The EU debate

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

The bit that worries me, is the assertion by the "Pros" that if we stay in we can change things from within. It does appear that is nigh on impossible to change anything (no matter how ridiculous, wasteful or even corrupt) due to the veto. It appears that just one vested interest can block any change and nothing can be done about it, despite the majority wanting it.

Your position as stated above appears to not appreciate the value of having influence at formative stages of policy and decision making, and focuses entirely on the ability to effect wholesale change. Again, you're wilfully ignoring the bigger picture.

Leaving would leave us subject to much of the EU's say-so to continue trade with them, and would not gain us this power of change over the EU or our dealings with them that you seem to advocate. On the other hand, staying allows us to help shape the EU's future, even if there are sticking points over its past. Sticking points that you over state the importance of.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

Your position as stated above appears to not appreciate the value of having influence at formative stages of policy and decision making, and focuses entirely on the ability to effect wholesale change. Again, you're wilfully ignoring the bigger picture.

Leaving would leave us subject to much of the EU's say-so to continue trade with them, and would not gain us this power of change over the EU or our dealings with them that you seem to advocate. On the other hand, staying allows us to help shape the EU's future, even if there are sticking points over its past. Sticking points that you over state the importance of.[/QUOTE
That is the bit I find hard to believe.

I am not obsessed with the yo-yo thing. It just seems to sum up a flawed (slightly Kafkaesque) system.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

The bit that worries me, is the assertion by the "Pros" that if we stay in we can change things from within. It does appear that is nigh on impossible to change anything (no matter how ridiculous, wasteful or even corrupt) due to the veto. It appears that just one vested interest can block any change and nothing can be done about it, despite the majority wanting it.

There are areas of EU Law subject to the veto, areas which are the purview of the European Parliament and areas which are subject to 'Qualified Majority Voting'.

The veto remains in place and will remain in place for the foreseeable for the following:

Certain policy fields remain subject to unanimity in whole or in part, such as:

• membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
  • change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[24]
• taxation;
• the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);
• harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
• certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);
• the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;
• the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;
• the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
• citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);
• certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

Many of those vetoes have been insisted on by successive British Governments.

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

That is the bit I find hard to believe.

That's more about you than the EU.

Bantex wrote: »

I am not obsessed with the yo-yo thing. It just seems to sum up a flawed (slightly Kafkaesque) system.

If you are unable to perceive it as anything but representative then you are obsessing over it.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

That's more about you than the EU.



If you are unable to perceive it as anything but representative then you are obsessing over it.

Do you believe that change within the EU can be done quickly and efficiently if required to keep up with changing markets, etc?

GeorgeHowell

Despite the huff and puff and the thinly veiled personal political attacks from the Europhiles, I have yet to see on this board, or more importantly anywhere else, a convincing argument that the UK would be worse off with Norway/Switzerland type status than as a member of the EU. To say that we would have to take whatever they throw at us with no say in it is an insult to the intelligence -- does anyone really believe that the canny and successful Swiss and Norwegians would accept such a disadvantageous state of affairs ? The Europhiles are terrified of this reality becoming commonly accepted by the UK population because it sweeps away their last, albeit non-credible, scare story in the attempt to brainwash the British that there is no viable alternative to EU membership.

And of course outside of the EU we could with impunity decide how we want to handle criminal justice and human rights affairs ourselves, for right or wrong, and not be subjected to the politically motivated whims of Strasbourg, so beloved of the Left.