Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I was watching an article on BBC news this morning stating that Euro Skeptics across the new states and UK had been very successful. I was wondering if anone more informed on european politics understands what ramifications this will have?

I personally fall into the euro skeptic category. I feel full integration is not beneficial to us an some of the rules that are passed down from the EU are pretty silly. I would prefer it if instead of 1 policy across europe we had individual laws which are focussed on what a nation requires. I think the lack of flexibiliy in policy is a major failing. I also think the duplication of MEP/MP's is a serious waste of cash.

I would prefer ministers to meet at a higher level and for them to form agreements relevant for todays society like how to deal with trade and security of the nations than raising irelevant laws with little bearing on the masses (such as what is chocolate and what isn't).

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Your keyboard is rubbish :/

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I know :(

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

this wont have much influence, because the parlament has nothing to say anyway.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Hopefully it will make the European Comission realise that for the EU to work elected bodies need a bigger say in what happens so that the people of the EU feel like they are being heard.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I hope that the success of the UKIP makes the Conservative Party realise that to get into power it needs to be slightly more Eurosceptic (not entirely Eurosceptic in the "fix engines to Norfolk and Suffolk and sail us towards the US" manner of the UKIP, but more than simply refusing to allow further expansions of the EU's power, when it needs to have some power taken away from it).

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

A bit sad i feel, that we are so afraid of our neighbours.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

i think kilroy is a racist and a bigot and should have stood for the BNP with all the other nutters

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I don't think fear has anything to do with it. More like arrogance.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I hope we're all glad that with a divided and weak Europe we've just prepared ourselves for another couple of US dominated politics. GG, con, ukip

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

actualy yu right if your willing to put up with a organisation which is mostly beyond reproach on issues.

The structure and the decisiosn made are often completely rubbish. Now standardising Refugee treatment I think woul be highly more suitable topi for them, but they seem way to cncerned with minor unimportant issues.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

That's one of the things that annoys me most about the EU: no one really wants integration because it will benefit Europe - they want it because they're annoyed that they're not superpowers and the US is. I'd prefer a US superpower guided by its European allies than two competing superpowers and all the international antagonism that they would cause.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

The idea of some of these 'silly laws' is to ensure further intergration to promote the various freedoms of the treaty which help to disentangle the various trade boundaries that exist, some via specific orders or by creating various European standards. Some of these laws are prob useful, while some seem quite petty.

What I believe we need is to maintain the EU as it is in terms as how far we have gone, while ensuring it's more accountable to it's citizens and member states, because right now it's pathetic. There is also, I agree, a great need for a lot of streamlining and cost cutting in the EU (such as the parliament sitting in 2 places costing £400M extra a month to move).

To be honest I don't see much advantage from leaving the EU, we simply need to more careful as to how we tread, not be in there causing trouble with a renegade group trying to withdraw, as for Britain to be listened to you need to be proactive in the EU. What we want is more power for the elected body in the EU, and that will prob only come about via a change in the treaty, not by the commission, as the commission swear loyalty to the EU. The commission seem more concerned with empowering themselves more than anything. The EU is clearly a good concept it just needs streamlining and made more efficient as it's not serving us as well as it could.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

While I semi agree about the standardisation - but surely Europe should be used as a tool to encourage free movement within europe and standardisation of law and policy on the most pressing issues first?

For me they seem to concentrate on issues of little importance or in the case of chocolate could hinder free movement of culturally acceptable products from member state to another?


I personally think the skeptics will add a new edge the proceedings.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

and why are decisions made in a 'completly rubbish' way? because people are too euro-sceptical (and unfortunatly, thats not only in uk, but in all countries) to truely give up souvereinity) sure some things are decided on the european level, but by the national goverments, not by an eu body. not even the commision can push anything through against the will of the national goverments (see that whole deficit rule joke that happened in the last years), not to talk about the parlament, which SHOULD have power, since it is the only democratic elected body in the whole organization.
and where did all that burocarcy madness come from? first from the fact that we stil dont trust each other. because of that we need to have rules about everything. and 2nd because we dont transfer power about any important issue to the eu they are stuck with setting up rules about the minor unimportant issues.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

They do it in a reactive ad hoc approach with what happens to fall in front of them at the time I believe cos they are overworked (or something)

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Whie soveeignty is one issue, the practicality of having totally standard laws is a something of a problem. Currently the fact that we have our wn political body who make laws passed based on our local needs is better for me. I would prefer to see my country adopt policies which are right fr me and the ethnical diversity of our populous.

I also think that the 2 tiered system just adds bureacracy which may not be suitable for a countries populous.

I woul hapil trus someone else from another country as long as i peceive the bdy to be effective and concentrating on issues of rea importance instead of wasting money on yet mre decision makers who are making small and irrelevant decisions.

While teeuropean parliament may well have made some good decisions, I feel any good wok done is lost as son as you have a badly publicised decision which makes them seem petty and irrelevant.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I am overwrked - i still concentrate n the areas of best benefit. Also public opinion should play a major role, not corporate lobbying.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

But there is free movement within Europe, these policies are being impletemented, streamlined, growth is being encouraged.
The fact that you are concentrating on this choclate thing that came up years ago is showing you up as having a very narrow focus on this matter.

The EU is working in the task it was set up for. To unify and help rebuild europe so we can never have another war between us and to make Europe a strong economy.
Sure its now a little too bloated and could stand to loose some red-tape but this is true of any organisation of this size and scope.
Rules and procedures needed to be formalised to enable proper working of the policies, they are laid out with the express intention of being bettered and improved upon in the future.

Euro skeptics are blind to the benefits and prosperity the EU has brought all the member nations and the unity it has provided. Of course there are squabbles about certain subjects however like any organization, these things are to be expected and worked through. Euro Skeptics make me sick to think their arrogant disregard for peace and unity colours their bigoted views on every good thing Europe has achieved in the past 60 years. The UKIP is a hideous bunch of bigots wishing for the days of empire at a time they weren't even born, when their wealth came from the suppression and subjugation of entire races.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

you should get a new keyboard.
the idea behind the european laws is that the eu only makes laws about things that are better decided on the european level than on the national level. some standards are part of that.
and again, the eu doesnt have much real power on matters that are really important. they can say something on some subjects, but in the end the natonal goverments can push through most of the things they want. the only sector where the eu can decide almost alone is the whole agricuture sector, but thats about 2% of the gdp.
personally i like the parlament. they seem to think more europen than the other eu-bodies. for example they tried to stop that software-patent madness, (which was a good thing to do, because there are not that many big software companies in euope who can profit form it)) but they failed because of lack of power.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Actually this all reminds me of Monty Python.

Cue "What have the Romans ever done for us!?" sketch from The Life Of Brian.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I know i should - and I will when I get paid cause you are right (I have avoided it for months now, but it is making posting a pain in the arse).

I agree that they don't have enough power to be effective, but why would you centralise something that seem to working ineffectively? I understand they can only work on issues which they are allowed to, but issus like what is champagne and wha is chocolate I would hardly see as a beneficial way of spending this countries contribution towards the UK. Urban regeneration Grants also seem to go to some strange projects.

If we were to go towards europe it should be done in a more complete way, however remembering that while states have some standard policies each state has differing rules and regulations for those that live locally.

I don't think european union in its presnt guise gives us much of anything except decent trade links. The Euro is probably going to take years to strengthen and why should it devalue and change our curent life standards?

I just think they are too laissez faire to be anything useful. UKIP may have some oddball MEP's but at least there policies about localised government for localised conditions i believe to be correct.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

OK if we have free movement of goods why is chocolate in one country no longer be allowed to be called chocolate cause of the fat content? Now if that product was exported it would no longer be chocolate or allowed to be classified as chocolate. Where is the free movement in that?

Just in the free movement of people and in many cases goods has gotten extremely good in other areas it hinders what a product can be called and be sold as, limiting its potential movement.

Yes chocolate is an old example, so is champagne, but I dont pretend to know all th new legislation being considered, but i am sure for every 1 of my examples there are 300 more pointless regulations coming from the EC directives.

EU for me has changed it role in recent years. It was to help stabilise and compete on trade terms with the other major trading countries. However, recently I would say that they are changing from that to full integration and becoming the next super power. Very little thought is put into what is locally needed for the tax payers.

I am a euro skeptic and I am well aware of the benefits a united europe for trading purposes will bring. However, at what cost are the benefits to the local governmenst and economies. Quite often in dictatorships and comunism the reliance is always on its fr the greater good, but in reality it does nothing but secure a better position for the few instead of the regional politics.

I do not deny I see benefit in a united europe, but not at any cost.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

most of these things make some sence in a hidden way. for example if you have the same standards all across europe its more easy to talk about things, because you can be sure everyone means the same thing.
unfortunatly it makes the eu sometimes look like a mixture between french centralism and german burocarcy (which is a bad thing) but to have standards and definitions isnt such a bad idea (although you must not take it to the extreme).
it always has to be that way. you cant centralize everything, but on some aspects its just more efficent than having local laws only.
the euro already is stronger than it was when it started (which obviously has its reasons in the us-trade deficit, but i dont want to go into details here). sooner or later youll have to join anyway, uk already lost lots of foreign investments because foreign companies wnat to avoid currency risks if possible)
and i belive it is one thing to have localized goverments and quite another to leave the eu alltogether.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

In particular, it's important to be clear about labelling. http://www.cec.org.uk/press/myths/myth17.htm

Having standards reduces costs.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Clear labelling happens in he uk - there are stringent guidelines on the way in which products are labelled. However in that instance it limits the market of what can be called chocolate (to the letter of the directive).

All it does is stifle what markets i could be offered too. Standardisation of chocolate products would seem like a small thing, but unfortunately has resulted in british confectionary being renamed to candy by many of its british competitors.

You have to understand perception is everything. take Austrailian shmapagne. Same techniques used to grow it and same grape, yet its not allowed to be called "champagne". Chocolate while not being done with te intent to rename, does clearly devalue the product and its marketability in other markets.

I dnt want to get carried away on either examples I have use as these were the two I remember off the top of my head. Its the principle in these issues as opposed t the issues.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

1) I agree mostly with what you say, but it should be guidance in many situations - not legislation.

2) I don't think you can centralise most things - again a lot of directives should be government guidance, not necessarily legislation.

3) The euro i stronger than it previously was, but unfortunately the integration of a currency is going to seriously effect UK economics. A lot f our stability comes from the strength of the current currency. take that away and our incomes will devalue which will effect the standard of living UK ppl have. If you consider that the currency is only at stage one. It is still relatively weak. Many things suc as the econmic stability of countries of high inflation countries will always disbalance the currency. Also look at the lack of regional harmony and the fact that the new memberstates will be required to join at som point and I can only see the euro weakening further.

I see a need for trading partners, but not for a centralised government at the minute. Too many regional differences and local issues means that the bigger the EU gets the less relevant it will becom to local issues and finances.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

if its not a rule or a law its not worth the paper it is written on. under some circumstances there will always be a few countries which do things slightly different, which ruins the whole point.
stablility doesnt mean that your currency has to have a high nominal value. or would you consider the yen as a weak currency? all that matters is the inlfation rate and atm the inflation rate in the euro-area is around 2% which is perfectly fine.
in fact the euro must not become any stronger or it will be bad for our exports to the rest of the world.
i dont think the euro will become as weak as it was a few years ago again, at least not in the near future. we have a trade surplus, the uk and the us a deficit, that means that their currencies should fall, while the euro rises.
there are things that are better decided centralised. think about foreign affairs or defence. with a centralized goverment the eu would become more important in the world. (how important would the opinion of a scotish mister of foreign affairs be?)

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Why do you want to be so "important"?

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

im german. :)

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Te point isn't about your example of Scotland, but what is th benefit of centralising and becoming "important" when it detracts from the decisions that need to b made for the betterment of regions.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

i dont understand that. why does taking some decisions on the european level mean that there can be no power on the regional level?
its not that difficult to set up a federal state.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

1) If its not a law its not worth the paper its printed on? I disagree completely. The UK has many self policing guidelines which work well. Its ver narow minded t say that the only way of enfrcing is with law. Amittedly law is a good enforcement tool, but limits flexibility.

2) Yur looking from a "we're in the euro position", I am looking from the position we have a stable ecnomy and a excellent curency - I see no reason why we would do something potentially destabilising. Joint curencies ave been tried before, but did not wor. Why will it work now? We are still essentially different economies.

3) Wy is i better for the EU to dictate to me and my fellow compatriots should feel? Why is it better my views are represented as part of europe? I see local politics as essential to the stability and formation of a solid EU. Yugoslavia was made up of independent countries and there groups could not be represented fairly. What on earth maks you think 20 countries or so can?

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Its not taht we wuld not have representation, but simpy we may not wish for something to occur which does. Centralisation on the scale f the EU will only ever cause greater problems locally which will be harder to sort out.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

No, it's not, but I think the problem (fear) most people have is that a lot of federal arrangements seem to involve a lot more power shifting to the centre than they would be comfortable with.

The United States is probably a lot more centralised in some areas than the constitutional framers would have initially hoped for (I imagine). People automatically assume if there are two levels of government then one is going to be superior.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

if the decisions taken are not enfored what are they worth? there is no gurantee for anyone that all memberstates implement them, which kind of beats the point of having them in the first place. you end up with a pretty much worth- and powerless organization like the un.

because not joining will probably also destabilise your economy? tell me, when was anything like this with an organization like the eu ever tried before? sure, that monetary union didnt work out, beut that was a diffrent approach, the system broke, because there still were diffrent currencies. thats not the case today

who the hell said that the eu should tell you what to feel? as i already said it doesnt make sence to take every decisions on the regional level, just as little as it makes sence to centrailize everything.
and to compare the eu to ex-yugoslavia must be a joke, right?

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

so if the people of your town think that some decision made in london wasnt that good, its automatically a good idea that your town becomes an independent state?
its not possible to reach 100% agreement on everything, but. still, if you have no binding rules you can aswell forget about the whole idea.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

yes, that may be true, but i really dont see that danger right for europe now or in the next, say, 50 years. the member states will agree to give that much power to a central goverment.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Let's hope this means there is going to be an epic five year long filibuster, thus denying the EU the chance to try and meddle in things they shouldn't.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

1) Very cynical attitude which infact is also hardly true. If you have the agreement of the partis concened (in the instance of chocolate the confectionary manufacturers), self policing is the most effective and cost effective route. Laws complicate what is already a complicated legal framework. The mre rules and reguations, th less flexibl a constitution gets - what happes when the market and the regions change? I bet the legislation wil not change as quick as it was implemented put it that way.

2) If the Euro will destabilise our economy why has the pound strengthened? Your argument lacks supprt here, where as the efect of lowering the value of a currency which makes us relatively rich compared to countries like italy is very real. I was ofcourse talking abut the EMU, and you right it was a different way f doing it, but ostensiblyit was the same thing.

We will see in ten years if it collapses again, but regional differences I think will show weaknesses yet again.

3) Centralised policy will always detrac frm individuals and a regions view. Its all based around well X don't like it but A,b,c do so we will go on the greater good phillosphy. The trouble is the geater good ofen causes internal upset. Centralised olicy making will never be acceptable when we all have different cultures and customs.

ANd i am not cmparing to ugslavia - just trying to show where forced integration failed.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

well dependson yur point of view. f course we have issues from town to town with national policy, buta t least we see those views fairly heard and represented. The more people that are involved in that process and the less time you have to debate local issues. The problem escalates to a bigger level.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I'm skeptical of euro skeptics. Skeptically speaking I'm in favour of devolving power down towards local council levels so people's prejudices will show through more often and we'll get rid of this phony "balancing" and "toleration".

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Why does this apply to Britain vs. Brussels, but not to Cornwall vs. London?

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

The greater area of the United Kingdom has been judged to be composed of exactly the same individual replicated approximately 60 million times and therefore possesses an entirely homogenous culture with no discernible differences on a meaningful social moral basis. On the other hand Frenchmen have been found to come from Venus.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I never said it doesnt appear with cornwall versus london. Now think of cornwall versus london and 20 other states having the same issues in each country (Marseille versus paris and Naples versus Rome etc). There are only 24 hurs in a day not all issues can be discussed.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Well in one sense the "culture" (not necessarily way of life) of Cornwall is more similar to London than it is to Brussels.

That's pretty obvious isn't it?

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

No, not to me. Though I haven't been to either so am not cultured etc. But Cornwall seems to have a pretty strong culture of its own with pixies and all that. And trades more with Europe than with the UK, or something.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

I think you're overestimating regional variation inside the UK vs variation between nations.

Even shared history and language aside is a pretty important factor.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

If Napoleon had conquered you all we'd be having this conversation in french lol.

Re: Eur Skeptics te new voice of Europe?
 

Language definitely, but it's often not a huge leap to go international if your company provides to more than a county or two, and you'll have to provide Welsh at some point just within the UK. The EU seems to translate all their documents and I'm sure that's some cost, but it's something that can be measured and evaluated. If it's more efficient to do some things in a single language then we can do that.

Historians often tell me about the importance of shared history but I'm not convinced. Surely WWII is the most important historical event?

I'd say economic relationships are the most important thing, and that culture is usually superficial or irrelevant.