Without starting the whole in Europe/out of Europe debate, is the amount of control that the EEC has over the UK now getting out of hand?
What sparked this off today was the new log book I got for my car after my old one was damaged. The old V5 registration document has been replaced with the V5C registration certificate - now with 'European Community' on it (and 'Registration Certificate' translated into no less than 20 languages).
Never mind the nasty design of it (as my parents noted, it looks more like a form to fill in than a document), but I note that this has all come about because of the apparant need to 'harmonise registration documents across all members states'.
These days, the number of times that things are being harmonised across member states I find quite shocking.
One could argue that a piece of paper indicating who owns your car is not as important as foreign policy or currency, but I would in turn argue that the mere fact that 'harmoisation across member states' has spread from the big issues, right down into the nitty gritty of such mundane thngs as what the log book for your car should look like is taking things too far. I don't honestly believe that Europe is working for us, but I've always been careful not to subscribe to views that the UK is disappearing into a big country called Europe, but from the amount of changes to things in this country that are happening through European directives handed down from Brussels I am beginning to consider taking out a subscription to it.
Really, if it's got to the stage when our country's own DVLA is no longer considered competent enough to decide what it's documents should look like, but instead they must conform to a corporate EEC design (on that point, that acronym is starting to become as dated as the old 'ECM' one - it now tends to be 'European Community' rather than 'European Economic Community'), then perhaps Europe has too much of a hand in ruling our country?
Will that day when our own government won't be able to move a park bench without say so from Europe really come? The way it's going, I think it will do.
I'm glad we are finally getting a vote on the European Constitution, and I'm quitely confident that it won't get through. That may be the first stage in an increased unsettlement at the UK being part of Europe, which may eventually end in our leaving it alltogether, something which, with the increasing amount of power they have to mandate laws in this country from outside of it, I'm far from convinced would be a bad thing.
Is the EEC getting too far involved with our lives?
-
Ed Hammond
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.59
- Location: London
EEC is rather outdated! Must be the first time I've heard it for years. The EEC "ceased to be", as it were, on January 1st 1992 (thereafter being named the European Community) - then after Maastricht it was yet again renamed to "European Union" in around 1995.
Yes, Europe issues a lot of directives. European regulations and European law do control an increasing number of governmental and non-governmental activity these days. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. A favourite jibe of the UKIP and other parties is that "Europe" is run from Brussels by a legion of unaccountable bureaucrats, who sit around in plush officers all day trying to think of ways to piss off the British and to keep themselves in jobs by pushing paper around. This becomes less and less true as the years pass. More and more decisions on European legislation are now subject to Commission co-decision with the European Parliament, meaning that those people we will be electing next Thursday, have a say in the formulation of legislation. If the Commission puts forward a proposition the EP doesn't like, the EP can now reject it and send it back. Far better, I think, than the staggering number of statutory instruments and domestic regulations introduced by the Government in Westminster with absolutely no Parliamentary influence whatsoever. I would submit.
And harmonisation isn't a bad thing either. We have to remember why the EU was formed in the first place - the fundamental reason is to prevent war. Wars will inevitably come about when you have strong economies close to one another putting up trade barriers and competing on often unfair terms for limited resources. The EU attempts to regulate this by having supranational institutions adjudicating on these matters, but most importantly by harmonising - creating a completely level playing field between member states which means that the larger economies can't throw their weight around - effectively aiding economic and business efficiency by ensuring completely free movement of people and services. You can't have free movement without harmonisation - the two are intrinsically interlinked.
The new European constitution is an attempt to rationalise the law that has built up to govern this harmonisation process - law which started with the Rome Treaty, led through the Single Act to Maastricht and Amsterdam - and provide one single document which states clearly and unequivocally what the powers and responsibilities of the Union and its institutions will be. I for one am in favour because it's more than a "tidying up" exercise - it enshrines the principles of economic openness, free trade and social justice which all the state adhere to once and for all, and moreover is the only thing which can make the whole thing workable now that we have fifteen new member states.
Personally, I think a referendum on the constitution (in fact, a referendum on any constitution) is an intrinsically bad idea because different people have problems with different parts of it but not others, and to make it a constructive exercise you'd have to have a vote on every clause, which would be bloody ridiculous.
It's understandable why people (including you, Chris!) have an antipathy towards the EU because of the ludicrously misleading way it's portrayed in the press. It is big, and bulky, and perhaps not as efficient as it might be, and some of the things it does are ham-fisted. Some of the decisions it makes aren't in Britain's interest. But such is the case with all public institutions. When Westminster legislates, it knows that people in Hull will be affected differently to those in Redruth. National, regional and local interests converge and diverge constantly and to say that Europe is a straitjacket because sometimes it does things we don't like is absurd.
What's particularly sad is that people complain about a lack of democracy in the EU and then only 25% of us vote in its elections. Oh well.
Yes, Europe issues a lot of directives. European regulations and European law do control an increasing number of governmental and non-governmental activity these days. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. A favourite jibe of the UKIP and other parties is that "Europe" is run from Brussels by a legion of unaccountable bureaucrats, who sit around in plush officers all day trying to think of ways to piss off the British and to keep themselves in jobs by pushing paper around. This becomes less and less true as the years pass. More and more decisions on European legislation are now subject to Commission co-decision with the European Parliament, meaning that those people we will be electing next Thursday, have a say in the formulation of legislation. If the Commission puts forward a proposition the EP doesn't like, the EP can now reject it and send it back. Far better, I think, than the staggering number of statutory instruments and domestic regulations introduced by the Government in Westminster with absolutely no Parliamentary influence whatsoever. I would submit.
And harmonisation isn't a bad thing either. We have to remember why the EU was formed in the first place - the fundamental reason is to prevent war. Wars will inevitably come about when you have strong economies close to one another putting up trade barriers and competing on often unfair terms for limited resources. The EU attempts to regulate this by having supranational institutions adjudicating on these matters, but most importantly by harmonising - creating a completely level playing field between member states which means that the larger economies can't throw their weight around - effectively aiding economic and business efficiency by ensuring completely free movement of people and services. You can't have free movement without harmonisation - the two are intrinsically interlinked.
The new European constitution is an attempt to rationalise the law that has built up to govern this harmonisation process - law which started with the Rome Treaty, led through the Single Act to Maastricht and Amsterdam - and provide one single document which states clearly and unequivocally what the powers and responsibilities of the Union and its institutions will be. I for one am in favour because it's more than a "tidying up" exercise - it enshrines the principles of economic openness, free trade and social justice which all the state adhere to once and for all, and moreover is the only thing which can make the whole thing workable now that we have fifteen new member states.
Personally, I think a referendum on the constitution (in fact, a referendum on any constitution) is an intrinsically bad idea because different people have problems with different parts of it but not others, and to make it a constructive exercise you'd have to have a vote on every clause, which would be bloody ridiculous.
It's understandable why people (including you, Chris!) have an antipathy towards the EU because of the ludicrously misleading way it's portrayed in the press. It is big, and bulky, and perhaps not as efficient as it might be, and some of the things it does are ham-fisted. Some of the decisions it makes aren't in Britain's interest. But such is the case with all public institutions. When Westminster legislates, it knows that people in Hull will be affected differently to those in Redruth. National, regional and local interests converge and diverge constantly and to say that Europe is a straitjacket because sometimes it does things we don't like is absurd.
What's particularly sad is that people complain about a lack of democracy in the EU and then only 25% of us vote in its elections. Oh well.
I've just been reading the initial results of Eurobarometer 61 (Spring 2004), which is the (quarterly?) survey conducted by the European Union. Once again, support for the EU is lowest in the United Kingdom:
Why? Is it, like the Eurobarometer reports usually state, because of the influence of the British (euro-sceptic) Press? The Republic of Ireland is one of our nearest neighbours, and one with which we have close links. However, their support for the EU runs at 71% of those questioned! What makes their experience of the EU so different to ours?
Do other EU countries have strong euro-sceptic movements, like the UK does? If so, are they as popular as the UKIP (and similar)?
What I am basically trying to ask is: Why is the British population generally sceptical of the EU, when (according to Eurobarometer and other surveys) other EU member states (who often pay more than the UK to be in the EU) support the organisation?
Why? Is it, like the Eurobarometer reports usually state, because of the influence of the British (euro-sceptic) Press? The Republic of Ireland is one of our nearest neighbours, and one with which we have close links. However, their support for the EU runs at 71% of those questioned! What makes their experience of the EU so different to ours?
Do other EU countries have strong euro-sceptic movements, like the UK does? If so, are they as popular as the UKIP (and similar)?
What I am basically trying to ask is: Why is the British population generally sceptical of the EU, when (according to Eurobarometer and other surveys) other EU member states (who often pay more than the UK to be in the EU) support the organisation?
-
Ed Hammond
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.59
- Location: London
Eurosceptics are gaining ground in continental Europe - the EDD political grouping within the European Parliament is increasing in size and will probably be bigger after the elections. But there's nowhere near this groundswell there seems to be in this country.
i think to be honest, the major issues euro-sceptics have with the EU are
a) why give large amounts of money over into a big pot, only to get back less money in grants. *RADICAL IDEA* lets have our own little UK pot of money, and distribute it to the UK, that way we'd get all of our own money back!
b) why not let UK institutions, that are directly accountable to the UK government (such as the food standards agency, the DVLA etc.) make the decisions that affect our lives, rather than agencies across the water, who are slightly less accountable to us, and who are working with the best interests of a couple of hundred million people in mind, rather than the fifty something in this country.
its rather like the dept. of transport,(rather than west midlands passenger transport exec.) deciding if the 06.55 number 33 bus in birmingham should receive subsidy.
c) free trade is possible without the need for a bureaucracy to implement it. indeed, the current free trade area, with it's surpluses and ridiculous subsidies is doing more harm than good to less economically developed countries. if there was less of a *club* feel the EU, perhaps individual countries might adopt trade policies that are slightly more encouraging to countries in africa etc.
the whole "euro-sceptic" press argument is a little feeble. newspapers are not charities, they exist to make money for their proprietors. it may come as a bit of a shock, but perhaps the papers are simply reflecting the views of their readership?
i also have to laugh at the way the EU insist on having their flag proudly displayed on developments which have received EU funding. its as if their is a magical money tree growing in brussels, the money didn't come out of HM treasury did it ... no, surely not!
a) why give large amounts of money over into a big pot, only to get back less money in grants. *RADICAL IDEA* lets have our own little UK pot of money, and distribute it to the UK, that way we'd get all of our own money back!
b) why not let UK institutions, that are directly accountable to the UK government (such as the food standards agency, the DVLA etc.) make the decisions that affect our lives, rather than agencies across the water, who are slightly less accountable to us, and who are working with the best interests of a couple of hundred million people in mind, rather than the fifty something in this country.
its rather like the dept. of transport,(rather than west midlands passenger transport exec.) deciding if the 06.55 number 33 bus in birmingham should receive subsidy.
c) free trade is possible without the need for a bureaucracy to implement it. indeed, the current free trade area, with it's surpluses and ridiculous subsidies is doing more harm than good to less economically developed countries. if there was less of a *club* feel the EU, perhaps individual countries might adopt trade policies that are slightly more encouraging to countries in africa etc.
the whole "euro-sceptic" press argument is a little feeble. newspapers are not charities, they exist to make money for their proprietors. it may come as a bit of a shock, but perhaps the papers are simply reflecting the views of their readership?
i also have to laugh at the way the EU insist on having their flag proudly displayed on developments which have received EU funding. its as if their is a magical money tree growing in brussels, the money didn't come out of HM treasury did it ... no, surely not!
So, if this is correct, then what are the benefits of EU membership? Would being a member of the EFTA/EEA instead of EU membership be as beneficial for the UK?tvmercia wrote:i think to be honest, the major issues euro-sceptics have with the EU are
<snip>
-
Ed Hammond
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.59
- Location: London
We actually get more back than we put in. Interestingly enough. Unfortunately, all too often we balls up when it comes to spending it (witness Objective 1 funding in Wales).tvmercia wrote:i think to be honest, the major issues euro-sceptics have with the EU are
a) why give large amounts of money over into a big pot, only to get back less money in grants. *RADICAL IDEA* lets have our own little UK pot of money, and distribute it to the UK, that way we'd get all of our own money back!
b) why not let UK institutions, that are directly accountable to the UK government (such as the food standards agency, the DVLA etc.) make the decisions that affect our lives, rather than agencies across the water, who are slightly less accountable to us, and who are working with the best interests of a couple of hundred million people in mind, rather than the fifty something in this country.
its rather like the dept. of transport,(rather than west midlands passenger transport exec.) deciding if the 06.55 number 33 bus in birmingham should receive subsidy.
c) free trade is possible without the need for a bureaucracy to implement it. indeed, the current free trade area, with it's surpluses and ridiculous subsidies is doing more harm than good to less economically developed countries. if there was less of a *club* feel the EU, perhaps individual countries might adopt trade policies that are slightly more encouraging to countries in africa etc.
the whole "euro-sceptic" press argument is a little feeble. newspapers are not charities, they exist to make money for their proprietors. it may come as a bit of a shock, but perhaps the papers are simply reflecting the views of their readership?
i also have to laugh at the way the EU insist on having their flag proudly displayed on developments which have received EU funding. its as if their is a magical money tree growing in brussels, the money didn't come out of HM treasury did it ... no, surely not!
Free trade policing itself... is probably where your and my political beliefs diverge... although I do agree that the current CAP is completely mental, far better to try and change it than (try to) extricate ourselves from the whole mess.
Does your argument about localism begetting accountability imply that you support regional government? I certainly do... I think the "Europe of the regions" which is, slowly, coming about can only be good for democracy. And I think regional and local government is an intrinsically good thing (partially because I work in it). But you do need strategic planning and what they call "joined up" government on a national scale, just as you need it on a supranational scale in the EU. If you didn't need that nation states wouldn't exist in the first place.
I'm not sure that last paragraph makes much sense, but I'll leave that to you to decide!
I went to a UKIP rally near Tower Bridge in London today and met Robert Kilroy-Silk in the proceedings.... BRITANNIA RULES OK!
Pilgrim Hospital Radio, Boston, Lincolnshire - Monday - Friday 19:00 - 22:00.
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!