Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wu_trax
1) now you are talking about the constitution? you should not mix up regulations about choclate with the constitution. thats a completly diffrent game.
anyway, i stand by my point: if its not binding why should those member states that didnt 100% agree on it implement it? they wont.
now you will ask why should they if they dont want it? simply because thats the only way it can work. you wont always get it your way, but still be better of than without any eu-wide regulations at all.
the rest you said is just as true for natonal laws, does that mean we shouldnt have any national laws?
2) and it also means that your companies will export less goods to italy, which means less jobs and a large trade deficit for the uk. (and less foreign investments, as a mentioned before)
the emu fall apart, because some quite rich people speculated against some of its currencies, which meant that the central banks had to intervene. how exactly can that happen now? sure, the intrest rates wont be perfect for everyone, but its only a question of time before the economies are more or less in synch.
3) thats why most of the controls should stay on the regional level, at least about those things that are better to decide at that level. but as i already said, there are aspects of policy that simply require a central goverment.
|
1) ok constitution was the wrong word, but my point stands. By forcing law changes you get your desired goal - implementation of a policy, but is that right and effective?
Take social policy. The UK has broad frameworks for social care, but this is not specified. Instead it is run by civil servants in the form of delegated legislation. There are some broad regulations, bu h core f the policy is flexible to allow changes as and when is required. Most directives are so detailed that countries have very little choice but to implement as is.
Also as previously stated laws which require self policing are also very effective. We have spot audits of the work done in these ndustries but we find in a lot of ways self policing to be as effective if not more effective than law and rule changes.
Also take into consideration the amount of years it takes to change laws.
As for what I said being true of natinal laws you are totally correct - hwever if a law is not acceptable locally then its our decision to implement. Currently the EU can force law changes without that choice.
2) what you say is doubtfu since we are mainly owners of companies in less advanced countries these days. We do not rely on UK manufacture anymore as most production is done overseas - we have mainly tertiary functions.
Take Pilkington as an example. A UK company which produces glass. It moved its entire glass production to china - the company still comptes n a worldwide basis, but the production is in china. Same can be said of many steel companies with bases in India and Asia.
As for your arument for the Eur I disagree. Its relatively unstable, much f the consistenc comes from the Euro ****ries uying Euro's t bouy the currency. Also the wrld markets are becoming global - why on earth is it innevitable that Europe wil need a single currency?
UK currency is stable and in no need of support. I see no need to join the Euro.
3) So you want your cake and eat it? You want integration on politics and other issues, but then have localised decision making bodies as well?
In the UK we have councils which govern local issues n a region by region basis and it works. However without Full integration it would mean we have 3 tiers of administration in the UK. Not nly do I perceive this as a total waste of time, but also means issues which the UK finds nationally important may not be addressed correctly and maybe even forced to have a rule change which is contrary to what these issues are.
It wont be possible to have a half integration lie you suggest. All it will do is make a mammouth uncontrollable beast of administration and bureaucracy which will jus stifle decisions for each country.
Michael Howard was on BBC news this morning. He pointed out that with voting for UKIP the British people had spokn and there was no mandate for further integration. He also pointe dou that we ca have efective trading links without encroaching on central beliefs of each country. Now while I am no conservative i DO agree with what he said. Full integration is nothing more than a fancy and true integration will never occur due to international tensions.