We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
They’ve got God on their side I’ll bet that the EUnuchs are beside themselves with glee now that they have managed to co-opt the Pope:
Just three weeks before the EU membership referendum in Poland, Pope John Paul II has recommended that his compatriots join the European Union.
Sure to be seen as a benediction by many in Poland. Does the Pontiff not realise that the EU is the work of the Devil?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
You think the Pope wouldn’t have forgotten what strong armed Socialism means to the faithful. I guess he has to have governments start taking over control of churches again to refresh his memory of his childhood in leftist Poland.
How many divisions has the Pope ?
I have a hard time understanding you guys’ bizarre obsession with the EU. Why is the European Union “the work of the devil”, whereas the United States is not? What I mean is, what are the specific constitutional differences which make one anathaema and the other a model? No country is constrained to join the EU – they agree to do so by national referendum (or decide not to, in the case of Norway). Member states have the power of veto. It’s simply a free association of states which have decided to trade a certain amount of sovereignty for greater strength in numbers, economies of scale, free trade, etc., etc. How is that so radically different from the 50 states of the Union? Please explain.
Hoo-aaah for the Pope!
Perhaps the real test of the EU will come when one of the members tries to secede from the EU.
Gene from the U.S.A in Europe 🙂
Susan: imagine somebody took the economic treaty, NAFTA, and suddenly transformed it into a real political union – the United States of Upper Thingummy, let’s say – with a new constitution, a court system, a set of trade restrictions that would singe your hair…and on and on. Much of which are put together by unelected bureaucrats. Little of which you’re allowed to vote on. All of which overrule the merely US versions.
Fancy being governed by Mexico? Or Canada? I mean, we’re right next to each other, we share lots of history, so we have to be alike, right?
Susan – your post is filled with so misapprehensions about the EU that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Realising that I’ve set myself a hopeless task, nevertheless in response to: “No country is constrained to join the EU – they agree to do so by national referendum (or decide not to, in the case of Norway).”
Untrue, there was no referendum held when the Mastricht treaty was signed, nor will the UK hold one when the new ‘EU constitution’ is accepted, taking with it almost the last vestige of governmental power from the UK’s own parliament. Even when referendums are held, the dice are always loaded. Massive resources are channelled into the ‘yes’ campaigns and downright lies are told by governments and the EU itself, anxious to extend political control. This is how the UK was conned into the EEC in the first place. We were lied to by Edward Heath’s government about what it was we were joining. If, by some miracle, a country votes ‘no’ then more lies are spread and the question repeatedly asked until the political classes get the answer they want. Ask the Irish about this.
You also say: ‘Member states have the power of veto.’ Untrue and increasingly so. Brussels rules by diktat, overruling local law and judges. The UK has fallen foul of this many times in recent years.
Finally: ‘How is that so radically different from the 50 states of the Union? Please explain’
Simple. The USA is a reasonably homogenous entity with (at present) a single, common language and largely shared beliefs outlined at its inception. The EU is a wholly artificial construct with little in the way of economic, linguistic, legal or political commonality. That commonality is being enforced as an artificial graft, regardless of how well or badly it will fit nations as diverse as, say, Poland and Norway.
S. Weasel,
Susan’s question still stands unanswered.
Presumably, prior to union, the US states operated very much as European countries do now. Nowadays in the US, some legislation gets decided locally, some nationally. Individuals don’t seem particularly more crushed over there than here in our “vigourous” little countries, so where’s the big problem?
If you feel the EU’s insufficiently democratic, well why not try campaigning for more democracy within the EU, rather than just rejecting the whole thing out of hand, thus leaving the direction it takes up to the bureaucrats & politicians to discuss in secret? If there were protests on the streets, campaigns in the Sun etc., not rejecting the EU per se, but specifically targetting the undemocratic elements, i think they would attract far more widespread support, & might effect some genuine positive change.
On a personal level, I don’t like feeling that i live in an underdog country with no power, & it seems the only way you’re likely to have any real power as a small country in the 21st century is as a member of a larger power bloc. Well, either that or develop extremely spectacular weapons that no-one else has!
“The UK has fallen foul of this many times in recent years. ”
And, prey, what has happened to the UK ? Has it been disciplined or invaded by the Belgian army? Don’t France and Germany and Italy do as they fancy, EU rules or not ? (As they are doing with their deficits).
This whole EU bussiness is just a load of empty words and high sounding “good intentions”. It is empty palavering to keep politicians busy, and in good paying jobs, doing nothing but more proclamations and more useless documents. It is UN2, as UN jobs are not enough for all those aspiring to the easy life of bureaucrat.
As to all Brits complaining about their beloved Parliament losing it’s sovereignity – maybe I’m uninformed, but has it really happened ? Was there any instance that Parliament was overruled by the EU ? (And I don’t mean cases where EU regulations have been adopted willingly by Parliament). Now, with all due respect to Parliament, I doubt it is much better or less collectivist than the EU.
This isn’t to say that I love the EU, but I think that some countries like Eastern Europe may get many benefits from it – seeing how they aren’t doing brilliantly on their own.
And, prey, what has happened to the UK ? Has it been disciplined or invaded by the Belgian army? Don’t France and Germany and Italy do as they fancy, EU rules or not ?
Well, yes, exactly. That’s partly what rankles.
I don’t think it would be stretching a cultural stereotype too far to say that the British belief in fair play and playing by the rules means the EU restrictions hit them hard, because they try to obey. It rankles the British character to enter into a contract with the explicit attitude that “if we decide we don’t like parts of this, we’ll simply ignore them – and what’re you going to do, discipline us or send in the Belgian army?”
Other countries appear to find signing on to a charter and breaking it as needed…somewhat less onerous.
Which is why I’ll do business with a Brit any day, but would think twice about some other EU members.
G. Cooper is the only adversary here who has directly addressed my question, so let me take him to task. First, referendums. Many countries did have a referendum on Maastricht (France, for example). Britain did not – a decision not made in Brussels but in Westminster by an elected UK government. You can’t have a referendum on everything because that will lead to political sclerosis, but yes, I think it might have been a good idea to have one on Maastricht, but the decision not to was taken by an elected sovereign government, not the mandarins in Brussels. As for the UK electorate being ‘conned’ into the EEC – this is the argument of a sore loser. Either you have a referendum or you don’t. If you do, both sides are free to muster as much support and funds as they can. Would you have it any other way? In any case the euro question negates your conspiracy theory argument about governments ‘conning’ electorates. Blair would dearly love to hold and win a referendum on the euro. One of the reasons he’s not going to call one – not just yet anyway – is that he knows he can’t win one.
As for vetoes – the Maastricht treaty actually gives the fully elected European parliament power of veto over a Council ruling if an absolute majority of MPs opposes it. Without mentioning the extensive powers of veto indivudual countries hold within the Council.
As for your reasons why the (much closer) union of states in the U.S. is acceptable while the EU’s free association of states isn’t, you “the USA is a reasonably homogenous entity with (at present) a single, common language and largely shared beliefs outlined at its inception. The EU is a wholly artificial construct with little in the way of economic, linguistic, legal or political commonality.” What a load of codswallop. According to that analysis of statehood, the Swiss or Belgian states have no right to exist. States are artificial constructs, period, get over it. The only reason for a state or an association of states to exist is if the majority of its citizens wish for them to exist. Some states contain huge linguistic, economic and political diversity, some don’t. As for the E.U., as someone said earlier, if a state doesn’t want to be a member of it, no one’s going to force it. You’ve utterly failed to convince me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existence of the EU vis-à-vis a union of states such as the United States.
Jacob asks:
“And, prey, what has happened to the UK ?”
A list of instances where EU policy has acted to the detriment of the UK would take all day, but one example alone suffices to make the case. The (soon to vanish) UK fishing industry. This was deliberately sacrificed by Edward Heath’s lying government as one of the prices of admission.
Neither the UK government nor parliament has any influence on the decline of this industry, which has been worse than decimated by backroom deals favouring other EU countries.
G. Cooper, the only way to deal with rapidly disappearing fish stocks is for governments to coordinate their response and reduce fishing where needs be. Look at what’s already happened elsewhere – complete disappearance of cod stocks in Newfoundland, for example. These are exactly the kinds of problems that the EU is good for. Your example is an own goal.
Susan writes:
“Many countries did have a referendum on Maastricht (France, for example). Britain did not – a decision not made in Brussels but in Westminster by an elected UK government…but the decision not to was taken by an elected sovereign government, not the mandarins in Brussels”
It was taken by a government in favour of EU membership and which had decided to sign the Maastricht treaty. As such it is a perfect example of what pro-EU politicians will do to further the growth of this cancer. Holding referendums in countries likely to say ‘yes’, while denying them in countries likely to say ‘no’ is hardly the stuff of democracy.
“As for the UK electorate being ‘conned’ into the EEC – this is the argument of a sore loser.”
Utter nonsense. The British public was assured that there was no question of loss of sovereignty dependent on EEC membership. That was a lie. We were told we were joining a free trade association – not a fledgling supra-national government.
“According to that analysis of statehood, the Swiss or Belgian states have no right to exist”
Presumably you are unaware of the fissures currently exposed in Belgium, which is *precisely* that very thing – a non-existent state constructed from discrete regions, created to assume some grand vision based in fantasy rather than reality. Much like the EU in fact, only the latter is on a far grander and more divergent scale.
“As for the E.U., as someone said earlier, if a state doesn’t want to be a member of it, no one’s going to force it.”
In which case, perhaps you can explain to us why under the proposed EU constitution states will be prevented from leaving unless a majority of the other EU members permit it?
[The fishing industry] “… was deliberately sacrificed by Edward Heath’s lying government as one of the prices of admission”
So it was sacrificed by Edward Heath, no by those EU diktators. Where is the loss of sovereignity ?
“We were told we were joining a free trade association – not a fledgling supra-national government. ”
OK, so you were told lies. Now that you are wise – get out. What keeps you in the EU ? Ah, that sovereign beloved Parliament. I see.
Jacob writes:
“So it was sacrificed by Edward Heath, no by those EU diktators. Where is the loss of sovereignity ?”
I’d have thought that was pretty obvious. The loss of sovereignty is is to successive governments, out of whose hands fishing policy has been taken.
“OK, so you were told lies. Now that you are wise – get out. What keeps you in the EU ? Ah, that sovereign beloved Parliament. I see.”
I find it strangely disconcerting that you are so disparaging about parliaments. Nevertheless, the question of the UK’s continued membership of the EU has yet to be decided. It may well yet come to this country’s departure. I fervently hope so.
G. Cooper, there is a debate as to what should and what not should be put to referendum. Personally, as far as I am concerned, Maastricht should have been the subject of one. But governments are, after all, elected to govern. And you are free to vote for a party that is in favour of pulling out of the E.U. It was in the manifesto of the Labour Party in the 1983 election, for instance. Or you could have voted for Goldsmith’s party – only he didn’t garner too many votes, did he? The U.K. is a democracy, for Christ’s sake, and if there really was any groundswell of opinion in favour of pulling out, or in favour of having a radically different approach to the E.U., then one political party or another would capitalise on it. I think you’re missing this very basic point that the E.U. is a free association of DEMOCRATIC states.
As for your assertion that in the new constitution, countries won’t be able to pull out without the consent of the majority of members, could you provide a cite? And if the UK voted in a government committed to withdrawal from the EU, how do you think the EU would prevent it? By declaring war, like the American civil war? Get serious.
“Holding referendums in countries likely to say ‘yes’, while denying them in countries likely to say ‘no’ is hardly the stuff of democracy.” Actually, in France, the ‘yes’ vote got only 52% – there was a real chance of losing the referendum.
“Presumably you are unaware of the fissures currently exposed in Belgium” – no, I’m aware of them, and if the Flemish and the Walloons want to go their separate ways – as the Czechs and the Slovaks did – then so be it and good luck to them. In the meantime, Belgium is a fully operational, internationally-recognised state. Your requirement for a state to be linguistically, culturally, economically etc. homogeneous disregards half the states in the world and probably all of the African ones. It’s a nationalist and very un-libertarian notion of statehood. If a large number of individuals wish to come together as a state, who’s to say they shouldn’t?
If a large number of individuals wish to come together as a state, who’s to say they shouldn’t?
The almost-as-large number of their neighbors who don’t wish to? As the saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for supper.
Only people who think government is a good thing would choose government for a career. So every election, we’re faced with a choice between individuals who think government is swell, but differ on the details. Or, as the other saying goes, no matter who you vote for, some politician gets in.
In other words, the idea that it’s a sort of law of physics that democracies are exactly the way their people want them to be or they’d vote for change is flawed.
Susan writes:
“These are exactly the kinds of problems that the EU is good for. Your example is an own goal.”
This is so badly skewed from reality that it almost beggars belief. Prior to UK membership of the EEC, Britain had somewhere in the region of three quarters of fish stocks and around two thirds of the waters.
These were handed over to the EU and became a ‘common resource’. The over-fishing you speak of has come about as a direct result of backroom bargaining on behalf of various EU states, striking deals which have resulted in the decimation of the UK fishing industry and the massive decline in fish stocks.
It is a classic case of the corruption and incompetence at the heart of the EU project.
Susan writes:
“As for your assertion that in the new constitution, countries won’t be able to pull out without the consent of the majority of members, could you provide a cite?”
Look no further than Gabriel Symes’s post to this blog on 3rd April. In it, refering to an article from the Daily Telegraph, it clearly establishes that Article 64 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states.
Also: ” Your requirement for a state to be linguistically, culturally, economically etc. homogeneous disregards half the states in the world and probably all of the African ones.”
Please don’t put words into my mouth. I did not say it was a requirement – but clearly it is highly advisable. Your choice of Africa was particularly ironic in view of the ethnic warfare currently ripping that continent apart. Ah yes, and the former Yugoslavia too, if my memory isn’t at fault…
Susan,
Up until now membership of the EU has indeed been voluntary but if the framers of the draft constitution get their way, no member state will be able to leave without a majority of votes in support which means the secession is unlikely to be bloodless.
Even if that were not the case, why do you think that the enthusiasm of our own political masters for this project should have any influence on my opinions? The British people have been conned into handing over large chunks of their self-determination to Brussels by three decades of political sleight-of-hand, evasion and outright mendacity.
Leaving aside the fact that valuable, wealth-creating British industries were deliberately sacrificed as a sop to the Eurocrats, we are also about to be subjected to an inferior and deeply statist legal system (corpus juris – European Arrest Warrant mean anything to you? It should) and if you think the EU is about ‘Free Trade’ I can only conclude that you are either blissfully ignorant of the reality or you are lying.
At best, the EU is yesterday’s solution to the day before’s problem. At worst, it is a systemtically corrupt and deeply sinister artifice which is anti-liberty, anti-individual, anti-progress and a generator of globally bad ideas. It is something which the British people do not need and (increasingly) do not want.
Well said Susan on several fronts 🙂
And G. Cooper, is the UK doomed to failure too then? Most of us at least speak the same language, but the economy & general social conditions are utterly different down here in the South than in, say, the North East (and I’d challenge the average southerner to hold down a coherent conversation in a rough Glasgow pub). Just because people are different, doesn’t mean they can’t cohabit happily (or no more unhappily than otherwise) in one state; it’s only a convenient (or less convenient, depending how much you like the whole idea of the state) association of people at the end of the day. If you can work productively for a private company with people of different cultures, which many do, i see absolutely no reason why you can’t live peacefully & happily side-by-side with people of many differing cultures, & consider them to be your fellow citizens
–“… Belgium, which is *precisely* that very thing – a non-existent state constructed from discrete regions, created to assume some grand vision based in fantasy rather than reality.”
errr.. yeah, presumably whoever ran Northumbria, Wessex etc. thought the same about the idea of a unified England; at the time it was a fiction too, but it seems to be holding up… would you have us all living in small baronial territories again?
Personally, I haven’t heard very much about the Flemish & Walloon thing, but are they genuinely likely to separate? Like, beyond high-profile rumblings? And for what reasons? Further, Switzerland, despite major differences in culture and language from region to region, shows absolutely no sign of disappearing as an entity, & has been working quite successfully for a long time now.
Yours is a very pessimistic view of the world; i reject the belief that a difference of language or culture makes cohabitation or cooperation near-impossible. Anyone weak enough to need national identity as a prop for their personal identity should at least have the self-confidence & grace to be able to share it with people who aren’t exactly like them.
A_t writes:
“Yours is a very pessimistic view of the world; i reject the belief that a difference of language or culture makes cohabitation or cooperation near-impossible.”
Pessimistic or realistic? I’d strongly suggest to you that the weight of evidence is clearly in favour of the idea that artificially created nations (as distinct from those that choose nationhood) do not work and that ethnic conflict is often a consequence.
But wait a minute! Hang on! Aren’t you Europhiles always telling us that there *is* no plan for a superstate? In which case, why are you so keen on advocating the joys and feasibility of one?
Susan wrote:
“It’s simply a free association of states which have decided to trade a certain amount of sovereignty for greater strength in numbers, economies of scale, free trade, etc., etc. How is that so radically different from the 50 states of the Union? Please explain.”
The US is no longer a voluntary association of states–a change which came about after years of destruction and hundreds of thousands killed. Perhaps the people opposed to the EU are simply trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of others?
“At best, the EU is yesterday’s solution to the day before’s problem. At worst, it is a systemtically corrupt and deeply sinister artifice which is anti-liberty, anti-individual, anti-progress and a generator of globally bad ideas. It is something which the British people do not need and (increasingly) do not want.”
…so that would explain why EU rules have overturned, or at least condemned a variety of anti-individual freedom measures by the UK government, from arbitrary detention of terrorist suspects to gay rights… yesyes, i’m with you now.
I’m not denying there are sinister aspects to the EU project, and the lack of democracy worries me greatly, but the idea of a larger nation-state encompassing the whole of Europe, provided it was democratically run, & left plenty of regional autonomy, in the style of the US at present, doesn’t worry me in the least. Certainly, I don’t find the idea any more frightening than our current government. So, my question again, why “just say no”? why not campaign for democratic reform & openness? or do you feel it’s just not worth it, as no useful results can possibly be obtained?
oh, & as far as i’m aware, I’ve never in any way denied the concept of a superstate… personally i’d welcome it, *provided* it fitted in with my ideas of a democratic, representative structure, & left individual regions sufficient autonomy. As I’ve pointed out, I don’t feel uncomfortable in the US, and I see little difference, aside from linguistic divisions (and seeing as English will almost inevitably become the common language as in the US, we anglophiles need not worry). However, i’m not convinced the whole plan’s laid out on some secret table just waiting to happen. As Susan pointed out, it’s a union of *democracies*, & I can’t see many politicians taking their countries into a superstate if it’s such an unpopular move that it costs them their seats at the next election.
A_t,
“…so that would explain why EU rules have overturned, or at least condemned a variety of anti-individual freedom measures by the UK government, from arbitrary detention of terrorist suspects to gay rights… yesyes, i’m with you now.”
Which ‘EU rules’ did those things? Are you quite sure that you are not, in fact, referring to the European Convention on Human Rights? I think you are and that has nothing to do with the EU (but it is typical of the fuzziness in the minds of federasts that they conflate these things).
Incidentally, the Human Rights Act (the UK enactment of the ECHR) is something I would also rip up. It is not a guarantor of individual liberty it is a charter of entitlements.
No, I do not believe that any useful result can be obtained from campaigning for a better EU. It is rather like campaigning for a better Soviet Union – best just to dismantle it.
“As Susan pointed out, it’s a union of *democracies*, & I can’t see many politicians taking their countries into a superstate if it’s such an unpopular move that it costs them their seats at the next election.”
No, it’s an exercise in misinformation, occlusion, rigged referenda (and I take it you have noticed that they have to be re-run if the ‘right’ result is not forthcoming first time) and bribery on a gigantic scale.
But I have to say that if the Continentals want their EU, then they are welcome to it. I just want Britain out.
A-t writes:
“As Susan pointed out, it’s a union of *democracies*, & I can’t see many politicians taking their countries into a superstate if it’s such an unpopular move that it costs them their seats at the next election.”
The EU is fundamentally an undemocratic organisation and sundry European politicians have led their countries into it by a variety of means ranging from downright lies to electroral manipulation.
How on earth can anyone pretending to libertarian views welcome an *increase* in government? Even if it were judged only on economic grounds, the EU imposes a massive increased burden of bureacracy, taxation and regulation which no libertarian could possibly welcome. This, let it be added, without taking into account the burden of financial corruption.
Take the argument beyond the economic and the imposition of layers of governance and control can only be anti-individual and anti-freedom.
It’s about big government – and governments don’t come much bigger than the proposed EU superstate.
“But I have to say that if the Continentals want their EU, then they are welcome to it. I just want Britain out.”
totally out? like, forget free trade with other EU states? Surely a big part of the reason the US has spawned so many successful big companies is because of the scale of the market they can reach from their inception. Why should we deny our entrepreneurs those benefits?
But fair enough… i can understand your arguments, & for now you seem to have the majority of the population behind you, at least in terms of not getting any further into it.
I think there is a gut-level feeling of inevitability about the EU that makes many give up dissent. People are easily mislead by a continuum.
The idea that we started as families and became tribes and then villages and then city-states and regions and nations makes it easy to sell the idea that supernations are the unavoidable next step in the evolution. I suppose we have to hurry up and make sure we’re the United Continental Metastate of Terra before the Alpha Centaurians get here.
In fact, the glomming together of peoples hasn’t been that straightforward, inevitable or happy in its results. Multinational bigness isn’t an absolute formula for success (helllooo, Soviet Union) nor are smaller independent nations necessarily at an economic or even military disadvantage.
I am a bit surprised that S. Weasel’s valid point that you, Susan, as an individual would not have the right to vote or participate in the management of the EU, and that those who do are themselves UNELECTED. This aspect alone sends firealarm bells clanging to any AMERICAN who understands THAT principle. Why doesn’t it bother you? Also, to the general point made by another poster that the US began as a similar collective like the EU, I advise reading the Federalist Papers to learn why the Articles of Confederation eventually were thrown away in favor of a representative republic, a Republic, that by its very nature allows for any entity to determine that it can and shall secede from its union should it deem the government unacceptable. That was what our “War Between the States” was about, if you read American history well enough, and it is the argument that continues to this day.
The fact that the EU told the UK not that long ago that any member who became part of the Union would not have the option to withdraw tells me FAR more about the organizers than whether or not it is open to all.
Just my two cents worth…
I should finish my first sentence :
I am a bit surprised that S. Weasel’s valid point that you, Susan, as an individual would not have the right to vote or participate in the management of the EU, and that those who do are themselves UNELECTEDdoes not scare the living daylights out of you.
Why doesn’t it, Susan?
There’s too much to answer here and I have work to do but just on that last point – “as an individual you would not have the right to vote or participate in the management of the EU, and that those who do are themselves unelected…” – this is about as an absurd a canard as the straight banana. The EU is not a state. It is an association of states. These states are democratic. Their governments are democratically elected by their citizens. These democratically elected governments then appoint representatives, to represent their democratically elected governments. Got that? Capito? It’s like a government appointing an ambassador. Or should all ambassadors be directly elected as well? You guys seem to want to have your cake and eat it – you are viscerally opposed to a European federal state. Which we don’t have. What we do have is an association of states. Then you start bleating on about how the states’ EU representatives aren’t directly elected! They are the appointed representatives of a directly elected government – if you want them directly elected, that’s even further along the path of a super-state! In any case, there IS a directly elected European parliament which, as I said above, does have an ultimate power of veto over the Council.
The rest of the anti-EU debate here is mainly not about the principle of the EU, but about aspects of the project that have gone wrong. And yes, I think there have certainly been worrying developments within this project. But the principle is that there is nothing wrong with the idea of countries deciding to associate in an economic and political bloc. In economic matters at least, it is the only serious counterweight to the U.S. the world has got. And since the U.S. hardly plays fair on the economic playing field (steel tariffs, anyone?), this is of long-term benefit to the citizens of its member states.
Oh, and David, your epithet ‘federast’ is pretty distasteful. Think about it – you’re conflating supporters of a federal Europe with people who sexually abuse children. Hardly comparable, whatever your politics.
A_t
“but the idea of a larger nation-state encompassing the whole of Europe, provided it was democratically run, & left plenty of regional autonomy, in the style of the US at present, doesn’t worry me in the least.”
Those two things aren’t “provided”. It isn’t very democratically run, and it does’nt leave “plenty of regional autonomy” or at least – has a strong tendency to curtail that autonomy.
“why not campaign for democratic reform & openness? ”
For – the bigger the beast the less chance to mount an effective campaign and acheive desired results.
Jacob, I’m fully aware that at present it’s not very democratic; that’s why i said i have no problem with the superstate idea in principle, provided those conditions were met! In no way did i intend to suggest that the EU presently provides such things. However, on the regional autonomy front, I feel any claims that we’ve lost vast amounts are grossly overstated.
-“why not campaign for democratic reform & openness? ”
-“For – the bigger the beast the less chance to mount an effective campaign and acheive desired results.”
hmm… ok, so by these measures, the UK govt. should be mmmm…. about 5 times more open and easy to sway than the US government…. Sounds to me like an excuse for doing nothing; “oh, it’s too big.. it’ll never change”.
Apathy’s precisely what the politicians will exploit if they want to create this undemocratic superstate run by political elites. As I pointed out, these politicians are mostly elected at some point; if you gathered enough public awareness, & ditched the absolutist “EU=evil” stance, I think you’d get a lot of support across the board for democratic reform. Face it, the EU’s a fact at the moment, and is not likely to go away, regardless how much you say it’s bad. I also think the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the near future are pretty slim. So, you can either ignore the whole thing, & potentially allow it to develop into the machiavellian control mechanism you so fear, or else you could at least try & shape it into something that more suits your ideals.
Susan writes:
“There’s too much to answer here and I have work to do but just on that last point …”
I think we all understand that problem of having work to do, but you have conveniently side-stepped the vital issue of Article 64, which imposes restrictions on leaving the EU and which you had previously implied did not exist.
It seems to be an interesting characteristic of EU advocates (especially the professional ones) that they wax lyrical in the most general terms about the wonders of EU and yet when the facts contradict these principles (fisheries, CAP, Constitution, wholesale corruption etc) they fall silent.
This is exactly the tactic employed by the EU’s rebuttal department, established in London some years ago in an attempt to ‘rubbish’ critical stories in the UK press.
G. Cooper writes:
“I think we all understand that problem of having work to do, but you have conveniently side-stepped the vital issue of Article 64, which imposes restrictions on leaving the EU and which you had previously implied did not exist.”
Well I do have work to do, but on my lunch break I looked into this (and wasted time on the Internet chasing article 64, when you should have written 46). Anyway, here is the article in question:
Article 46: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention. Once that notification has been given, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament.
The withdrawing State shall not participate in the Council’s discussions or decisions concerning it.
3. This Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question as from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2.
So, G. Cooper, where exactly is the problem? The gist of this article is that a state may voluntarily withdraw, that following notification there will be a negotiated withdrawal agreement with the other members of the Council, and that if no agreement can be reached, withdrawal will become legal two years later anyway.
Well done, Susan, yes it is indeed Article 46. Further you have faithfully reproduced it – in it’s DRAFT form.
We have yet to see which of the proposed amendments will be adopted. Among these are:
1.”Deletion of the Article”
2. “Do not establish a unilateral right of withdrawal but only a (negotiable) right to request
withdrawal” (proposed by a certain Mr.De Villepin among others)
3. “Limit the right of withdrawal to the scenario in which the withdrawing State does not approve an
amendment to the Constitution (or, as with one amendment, where it does not approve a change to the composition of the Union)”
4. “Provide for a “waiting period” in the case of a request to rejoin the Union by a State which has
withdrawn (periods of from 5 to 20 years from the date of withdrawal of the State are mentioned)”
Now, even if none of these ‘Hotel California’ clauses are adopted and the article remains as currently drafted, I still see that the devil (yes, sorry that word again) is in the detail.
Read subsection 2 carefully. A member state may withdraw but the terms of withdrawal are imposed by the Council ‘without input from the withdrawing state’. The Council can therefore impose any conditions they like and they could prove to be so onerous and crippling that withdrawal becomes more destructive than continued membership.
If Britain was my client, I would advise them not to touch this thing with a bargepole.
And, just for the record, even if membership does remain voluntary, I still want Britain out of it.
“Oh, and David, your epithet ‘federast’ is pretty distasteful.”
I agree. David should know better than to conflate Latin and Greek roots in the same word.
On the other hand, Fedephile suffers from the same vice.
Perhaps Sean Gabb can help out?
🙂
A_t
“Apathy’s precisely what the politicians will exploit… ”
I’m not advocating apathy, I’m for a very active and vigorous campaign against Britain getting deeper into the EU, or for getting out. (I’m not so sure about other countries).
“Face it, the EU’s a fact at the moment, and is not likely to go away…”
This was beeing said also about the Soviet Union.
Remember – Communism was declared by Marx to be where history was headed, and there was no use fighting History’s destiny or Communism.
No, the EU isn’t a fact, its a lot of hot air, a lot of documents and proclamations, a lot of intentions (good, or bad – depends on your point of view) and a lot of bureaucrats – also some facts but much less than the fanfare surounding them. I firmly beleive the EU will implode and move progressively more from the realm of fact into the realm of empty retoric. The inner contradictions, and the destructive nature of the schema make the whole idea impracticable. Some signs of this are evident in the progressive inability to reach any meaningful agreement.
I congratulate the Samizdata people for campaigning vigorously against the EU, though I personally think it isn’t such a terrible monster as they depict it. It’s more like an ineffective, powerless, bungling carcass.
There are also possitive sides to the EU – like free movement of people and merchandise, and even the single currency. I think these benefits might be retained even after destroying the bureaucratic superstructure.
Well David, basing an argument on a highly selective choice of proposed amendments to a proposed article smacks ever so slightly of desperation to me. There were other proposed amendments designed to facilitate voluntary withdrawal. And you’ve misread subsection 2. It calls for an agreement between the withdrawing member and the Council, with the withdrawing member excluded from Council deliberations concerning the withdrawal. That seems fair. There are two parties to the agreement, and there’s no reason why one party should have the right to listen in on the deliberations of the other. And if no agreement is reached, withdrawal is legal after 2 years anyway.
It’s a specious debate until we actually see what the article is, anyway. If it’s anything like the draft, then I see no real problem.
Susan,
How right you are. I am desperate to rescue my country from this nightmare.
Of course you don’t ‘see a problem’. People like you never see any problems in your grand schemes. Some of us know better and refuse to be taken in.
“People like you never see any problems in your grand schemes” – OK David, I’ll admit it. I really am trying to take over the world. And I’ve sent out a contingent of the EU secret police to track you down…
Susan seems a practised hand at selectively quoting from EU documentation.
The problem I, and no doubt others, have with this sort of argument is that we have been lied to so many times by EU employees and advocates of the superstate that we no longer believe bland assurances that ‘these proposals are only drafts’.
We no longer believe you.
“we have been lied to so many times by EU employees and advocates of the superstate that we no longer believe bland assurances that ‘these proposals are only drafts’.”
In that case, you’ll have loads of sympathy with all of us Euro weasels who, having seen the US government lie about it’s foreign policy intentions time & time again, and supported vicious dictators in the name of ‘freedom’, couldn’t quite believe the arguments in favour of the war on Iraq.
Cool!
Ok. I’m a little afraid to jump into the fray here – but I have just one question. What is the point of the European Union? I don’t mean that in a snarky or sarcastic way – I mean just what I said. What is the purpose of it and why is it better than the systems you have now and how will it make the lives of people better? Reading through the previous posts I can’t seem to get a handle on what the European Union really is. Sorry to be such a simpleton….What is it exactly?
Thanks to G Cooper for a heroic tour de force. And Cydonia for a cool, witty putdown. And David Carr. Susan, sweetie, the word federast was first used to shock the apathetic into thought. Perhaps you don’t read widely enough. Perhaps this word isn’t in common usage among any of the warring ethnics of Africa whose politics you espouse with such curious vigour. But, in Britain, it is now in common usage and has thus lost some of its shock value, although not, I note, to preachy know-it-alls such as, well, yourself, for example. I’ll make a bet with you: I’ll bet Tony Blair would shrink from this word in prissy distaste. Anything Tony Blair would shrink from works for me. Federast. Neat.
Thanks again to G Cooper and David Carr for such a cool and able defence.
“Anything Tony Blair would shrink from works for me”
rape? murder? paedophilia? You down with all those then, i take it.
What a stupid macho attitude.. “hey, look at me, i’m tougher than blair”. well done.
As for “federast” being in common usage in the UK, where? The sole place i’ve come across it is this website… & no, i’m not a hermit who never converses with anyone, just in case you were wondering!
Liberty Belle,
I was particularly tickled by Susan’s use of the old EU four-step denial process (they must have a college for teaching this)
1. Your claims are not true
2. Okay they are true but you’re exaggerating
3. Okay you’re not exaggerating but it is only a draft proposal so no need to get hysterical.
4. Okay get hysterical, but it won’t make any difference anyway.
David Carr writes:
“I was particularly tickled by Susan’s use of the old EU four-step denial process (they must have a college for teaching this)”
Either that or they brief their employees very uniformly… I always wonder when incredibly well-informed newcomers arrive to discuss a single issue, armed with facts. In my experience, they are usually more involved in the subject under discussion than ordinary members of the public.
It was noticeable how many ‘new posters’ just ‘happened’ to find the BBC’s discussion boards prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was, I am convinced, an orchestrated campaign by professional lobbyists.
G Cooper
I suspect you are right. ‘Susan’ was well-versed in the ‘denial’ technique. Even if proposals are clearly worded, she insists that I am ‘misreading’ them.
My interpretation of draft article 46 is exactly right.
These people are the most squalid of propogandists.
David Carr writes:
“These people are the most squalid of propogandists.”
Indeed they are. There is an added dimension to this, though, which I find particularly disturbing.
Could it *really* be that the EU is so insecure it needs to spend the money it steals from Europeans to push its point of view and image even down to the level of a humble blog?
Well, one thing is for sure, its propaganda arm is busily plastering its logo all over the country – from placards on the seafront telling you about the wildlife, to busily writing letters to the press complaining about anti-EU stories.
Joe Goebells couldn’t have taught much to this pack of hounds, could he?
Liberty Belle writes:
“Thanks again to G Cooper and David Carr for such a cool and able defence.”
Thanks, Ma’am.. it’s a rotten job, but someone has to do it.
The good news is that I hear there’s a chance of promotion. The next step up the ladder from wrestling with pro-EU types is cleaning sewers with your bare hands.
So that’s something to look forward to.
Shit. If unions were so patriotic then why don’t they make joining them compulsory?