Euro Area

[SoFarSoGood]

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

[Kralizec]

The Lisbon Treaty is the same document with the word "Constitution" removed.

Admittedly, the differences are small.

That said; other than the symbolic stuff (it being a "constitution", officially enshrining the flag and anthem) which were removed from the Lisbon treaty, I really don't see it's ratification as a suitable subject for a referendum. The biggest change, and probably the biggest among the legitimate concerns, was the expansion of qualified majority voting as opposed to unanimity. I thought, and still think so, that this was an overwhelmingly good thing. Many of the common people however would read some headline in The Sun or Le monde along the lines of "this is going to give the unelected eurocrats the power to force stuff like, whatever on our country!111!!!"

And they'd buy into the headline completely, despite the fact that none of them would be able to name any specific area of policy where qualified majority voting would be applicable to which they'd object. Hell, polls showed that one of the reasons many Dutch people voted against the EU constitution was because they felt that Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU, something of zero relevance to the question at hand.

And then there's of course the fact that even those people who voted against the constitution would, for the most part, still vote for parties in national elections that ratified the Lisbon treaty. Don't give me that bullcrap about the EU not being an issue in national elections, or that there are no alternatives to established parties. In most countries there are parties who advocate leaving the EU and they're composed of one-trick-ponies accompanied by full blown idiots. Representative democracy FTW - the failure of the eurosceptics to get their act together and organise themselves into an electable party is not my problem. Of course, people could still vote Tory in the national elections and vote UKIP in European elections to spite the so-called europhiles, but most of them don't.

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

I don't - zero credit.

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

Right.

Admittedly, the differences are small.

...

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

It's a simple point - a transfer of sovereignty from a National Government to a third party should be ratified by the electorate. We keep electing Politicians who say "no more Europe" but it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

The increase in majority voting may well have been a good thing but the point is, nobody asked, the Irish were asked, and they said no. So they were asked again, at a time when they needed EU money to stop their country going belly up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

No, they like getting elected so they talk the talk but once in office they appraise the consequences in a different way and they refuse to walk the walk. Probably because once they are elected they have to face reality which is that it is in British economic interest to remain part of the EU warts and all. A lot of British business would be more difficult, read more costly, were Britain to extract itself from the EU, and I imagine British business is willing to invite the politician to lunch if that is what it takes to secure their bottom line.

[Greyblades]

Then amplify it by 10 due to the recession making that bottom line hard to secure in ideal conditions.

[Kralizec]

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

In Westminster parliamentary systems, ministers must be a member of parliament. They can be from the upper house as well, and so are not necessarily elected in any sense of the word.

In many other countries however that's illegal - being an MP and a minister are incompatible mandates. The Netherlands is one such country; ministers are often drawn from the ranks of parliament (they'll have to waiver their seats in order to take office) but it's not uncommon for a political outsider to be awarded a post. It's accurate to say that we don't elect our executive branch, we merely influence what it will look like by the composition of parliament.

I don't know Italy's constitutional structe in any detail, but presumably they don't require their ministers to be members of parliament. Monti's technocratic government is endorsed by the majority in parliament, and will stay put only until the next elections or until they're sacked by a vote of non-confidence. Therefore, no problems as far as democracy is concerned.

This concludes today's lesson in constitutional theory.

[Fragony]

Susprise surprise Greece has been lying again about a billion or 10

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, they like getting elected so they talk the talk but once in office they appraise the consequences in a different way and they refuse to walk the walk. Probably because once they are elected they have to face reality which is that it is in British economic interest to remain part of the EU warts and all. A lot of British business would be more difficult, read more costly, were Britain to extract itself from the EU, and I imagine British business is willing to invite the politician to lunch if that is what it takes to secure their bottom line.

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

Something doesn't add up.

In any case, the current ongoing crisis is the fault of the EU machinery just as much as the one in the 1930's was the fault of the Gold Standard.

[Beskar]

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

You have to remember Norway is within the European zone (EEA & EFTA & Others), just not as a member with voting rights, but has to abide to all the rules without a say. So in a way, it is more a European Union satellite state.

Being a member is far better than that. If Britain had what Norway has, there would be zero "exemptions" in legislation which is currently has and would simply nod to Brussels over new changes and have to accept them if they want to keep having the benefits.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

Something doesn't add up.

That would be because of:

1. Norway's assets have real tangible value (oil, fish) as opposed to essentially value-less numbers. (Britain)
2. Norway has not yet made a habit of pissing away assets in investment banker ponzi schemes (CDS) and similar fraud. (Britain)
3. Norway's economy is driven by export of real product (see #1), as opposed to moving numbers around (Britain).

You can see that when confidence is low or the economy elsewhere is doing not so great there still remains a solid demand for real product (people still need oil and fish), whereas the appetite for value-less numbers is reduced (trillions worth of CDS do not buy anyone except the bankers lunch, and the bankers will find a way to make you pay for that lunch afterwards). So that is why Norway does better than Britain at present.

[Kralizec]

It's a pretty meaningless comparison. Norway is like Saudi Arabia in that they're sparsely populated and sit on a ton of natural recources; except Norway is colder and a bit less conservative. Luxembourg is an EMU member and does better than anyone, but is likewise poor comparison material for obvious reasons. France and Germany, which are more comparable, also outperform the UK in terms of economic output.

It's a simple point - a transfer of sovereignty from a National Government to a third party should be ratified by the electorate. We keep electing Politicians who say "no more Europe" but it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

I disagree. But let me preface that with stating that I think "transferring sovereignty" is a bit of a misnomer. Sovereignty is universally understood to hold supreme power, on paper and actual, over your territory. Compartamentalizing sovereignty and transferring bits of it is a logical impossibility. What's happened is that the member states have delegated bits of decision making to the EU, and under EU law they're no longer competent to make act in those areas themselves.
The crucial point is that member states are in the EU voluntarily, and could leave if they want. The possibility is explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon treaty, but hypothetically if anyone wanted to leave they could have done so at any time. In contrast, regions like Wales or Catalonia are not sovereign entities and if they unilaterally declared themselves independant there'd be significant rucus (and the UK and Spain have the means to deal with it, unlike the EU even if it was interested in forcefully keeping members in the fold)

Ireland's voters approved the Lisbon treaties partially because of their economic situation, but also because they got a buttload of garantues that any EU decisions on X or Y would not apply to them. That might sound appealing, but if every member state acted like tha the EU would become a quagmire of directives that never apply to more than the 2-3 random countries who didn't press for opt-outs in that particular case. As I've said before I don't approve of everything the EU does and not every decision they make is the optimal choice for my country. But I recognise there are 26 other member states who also have their own interests, and that the EU in its entirety is still beneficial to my country.

If a member state insists that all EU decisions should be in their particular national interest, 100% of the time, and continuously blocks the transfer of new powers that are in the interest of the vast majority of member states, I'd rather have that they leave. I doubt that the EU would penalize the UK if it left. A minority of spiteful MEPs might call for sanctions, but that's it. Of course; every time the EU drafts new legislation and policies it won't take British interests into account - imagine that - and some Brits will interpret this as unfair punishment, no doubt.

[SoFarSoGood]

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

If I don't like what my Government is doing I have an option; not vote for them. If I do not like what Europe is doing (remeber the Comission is the only body that can propose legislation) what am I to do? The Comission are not elected and so cannot be 'voted out'. In the case of the 'constitution' the Comission implemented proposals in Lisbon which had been democraticly rejected in France and Holland. But still no popular vote by any number of people can remove such people from office. Where the very liberties that millions have died to defend in two World Wars are stolen in the name of preventing another war it the sham becomes clear "sic semper tyrannis" becomes a legitimate reaction since there is no other option.

As for the Italian cabinet Mr Monti was made a member of the upper House in Italy the day before he became PM...

[InsaneApache]

I read something the other day that made me sit up.

Is Mrs. Lizzy Windsor a citizen of the EU?

If she is, then she has violated her sacred oath and is, in fact, a traitor.

Interesting question.

[SoFarSoGood]

Her Ministers have, in my opinion, violated their oath of alliegance to the Crown.

[Papewaio]

I read something the other day that made me sit up.

Is Mrs. Lizzy Windsor a citizen of the EU?

If she is, then she has violated her sacred oath and is, in fact, a traitor.

Interesting question.

Citizens are subjects of the Queen. So technically the Queen could be of British Nationality but not a British citizen I suppose.

[Sarmatian]

If I don't like what my Government is doing I have an option; not vote for them.

Do you really?

I've heard how polls suggest that a vast majority of Brits wants out of EU, and yet you can't vote in a government that will actually do that...

[Furunculus]

Do you really?

I've heard how polls suggest that a vast majority of Brits wants out of EU, and yet you can't vote in a government that will actually do that...

lol, wait and see what happens to national politics in 2015 when UKIP comes within a hair of being the largest British party in european politics in 2014!

[SoFarSoGood]

She is 'subject' to no authority but God - in theory.

In other news a nasty Bundesbank report on the IMF today... I quote; "The IMF is evolving from a liquidity mechanism into a bank. This is neither in keeping with the legal and institutional role of the IMF or with its ability to handle risks". How long is the IMF viable financialy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a pretty meaningless comparison. Norway is like Saudi Arabia in that they're sparsely populated and sit on a ton of natural recources; except Norway is colder and a bit less conservative. Luxembourg is an EMU member and does better than anyone, but is likewise poor comparison material for obvious reasons. France and Germany, which are more comparable, also outperform the UK in terms of economic output.



I disagree. But let me preface that with stating that I think "transferring sovereignty" is a bit of a misnomer. Sovereignty is universally understood to hold supreme power, on paper and actual, over your territory. Compartamentalizing sovereignty and transferring bits of it is a logical impossibility. What's happened is that the member states have delegated bits of decision making to the EU, and under EU law they're no longer competent to make act in those areas themselves.
The crucial point is that member states are in the EU voluntarily, and could leave if they want. The possibility is explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon treaty, but hypothetically if anyone wanted to leave they could have done so at any time. In contrast, regions like Wales or Catalonia are not sovereign entities and if they unilaterally declared themselves independant there'd be significant rucus (and the UK and Spain have the means to deal with it, unlike the EU even if it was interested in forcefully keeping members in the fold)

Ireland's voters approved the Lisbon treaties partially because of their economic situation, but also because they got a buttload of garantues that any EU decisions on X or Y would not apply to them. That might sound appealing, but if every member state acted like tha the EU would become a quagmire of directives that never apply to more than the 2-3 random countries who didn't press for opt-outs in that particular case. As I've said before I don't approve of everything the EU does and not every decision they make is the optimal choice for my country. But I recognise there are 26 other member states who also have their own interests, and that the EU in its entirety is still beneficial to my country.

If a member state insists that all EU decisions should be in their particular national interest, 100% of the time, and continuously blocks the transfer of new powers that are in the interest of the vast majority of member states, I'd rather have that they leave. I doubt that the EU would penalize the UK if it left. A minority of spiteful MEPs might call for sanctions, but that's it. Of course; every time the EU drafts new legislation and policies it won't take British interests into account - imagine that - and some Brits will interpret this as unfair punishment, no doubt.

Britain has a lot of oil too - and we used to have large fish stocks, now we don't.

We can't control fish stocks because of the common fisheries policy, and our farmers suffer under the CAP - not issues Norway has to my knowledge. They are also able to control net immigration effectively, I believe.

[Kralizec]

You have lots of oil, but you don't have a low population density like Norway. The Netherlands has lots of natural gas, but again, a sizable population.

What the EU fishery policy needs more than anything else is a drastic reduction in quotas and fishing boats, but since the fishery lobby seems pretty strong in all countries across the EU, this has little chance of ever happening. The EU fishery policy is a major dissapointment but to think that any of the countries involved would have followed a responsible policy if they were on their own seems pretty naive, though I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

EDIT: how does the CAP hurt British farmers?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have lots of oil, but you don't have a low population density like Norway. The Netherlands has lots of natural gas, but again, a sizable population.

What the EU fishery policy needs more than anything else is a drastic reduction in quotas and fishing boats, but since the fishery lobby seems pretty strong in all countries across the EU, this has little chance of ever happening. The EU fishery policy is a major dissapointment but to think that any of the countries involved would have followed a responsible policy if they were on their own seems pretty naive, though I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

[Fragony]

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

Yeah we are really in need of another one

[SoFarSoGood]

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

An ingenius arguement... The EU has messed up fishing policy so now they have their paws on immigration it's all going to be safe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

Right - that's the problem with quotas

Fishermen are allowed to throwback, and because they have quotas they'll throwback three times the weight in mackerel that they're trying to find in herring.

This is a bloody mess all over, not only are the fishermen wasting catch that could be sold and is already dead, they're also wasting time out on the water when they could be in port selling a fresher catch.

Every British fisherman knows this and, again, they don't have the problem in Norway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

EDIT: how does the CAP hurt British farmers?

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

[SoFarSoGood]

"Independence for Catalonia? Over my dead body. Spain is not Yugoslavia or Belgium. Even if the lion is sleeping, don’t provoke the lion, because he will show the ferocity proven over centuries." Colonel Francisco Alaman yesterday...

[Kralizec]

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

The quotas are already divided geographicly across the seas, and based (in a flawed manner) on the current stock of fish there. I haven't heard about that British idea, what's it about? Creating no-fishing zones near Britains shore, while British fisherboats can still fish in Spanish and Dutch waters?

Britain also has quota rights in the waters of other countries, something which eurosceptic pundits ignore all the time. The annual quota for each country was based on the historic size of their fishing fleet (a simple, and probably stupid idea), and reductions over the years have been applied across the board. The only "real" controversy is the practice of quota hopping: English fishermen sold their boats, and the associated fishing permits, to those bloody foreigners. Your country then tried to ban this practice by a shoddy piece of legislation that was outright discriminatory, and therefore struck down by the EU court.

Not that I care to defend Spanish or Italian fisherman. I agree that they are the biggest offenders. If I had my way, I'd forcibly decimate the fishing industry with catch quotas that are scientifically sound, scrap their subsidies and put huge tariffs on fish exports to Japan (who buy three quarters of the tuna caught in the mediteranean, for example) That'll teach them.

[SoFarSoGood]

Large areas of the North Sea should, in my opinion, be ruled "no fishing zones" for 10 - 20 years and be policed to enforce it. It's a matter of whether our children can eat fish and chips.

[Kralizec]

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

I don't know the specific criteria, but they're not discriminatory as you're implying. France has more fertile land than any other European country and therefore disproportionally benefits from the CAP. Even so they're still a net contibutor, albeit not by a large margin.

I agree the situation is unfair, but I doubt you'll find a farmer in England that will agree the CAP subsidies need to be abolished. And allthough I would like the subsidies to dissapear entirely, that's a pipe dream. A fair solution would be to decentralise the CAP scheme, so that the French (and others) get to pay for their farmers directly without consequenses for their pay tab on other issues, pushing their net contribution up.

Freedom of movement is restricted - countries can kick other EU nationals out if they're not financially self-sufficient or able to prove that they'll have employment within a few months. To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.