Why are the British so anti Europe?

gallag

Scofflaw, I notice posts like this full of wild statistics seem to pass without scrutiny, is it just a case of people arguing from a non pro EU perspective that need citation?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let's get a little bit realistic. Nobody is suggesting that, if the UK leaves the EU, the EU will attempt to ban EU-produced goods from being sold to Britain. The issue is UK-produced good and services; they will no longer have free access, as a matter of right, to EU markets, as they currently do.

Yes, WTO rules will still apply, but currently UK producers enjoy access to other EU countries on considerably more advantageous terms than the WTO requires. Should Britain choose to rely simply on its WTO rights, it will enjoy the same right of access to EU markets as, say, the US or India. That is significantly less advantageous than the current terns.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

There's no doubt that (a) the EU will want more favourable access than the WTO would entitle them to, and (b) that they can get it. But there is equally no doubt that they won't get it on the terms they now have it as EU members. Most likely the best deal they can get will be as EEA members.

The thing is, is this what the UK (or the proponents of UK withdrawal) want? In particular, if you're of the Daily Mail school of euroscepticism, EEA membership is a really bad deal - fully subject to, and bound by, all the "straight banana" EU regulations that the Daily Mail imagines to abound, but practically no right to influence the making or content of those regulations. Plus, still subject to an obligtation to make financial contributions to the Eu budget. If your object in withdrawing from the EU is avoid all that, then you don't want EEA membership either. That leaves you relying on your WTO rights, plus whatever extra you can negotiate with the EU, in a situation where the EU has a much stronger bargaining position than the UK does.

I'm not saying that this could never be in the interests of the UK. I'm saying that there are real risks for, and costs to, the UK in withdrawing from the EU, and pointing that out is not a "threat".

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Scofflaw, I notice posts like this full of wild statistics seem to pass without scrutiny, is it just a case of people arguing from a non pro EU perspective that need citation?

No, the rule applies to any claim of fact which is challenged - you have to be able to back it up or drop it.

The poster was challenged on the single statistical claim in the post you quote - that trade with the EU was more than half of the UK's external trade - and withdrew the claim when it was pointed out that it was 48%, which is not more than half. Boroso, on the other hand, will neither defend/source his 14% claims, nor admit an inability to do, nor drop them.

Obviously as a poster I'm more likely to be challenging the claims of those I disagree with, but as a mod I'm happy to back facts either way. You do need to actually report a situation where it becomes an issue - and there it may be worth you noting that the post you cite as "full of wild statistics" contains only one statistic, which is off by a couple of percent - because I don't otherwise intervene, since the number of made-up statistics is potentially infinite, and if nobody on either side of the discussion cares, then I'm not going to try to force them to.

In this case, your 'side' is benefiting from extra leniency because I'm doing the challenging, which obviously makes my modly intervention less acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

SpaceTime wrote: »

The biggest issue I see is the commission. Each commissioner should be elected rather than just appointed by member state governments.

But the whole point of the commission is that it be independent of national interests?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think in Ireland we are a hell of a lot more realistic about what actually happened. The blame's firmly and squarely on the administration at the time the lack of regulation and the speculators and bankers.

I can’t help but notice the electorate are absent from that list?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I would actually also add with regard to the UK. It had possibly the biggest incident of social unrest in modern history - the London Riots and from what I've seen there is absolutely no analysis of why that happened going on.
It's just being put down to 'oh a bunch of roughians of some sort'.

I might have more sympathy for an alternative explanation if looters were grabbing bread and milk from Sainsbury’s rather than trainers from JD Sports, but that's a discussion for another thread.

SpaceTime

djpbarry wrote: »

But the whole point of the commission is that it be independent of national interests?
I can’t help but notice the electorate are absent from that list?
I might have more sympathy for an alternative explanation if looters were grabbing bread and milk from Sainsbury’s rather than trainers from JD Sports, but that's a discussion for another thread.

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Perhaps have mixed member voting where you vote for some candidates on a pan-EU level and others on a national level. There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

As it stands because they're government appointees, they've even greater split loyalties.

...

On your second point. The electorate made an analysis of the situation and basically fired FF.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting they should do? FF delivered popular policies that were successful looking to most people at the time. When we figured it was a house of cards, they got deservedly punished by the electorate.

...
On your third point, I'm just pointing out that there are some rather serious simmering problems in the UK. A lot of it is about perceptions of fairness and lack of opportunity. The Tories have a history of focusing on everything except those kinds of problems.

oscarBravo

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

There could, but is that inherently and indisputably a good idea?

There seems to be a widespread belief that "more democratic" and "better" are synonymous, but I've yet to see a convincing argument that that's the case. In fact, it's easy to see that it's absolutely not the case: a completely democratic society would require that no government ever made any decisions without the express consent of the people. That's obviously not workable, which means that we accept the need to balance democracy with other considerations.

The EU achieves this balance by having one of its institutions consist of democratically elected MEPs who represent the interests of their electorates; another consists of democratically elected ministers who represent the interests of the member states; and then you have the appointed commissioners, who represent the interests of the union as a whole, who have to be approved by the elected parliament, and who operate on instruction from the council.

I keep hearing that this balance is all wrong, and that it's important that the commission be elected by the people because something something democracy, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing to put the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner in a position where he has to consider the wishes of the Finnish electorate ahead of the best interests of the Union as a whole.

djpbarry

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Well, the commission does have to be approved by the parliament?

SpaceTime wrote: »

There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

I’m not convinced that the commission should be more accountable to voters. Commissioners are already appointed by the elected representatives of each member state and, as mentioned above, the commission must be approved by the parliament. That already allows for significant influence of national interest over union interest.

SpaceTime wrote: »

On your second point. The electorate made an analysis of the situation and basically fired FF.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting they should do? FF delivered popular policies that were successful looking to most people at the time. When we figured it was a house of cards, they got deservedly punished by the electorate.

The house of cards should have been clearly visible to anyone who was prepared to look long before 2011. Hence Bertie’s notorious comment just after the 2007 general election, in which he suggested those questioning the fundamentals of Ireland’s economy should commit suicide. The warning signs were there, but nobody wanted to know, so long as the price of their house kept going up, taxes remained low and welfare remained high.

SpaceTime wrote: »

On your third point, I'm just pointing out that there are some rather serious simmering problems in the UK.

Not disputing that at all, but probably OT for this thread.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

The commission is supposed to represent the union's interests but there could be a much more directly democratic way of appointing them.

Perhaps have mixed member voting where you vote for some candidates on a pan-EU level and others on a national level. There are lots of ways the commission could be more accountable to r voters.

As it stands because they're government appointees, they've even greater split loyalties.

They're required not to take any instructions from national governments, and to act in the best interests of Europe. Originally, everyone was pretty sure they couldn't really do that, so the Member States hung onto the 'national' commissioners (or two, in the case of the larger states). In fact, they have proven to be impartial (although not necessarily unideological), which is why the national governments were willing to ditch the idea of a Commissioner each at Lisbon. The Irish electorate, on the other hand, wasn't convinced.

As to electing them - I would oppose that, because I think it really would be impossible for an elected Commissioner to act in the European interest. My reasoning goes like this:

1. elections are competitive - otherwise they're not elections

2. candidates campaign on the basis of what they'll do in office

3. in general, candidates appeal to a particular section or sections of the electorate

It seems to me that that would necessarily give us Commissioners who had put together programmes that favoured particular sectoral or national interests within Europe, rather than considering Europe overall, and who were committed in office to implementing those programmes. I can't see how that's a good thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

McDave wrote: »

If Norway didn't have North Sea oil, they'd very likely be in the EU.

Switzerland is a different matter. It has ploughed a particular furrow throughout its existence, but one not many others would be able to do without ultimately beggaring each other and their neighbours. Indeed, Switzerland's special status may be coming to an end.

As for Nice 2 and Lisbon 2, those were initiatives taken by Irish governments after appallingly complacent initial campaigns. The electorates endorsed both referenda both times, and resoundingly so in Lisbon 2. No Sir, the EU didn't made us done it!

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no. We did this too but we were pressurized into voting again. You can say what you like, if our vote was respected it would not have been necessary to have double referendum votes.

You have given no basis for the rubbish argument of "a different matter" in the case of Switzerland coming to an end.

And Iceland? Oh yeah...if they didn't have the balls to stand up to the bankers...they'd be in the EU too.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no. We did this too but we were pressurized into voting again. You can say what you like, if our vote was respected it would not have been necessary to have double referendum votes.

The reverse, actually. If our vote wasn't respected there'd be no need to hold a second referendum, they'd just go ahead anyway.

What you mean is that you'd like the first result set in stone because that was the result you liked.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

sin_city wrote: »

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no.

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?

Ooh, ooh, wait, I know this one - our leaders are spineless yes-men, amirite? They all want EU positions (even though there's approximately one, maybe two, on offer every five years or so, and they always go to people who everyone else wants to get rid of, perhaps because they're comparatively worse paid than national positions).

Norwegian politicians, on the other hand, like Icelandic ones, are clear-eyed and manly, even the women. They fearlessly stand up to the EU by implementing all the EU legislation that's required of them without getting to vote on it first.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus

djpbarry wrote: »

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?

Norway has voted twice on the issue. They weren't "forced" to by the EU; in each case the referendum was promoted by the Norwegian government, with the endorsement of the Norwegian parliament. (Bit like Ireland, come to think of it.)

Iceland has never voted on the subject. Iceland has applied for EU membership, on the strength of an affirmative vote in the Icelandic parliament. Currently, accession negotiations are suspended (by the Icelanders; the EU wants to continue them). The current Iceland government has said that it will not pursue negotiations unless there is first of all a referendum in favour of doing so, but in fact under Icelandic law the authority to pursue negotiations rests with parliament, not with the government, and there can be no referendum (on any topic) without parliamentary approval. The result is a dispute within Iceland over whether EU accession should be subject to parliamentary approval (the position, unsurprisingly, of the parliament) or to approval in a referendum (the position of the government). It's entirely possible that the Icelanders will determine the question of EU membership, one way or the other, without any referendum.

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reverse, actually. If our vote wasn't respected there'd be no need to hold a second referendum, they'd just go ahead anyway.

What you mean is that you'd like the first result set in stone because that was the result you liked.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

Peregrinus

sin_city wrote: »

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

You miss the point. It's the Irish authorities who decide whether to have referendums, and whether to have them again if they consider the first result to be not in the national interest. We've had two referendums on a number of issues - the single transferrable vote, divorce, the Treaty of Nice, the Treaty of Lisbon. And of course we've had several referendums on abortion - by my count, five, including two on the specific question of the risk of suicide as a ground for abortion.

In every case it's an Irish government decision, ratified by the Oireachtas, to hold a referendum; nobody forces us to.

(And, if you stick to the principal that "you don't vote twice until you get the result you want", we'd still have a constitutional prohibition on divorce in Ireland. Is that really the outcome you want?)

sin_city

Just out of interest....how much time was between the non EU related referenda in comparison to the EU related ones?

When I saw more than once, what I really mean is more than one in a single year or less.

Do you see the difference and the implied pressure coming from outside the country?

If not, then yes...Everything in life is black and white

Peregrinus

Yes, where the issue is EU related, a second referendum tends to follow fairly soon after the first; about sixteen months after, in the case of the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

But that doesn't mean improper pressure is being applied externally. The EU is a co-operative venture between 27 states; when they've made a decision that they want to do something in which, because of our own domestic law, we have to endorse by referendum if we are to participate, then they're not going to hang around for ever waiting for us to organise repeated referendums. If we are to do this, we have to do it with them, and they are ready to do it now.

Does that put us under pressure? Yes. Is it an improper pressure? No. If you're invited to party this Friday, you can't say that you don't want to decide about accepting until next November, and you're being put under improper pressure.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

The second vote was different from the first vote. Therefore, the Irish public had changed its mind after the first vote. Why do you want that to be discounted? On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Peregrinus wrote: »

Norway has voted twice on the issue.

Sure, but the referenda were over 20 years apart, so that probably doesn’t fit into sin_city’s narrative of the EU forcing repeat votes.

SpaceTime

We did get some protocols and reassurances though. So it was sort of a negotiation with the electorate.

Nothing was stopping us just voting No twice.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

We did get some protocols and reassurances though. So it was sort of a negotiation with the electorate.

Nothing was stopping us just voting No twice.

That's the essential point. The government is free to ask the same question, and the electorate is free to return the same answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

Well, yes. The government wanted to ratify the treaty, otherwise it wouldn't have called a referendum in the first place.

SpaceTime

We did extract some concessions though.

In effect we actually forced lofty commissioners to actually negotiate with the electorate.

That's no bad thing really is it?

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

As oscarBravo says, the government wanted to ratify the Treaty, which is why it held the second referendum. If the Irish public hadn't changed its mind, then they still couldn't have ratified the Treaty, and I doubt they'd have run a third referendum.

Both referendums were held in the knowledge that the government would ratify once it got a Yes. That was the point - it's not as if the public were being asked only for their opinion, they were being asked for permission, and the public having given it, the government used that permission to do what they wanted to do.

As such, a third referendum would be constitutional nonsense, because referendums provide legally binding outcomes on which the executive can (and will) act - they're not opinion polls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

We did extract some concessions though.

In effect we actually forced lofty commissioners to actually negotiate with the electorate.

That's no bad thing really is it?

Well....first, it's not the Commissioners, but the other Member States, because the Commission doesn't negotiate the EU Treaties. Hence our concessions coming in the form of a Council resolution.

Second, most of the concessions were just statements that the Treaty didn't do things that it didn't do, but which the No side claimed it would. The No side then rubbished the concessions as empty, which tells you that they either knew their claims were false, or didn't care whether they were or not.

The one functional concession we got, keeping 1 Commissioner per country for the moment, is actually a surprisingly large and meaningful one - it makes the Commission and the EU less efficient by requiring responsibilities to be divided up between 28 people, so the meaning isn't positive as such, but still, it's quite a big concession.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

A few commissioners did turn up during the last referendum though!

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the essential point. The government is free to ask the same question, and the electorate is free to return the same answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I cannot believe you are so blind.

The electorate's response would be fine for the government with the pressure coming from Brussels, as long as it was a YES.

That is total lack of respect for our initial vote.

Dumb Irish, they got it wrong.....Let's run it again Paddy.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

I cannot believe you are so blind.

The electorate's response would be fine for the government with the pressure coming from Brussels, as long as it was a YES.

That is total lack of respect for our initial vote.

Dumb Irish, they got it wrong.....Let's run it again Paddy.

I don't think this word 'respect' means what you think it means. Or possibly you're hazy on the concept of democracy. Let me put it to you again:

The second result was different from the first result. Therefore, the Irish public had changed its mind after the first vote. The government didn't overturn the vote. The EU didn't overturn the vote. No shadowy cabal overturned the vote. The Irish public overturned its own vote. Why do you want that to be discounted? On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

None, I would have liked to see the Treaty have another vote within the 3 to 4 month period of the prior. Then I think accepting 2 Yes votes would be more acceptable.

I'd like to see a referendum on membership of the EU for all EU members on a yearly basis.

Back on topic, when are the British getting their vote?

Hopefully this federal super state idea can go away and we can concentrate on trade treaties with individual countries and not limit ourselves to debt ridden Europe.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

None, I would have liked to see the Treaty have another vote within the 3 to 4 month period of the prior. Then I think accepting 2 Yes votes would be more acceptable.

Which misses the point of a referendum by treating it as some kind of opinion poll. Referendums produce legally meaningful outcomes.

sin_city wrote: »

I'd like to see a referendum on membership of the EU for all EU members on a yearly basis.

I suspect you will be perpetually disappointed there. Such referendums would rapidly dwindle to a see-saw between the committed pro and anti voters and nobody else.

sin_city wrote: »

Back on topic, when are the British getting their vote?

2017 if it happens.

sin_city wrote: »

Hopefully this federal super state idea can go away and we can concentrate on trade treaties with individual countries and not limit ourselves to debt ridden Europe.

Because we'd get so much better a deal as a tiny market of 4.25m people than as part of a market of 500m? Mm, no.

cordially,
Scofflaw