Europe Should Be About Trade and Trade Alone

My opinion has long been that Europe is good for trade and trade alone. We don't need any of their stupid laws. If they come up with any regulations that are actually good (and they do every now and again) then we can adopt those same regulations ourselves. And hay there's nothing like having all the work done for you.

The thing that is both wrong (and too many frightening) about Europe is their social programme or ideology. Things like the European Human rights acts which have made the law industry richer (but not really anybody else including the government) should have only been adopted where it suits us. Same goes for almost anything else social or political they do. The only time it is desirable to have everyone obeying the same rules, and singing from the same song sheet is trade. The EU concepts can be good for many people, but the fact is where they have failed most is where they have been most ideological.
Because EU ideology is all to do with centralisation and collectivisation, EU concepts can never be good for democracy or politics in general. Fact is democracy relies on conditions of diversity and devolution.

If the EU wants to become both popular and a force for good then it must become the “ETU” (European Trade Union). I even agree with them on environmental quality control regulations that go into producing our goods; why should one country be able to pollute the environment more in order to gain a commercial advantage over another? But I should oppose all things constitutional even if I should rot in hell doing so.

What Do You Make of My Point of View?


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the names of the six founding members of the European Union in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.


[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

A 'trade only' association was tried and failed.

Look up 'EFTA' for the details.

.......and just why the hell should the EU (or any other such union) be solely about commerce and satisfying the demands of big business anyway?

(.....and just to be clear, you are entirely mistaken about the ECHR (the European Convention on Human Rights), it, like the Council of Europe, is an entirely different matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

In fairness this type of criticism, which appears to rest on little more than a barely understood anything with a 'Euro' tag will do, is fairly widespread and typical of the anti-EU 'side'.

I'd love to hear just why the British people's rights should be inferior to those of our nearest neighbours, eh?
Who in their right mind would seriously want to repeal the single largest expansion of British rights in a generation if not 2 or 3?

You might also care to explain how sovereign nation states, democratic agreement, 'opt outs', 'subsidiarity' and 'derogation' fit in with this concept you have of a domineering EU "ideology", "centralisation and collectivisation"......although 'collectivisation' is surely a weird 'fit' in this idea, hmmm?)

I'd also be interested in hearing how British 'euro-sceptics' intend for alter the outlook of the 24 (soon to be 26) other members of the EU?



[edit on 3-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

The trade only association "failed" how did it fail? I had no idea it failed, in fact I think its still quite a success. Really Sminkeypinky I think your on very doggy ground when you pretend it failed.
Because what really happened was that it was expanded from a trade only association into a political one. There may be reasons why it changed (mostly ideological being a political expansion) but I don't see how expansion means failure. I mean do you? Did my house fail because I needed to extend it? Sort of maybe, but I don't think so because otherwise I might have demolished it.

The problem with EU political rule is very simple: We have 22 members and climbing. Therefore in a general vote any one member country has less than 5% direct democratic representation (that's if its fair).
Now I know there are lots of problems with Post Pass The Post; but I would like to think it gives me more than 5% direct representation.

I do agree that the European Union has the right to quality control for European goods. And that quality control may have as much to do with how goods are produced as their environmental consequences. This after all is probably the only way of levelling the "competition playing field" as so to speak.

As for Human Rights Act this is how Britain’s biggest selling paper has received it...
www.thesun.co.uk...

Now ok you would expect that being quite a right wing tabloid paper. And I agree with you that there are many, many good aspects about the European Human Rights Act. In fact in some ways it has been a sort of updated Magna Charta.

The trouble is that parliament has never been able to pick and choose the pieces it wanted. Now people like you might say "had Britain had a 100% choice over what went into it rather a 5% one; then many of the "good aspects" would never have been adopted.
Well maybe true; but at least it would be more democratic, and that is the only type of system i respect. And time elections come, the politicians have to answer to the people. If there's a problem with that then reform the voting system, maybe even the media ownership laws; but WHATEVER you do DON'T dilute our democracy by submitting to things that both our people and their representatives may not wish for.
Government hadn’t followed my opinion on that one, and now a sizable section of the public is prepared to chuck maybe the whole bill into the bin, rather than the bits they don't like. And if that's the best way to get rid of things they don't like, then as much as I disagree (I would rather pick and choose) I don't blame them for their opinion ether.

God willing one day Britain will opt out of European political control, and if that time comes our people’s direct democratic representation over the issues that concern them will be more 5%. And if Europe does do anything worth having; (like an extension to civil liberties) then our politicians will be free to “pick and choose” saying “it works in Europe so why not here?” Would they be doing this more fairly and more democratically both from the opposition benches and or the seats of power?

Originally posted by Liberal1984

The trade only association "failed" how did it fail? I had no idea it failed, in fact I think its still quite a success.

- Lib, you wanted to discuss a European trade only association.
There was one, post war.
The UK was a member of it.
It was called EFTA.

The UK's membership of it did nothing to halt the serious and sharp decline in British trade post war (which was the reason for the UK being so desperate for joining the EEC/EU throughout the late 1950's and into the whole of the 1960's).

Therefore from the British point of view it failed, and failed us utterly.

'We' then left and joined, quite literally, as quickly as we could, the EEC/EU.

Really Sminkeypinky I think your on very doggy ground when you pretend it failed. Because what really happened was that it was expanded from a trade only association into a political one.

- Er, no.
There is no "pretence" and the dodgy ground is all yours.

You could have looked into the history EFTA - as well as the whole story of Briton's trading position post war following the loss of Empire and why it was that the UK ended up so desperate to join the EEC/EU - but it would appear you have not or can't be bothered.

You seem to be under the mistaken notion that EFTA somehow changed into and became the EEC/EU.
It did not.
They are/were quite different 'bodies'.

Long after the UK left it EFTA morphed into a position where today it equates to little more than an associate membership of the EEC/EU (ie having no say whatsoever in the EU's decision making processes but having to follow each decision if they want to continue to trade) - not exactly the "quite a success" you have claimed and it most certainy did not become the "political" association as you have claimed.

As for the rest?

If you want to go off on your usual scatter gun series of complaint about several dozen other unconnected items then that's up to you.
But it is obvious that you know little or nothing about the UK's post war trading circumstances, why the 'Commonwealth' was no longer sufficient to sustain British trade, the urgent reasons for the UK's joining these unions/associations/communities in the first place nor why we left EFTA and subsequently joined and have stuck with the EEC/EU.

BTW perhaps you don't know this either but the fundamental problem the UK has with the ECHR (not actually a piece of EU legislation at all) is that - as usual with most if not all things to do with 'Europe' - 'we' were so late with it, in this case late in incorporating it into British law.

Had the UK adopted it long ago - which as a founding member, designer and author of the 'European Convention' we could and ought to have done (the UK was one of the first to ratify the convention, we simply dragged our heels about incorporating it into British law) - the teething problems would have been over and done with long ago and so much more of our law woul be 'in step' with it.

But anyhoo, I doubt you are really that interested in the true history of what happened and why and will continue to prefer instead to make general and vague complaints about the UK's position within the EU and concentrate only on the the problems that sometimes come with the concept of 'pooled sovereignty' (despite all members being a minority voice - with full voting rights - within it).

....and if you are really going to quote our trashiest tabloid Murdock's 'The Sun' on a subject as deep and complex as the ECHR then be prepared to have that 'source' treated as somewhat less than serious.
I'm not intending to be condescending about this but citing a Sun article is about as serious as referring to an article by Homer Simpson on the merits or difficulties of, say, 'Habeas corpus' in the era of the legal entity that are our modern corporations?!

Anyhoo, OK, have it your way.

It's all a plot, the other 24 countries have all gotten together ganged up and they are all out to get you......as well as those in all parties and in all positions of power and influence in the UK apparantly 'selling you out'.
Land of hope and glory!

Boo.

There, feel vindicated & happy now?





PS anytime you care to feel free to let us all know just why you think that the benefits of European cooperation, common standards and values should be restricted to apply to (big) business, (big) money and cross-border commerce alone?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I guess I'll throw my opinion into the ring…

I was a euro-sceptic and I still am a euro-sceptic, but not a euro-sceptic in the sense I'll support a political party of political outcasts with a horrid colour scheme You know who I’m talking about

I think the EU can be a force for good, but I think it is going to be in need of change if it wants to both survive successfully and adapt to the changing and expanding world.

Bringing in more European countries is a essential thing is my opinion, there needs to be fresh blood and ideas along with a greater distribution of the powers from the main original countries to the union at large. I personally would love to see Norway join, though they are more euro-sceptic than Britain, but I think that sceptic quality would bring a lot to the EU.

The agricultural policy is a prime example of the type of change the EU needs to under go.
Simply paying farmers to produce mass quantities of food goods to flood the market is in simple truth morally unjustified and bad for Europe at large.
Farmers in Africa can't make an even basic living because European food goods flood their market at lower prices forcing the farmers in Africa to go into more debt or simply pack it in.
European farmers should be paid to maintain lands and produce local specialised foods that gives Europe the wondrously individual foods that we are famous for.
Fairer trade needs to be at the front of the European economic front, competitiveness and a freer market is the way forward, not mass agricultural state subsidy and trade barriers.

Basically the EU I envision is not that of a simple trade organisation, its gone past that stage whether people like it or not and there's no way of going back.
The EU I hope to see in the future is an expanded one with all the countries of Europe being members, a more streamlined EU with subsidy focused more on maintaining our rich and varied heritage rather than flooding foreign markets with cheap food goods.

A fairer, freer, more varied Europe.


[edit on 2-6-2006 by Prometheus James]

[quote

Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the names of the six founding members of the European Union in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.


[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

belgium, france, italy, luxembourg, netherlands, west germany

Majic's Political Easter Eggs

Originally posted by eaglewingz
belgium, france, italy, luxembourg, netherlands, west germany

Correct! 500 PTS Points to you!

With EU expansion to Eastern Europe it will create alot of new and unforeseen problems. Culture and attitudes in Eastern Europe are somewhat different, and if you noticed alot of places still wish to stick to their old political regimes (Belarus, Transdniester, to some extent Russia, and many factions in Ukraine and other countries). Eu is already acting very aggresively towards transdniester and Belarus, and in the future military action by EU is not to be dismissed either- which can create even more problems.

EU did already have a large say in the war in Yugoslavia. It didn't like Serbia's regime on its doorstep, and it was EU members that pushed for an illegal NATO attack on Serbia, and NATO was just too happy to oblige.

For its own good EU should stay as a trade organization only.

Originally posted by maloy
... Eu is already acting very aggresively towards transdniester and Belarus, and in the future military action by EU is not to be dismissed either- which can create even more problems.

This is ridiculous. In what way is the EU acting "aggressively"? Under which circumstances would there ever be a military action? The only scenarios where military action BY the EU is thinkable would be either an aggression by those eastern states, or a major civil war under which the EU would be obliged to take measures A. to prevent unnecessary death, and B. to protect its own stability.

Both scenarios require those unstable regions to make the first step towards hostilities, not the other way around.

For its own good EU should stay as a trade organization only.

How should the EU "stay" a trade organization when it has been a political-socio-economic organisation from the start?

Originally posted by Liberal1984
My opinion has long been that Europe is good for trade and trade alone. We don't need any of their stupid laws.

Yes, but we need the freedoms of the flow of people, cargos, services and money, and the Schengen Treaty.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
How should the EU "stay" a trade organization when it has been a political-socio-economic organisation from the start?

- You're looking at this the wrong way Lonstar24.

The question really is 'how can you continue to try and create this complete myth if you are not prepared to continually and deliberately ignore the actual facts and just pig-headedly keep on, knowingly or otherwise, repeating the lie that the EEC/EU was ever anything other than a political-socio-economic organisation'?