subject. You are pathologically incapable of discussing the EU without this kind of tear-stained rhetoric. The current EU set up was established by cold, cynical, calculating logic. Only that kind of thinking will see any meaningful change to it come about. Screaming and shouting about warts on history and crooks only makes you look an idiot. As Michael Corleone advised: "Never hate your enemies. It only clouds your judgement".

Yeah, fair play, I deserved that. I really, really do fucking loathe them though. Can you tell?

Quote

We did have a democratic say on it, in the 70s. I'm pretty sure more than politicians voted in favour for it, otherwise that referendum would have been lost. I'm also not sure why the EU is deemed to be at fault for the UK government's failure to hold any subsequent referenda on the subject.

As above, we most certainly didn't vote for the EU. But your second point is fair enough, and I agree with it. Given that so few people vote in the EU elections here, I guess they will get away with that until we sleepwalk into whatever semblance of a united Europe our political masters see fit.

Quote

In the even of independence, though, the constitution would have changed so fundamentally that there would be an argument as to whether we should stay in the EU or do a Norway, as effectively we would be a new state in the EU. Of course, as a seceding member of a supranational state entity, we would automatically be EU members when independence is granted. A referendum in independent Scotland, therefore, would be on whether to secede from the EU, or stay in.

That is one of the most tempting reasons to vote for independence that I have seen.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 16:20, said:

Sorry, according to you when I mentioned not being against the EEC or Common Market, that wasn't relative.

As per my response above, the current EU evolved from those things. Not sure how you can be for one and against the other, to be honest. Nor am I sure how you propose to get to a federal European polity without seemingly being involved in it.

Pink Freud, on 13 May 2011 - 16:20, said:

WE most certainly did NOT note for what we have now. We voted for a single European market.

Again, I'm not sure why the EU rather than the UK government is to be blamed for this. People voted yes in '73, and the fundamental changes at European level since have all been agreed to by the government of the day. It's for the UK government to decide whether to hold referenda or not.