European Union; your thoughts please

[shaunbhoy]

Oooh, I think you'd find a few hundred thousand chavs returning from Spain and some junkies being chucked out of Holland.

That's fine. Reintroduce conscription for returning chavs/junkies and send them to Helmand as "mine detectors". Sorted!

[shaunbhoy]

Explain please.

Last time I looked Britain still had border controls. Whether they work is a different matter.

They DON'T. Since the date quoted.

[Mich the Tester]

They DON'T. Since the date quoted.

Ah, but leaving the EU won't prevent the great British public from electing a bunch of incompetent Labour dicksplats.

[shaunbhoy]

Ah, but leaving the EU won't prevent the great British public from electing a bunch of incompetent Labour dicksplats.

True,
but at least there will still be the possibility of unelecting them again once all the wheels fall off.

[Mich the Tester]

True,
but at least there will still be the possibility of unelecting them again once all the wheels fall off.

Isn't that what's supposed to be happening today?

[Lockhouse]

Do you think that a free trade zone covering all of western Europe is a bad idea? Or is it the political EU that you oppose?

Since when does Britain no longer control its own borders?

We can't stop people coming in from EU member states.

Trading is good by the way, as independent soveriegn states. Political and monetary union is a no-no.

[Rantor]

On balance out.

I've went from being very pro-eu to staunchly anti-eu and I've been getting increasingly frustrated by the fact that eurospecticism is seen as the preserve of the xenophobic eejits.

Britain has never engaged in the eu in the same way as most member states i.e. use it as a platform for furthering national interests. At a national level, most governments understand that this is what it should be used for. One of the major side-effects of this most countries pay lip service to enforcing regulations and have, when it was fashionable, gone along with concepts like federalism when they are not remotely interested in it. In Britain, they apply the rules and waste their time hand-wringing over concepts most others ignore. The net result is that we see it as a regulatory straitjacket but other countries see it as a way of getting ahead. Basically, we are wasting our time and there are other ways to ensure free trade.

The second point, is that the British concerns are largely valid. While there is zero appetite for federalism in most eu capitals, they end up drifting along with the eu-project which is not so much undemocratic, as antidemocratic. The piecemeal approach to eroding national sovereignty in a Europe has resulted in a gradual ceding of powers to supra-national bodies that most countries just don't care about because they are busy getting one over their neighbours with some project or initiative. Any attempt to discuss it is simply ignored and anybody that dares vote against it will be brought into line. It is one of the few areas where the tinfoil helmet brigade might have a point.

It is also a sham as Europe is still plagued by the same nationalistic and tribal feuding that has always existed - papering over the cracks is going to end badly and normal business will be resumed at some point.

In the long term, it is very wealthy area that is not capable of defending itself from external or internal threats and I can't really think of any historical precedent for a state/empire surviving solely on paying off their potential enemies.

[Mich the Tester]

We can't stop people coming in from EU member states.

Trading is good by the way, as independent soveriegn states. Political and monetary union is a no-no.

I agree with you on political union; that's too far for me. As for monetary union, I support a single currency for the frugal states of Northern Europe, which would not include UK.

No, you can't stop people coming in from EU member states unless they're a threat to security; you can, however, throw them out after 6 months if they have no means to support themselves. The free movement thing is about making sure people are free to ply their trade anywhere in Europe, and not about letting numpties cadge off the state in some part of Europe with more sunshine or more generous social security. If you have free trade for products, it makes sense to allow free trade for services, seeing as they make up most of Europe's economy, and to do that people need to be able to move around. I think on this front the rules are actually quite good, but badly implemented.

[OwlHoot]

Isn't that what's supposed to be happening today?

No.

90% of our laws are now dictated by Brussels, and all three main UK parties are fanatical Eurofiliacs, however they try to disguise it (especially the Lib Dems).

So there's very little point in bothering to vote at all in the UK elections today.

[Mich the Tester]

No.

90% of our laws are now dictated by Brussels, and all three main UK parties are fanatical Eurofiliacs, however they try to disguise it (especially the Lib Dems).

So there's very little point in bothering to vote at all in the UK elections today.

I've heard different percentages from all sorts of people, but just saying '90% of laws' means nothing if those laws have little effect on people's lives or there is no priority given to applying them. You could have 1% of laws coming from Europe, but if that 1% is really objectionable then it creates a bigger problem.

Which laws do you see as particularly problematic?

Isn't it a case of the British government applying EU laws in a holier than thou fashion where other countries pick and choose?