European Referendum

[chrisch]

Hi Helen,

If you are still at work go home!!!  If not hope you had a nice weekend.  Thanks for the link I will have a look.  Off work on Monday so I guess this will have moved on by then.

Just a quick response viz. the single currency.  As I recall everyone did want it at the time.  Even Nigel Lawson and the Tories signed up for the ERM as they believed it would bring currency stability.  To a large extent it has and the crash in the dollar with sterling soon to follow proves the worthyness of the idea.  Some might say the countries have lost control of their currency, but so has the UK with an independent bank setting the interest rates and the market setting exchange rates.

I was ambivalent about the Euro.  On a personal note being selfish I wanted it and now we have it I find it useful as a European Consultant doing business in several countries.  But this is a selfish view and I recognise there are other political points to be made for and against.

I really think the same applies to other EU developments - there are soom very serious debates to be had, but few people will have them.  We will just get on with everyday life as ever.

A common military policy exists - its called NATO.  No soveriegn nation can be forced to war or not against its will.  Nothing can or will change that.  Treaties can be broken if needed.  Blair would have backed Bush no matter what.  French and Italian troops were and still are in Iraq.  Both countries opposed the war.

My vote stays on don't care - although as you see I do, but I don't think it will make any difference.

BTW peeing with rain here and cold - so much for stereotypes of foriegn climes!!
Best
Chris

[Mark Chase]

I voted yes

Anything that takes us further into Europe is fine with me. Its bound to be a shambles at first and I may not see cohearent Europien government in my life time but its a start and a step twards a time where things are looked at on a global scale rather than a load of selfish little countries squabling for the bigist bit of the cake.

Perhaps if some of the big environmentle issues were dealt with at a Europien level we could have some real advances without our elected government shitting it's self about loosing votes with unpopular decisions in a run up to an election. Perhaps with a centralised tax inititave we could close some of the loopholes and level the playing field. Perhaps with a central government with real clout our own government wouldent be able to take the piss out of us like they did with pensions. Perhaps with proper unification with europe we could stop sucking up to the USA for military support and could start putting presure on them for a change to re think their use of the worlds resorses.

OK so I am dreaming but we have to start somewhere.

When HG Wells was fighting to start what we now call NATO they said he was mad and it would never hapen but now we accept it as the norm so you never can tell.

ATB

Mark Chase

[Mr T.]

I think it’s worth stating, right off the bat, that 01st May 2004 marks the end of the European hostilities which began fragmenting Europe between WW1 and WW2. No more ‘Us and Them’ with the West Vs the Sov-Bloc – now we have a return to that state, before the Wars, where a group of sovereign nations is allowed to make their own decisions and seek their own destinies….or at least they should be allowed to.

OK, just so the Guardian-reading liberal wallahs and  bleeding Euro-hearts & artists understand this plainly, let me begin with a few caveat emptor, so that their 'Big Idea', 'Big Conversation', and pet 'Grand Euro Project' is put firmly into perspective.

* I have NO problem, whatsoever, with freer trading relationships with and within an expanded geo-political Europe (even the French). That said, I recognise it is folly in the extreme to place all our nation's trading eggs in to one favoured 'local market' basket, to either the exclusion of or precedence over our trading relationships with the US and the Asia-Pac markets - we did that to a 'home nation' (Australia) in 1974, and they've never forgiven us, and who can blame them? Indeed, and the figures speak for themselves (UK companies own more of the US after the US), the rest of continental Europe is jealous of the UK's capability to do trade and garner and support successful trading links with whomever she pleases – sans needless regulation and bureaurcracy.

* I have NO problem with freer, though NOT unregulated, movement of the good citizens of an expanded geo-political Europe. The Shengen Agreement was and is a farce and has seen an unchecked growth in drugs, criminals and 'people trafficking'; with the poor girls and children of the former Sov-Bloc nations traded for sex and worse. It also acts a beacon gateway for the Triads and other groups to ply their heinous trade of Chinese peasantry for slavery. It's no use blaming these villains when all they are doing is exploiting an overly liberal European system which makes it easy for them do their business.

Why do I begin caveats?

Because, as is so oft the bleat of the Chattering Classes of the Grauniad brigade, in their attempts to stifle debate and condescend to 'The Man on the Clapham Omnibus' (the man in the street) - whose 'opinion' they will tell you that they would defend with their lives, but in truth can't ignore it quickly enough in their "yes, but we know better than you - you're just a Richard Littlejohn with no real or valued thoughts worth a tu'penny damn; sit back in your pubs, drink your ale and let us get on with running things for you, you don't understand them, there's a good boy" - consider you head well and truly patted.

This level of condescension is breath-taking in its arrogance. What they fail to realise is that (whether their pet Bette-noir, Littlejohn, voices same or not) is that the man in the street has (based on history and experience) some very exacting views and unanswered questions about how and whether we move forward in Europe in the way some might have us proceed.

The ‘Grauniad Gliterati’ (GG) are the crowd who would have these questions remain unanswered as they rush, head-long, into an all encompassing Europe and quite happily cast off some of the hard-won liberties which the UK has, mostly alone in the last 100 years, expended many lives in acquiring.

But lo: please don't talk about history's relevance or lessons, or any pride in your nation - the Grauniad Gliterati, in their uber-condescension, will, loudly, mark you down and toss you off as being merely a football hooligan, member of the NF/BNP or a 'little Englander' with an island mentality – when in point of fact and truth, you are neither and none of the above!! How dare you disagree with them or hold an alternative opinion! Go back to your pubs and your football and let them deal with the 'Big Questions' - consider your head patted, again.

So what is about the man-in-the-street's views and opinions on Europe which scares the GG? Their fears and paranoias are legion, and are based on, largely, the fear of them, the minority (yet ‘political and opinion-forming elite’ – as they see and sell themselves) losing their grip on running things over the ‘common man’ - whom they deem plebeian and ill-educated.

Let's take 'Democracy' for starters.

What I'm about to say will have them reaching for their superlatives and their finely honed lines in combative condescension. What follows are, nonetheless, inalienable truths and not mere opinion.

“Democracy” - roughly speaking, the agreed governance of the people, by the people, for the ‘good’ of the people; said ‘governance’ and office to be achieved by and as a direct result of universal suffrage, i.e. one-person-one vote.

They, the political parties, put themselves up for election and, based on their manifesto and your political persuasion, you cast your vote. Who ever acquires the most votes (with one or two signal exceptions in the 1970 and one of the 1974 general elections) wins and forms a government. The KEY criterion here is that you, the people, have had a say in precisely who runs and governs the country in your name. And, if you don’t like them, you get the opportunity to shit-can their sorry arses at the next general election. Simple and it works – but at least you’ve had a say in the process and can affect the outcome. Not so in Europe, at least at the real power level: the Commission.

Before we come on to the Commission, let’s have a quick, potted review of a few examples of just how your vote came about, shall we?

With the given of various governments either tinkering with or updating the various Acts of Parliament allowing us to vote, there are a few notable milestones and personal and national sacrifices which got us to where we are today:

• Emily Wilding Davison's death under the King's horse at the Derby in 1913 – and the wider work done by Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffrajette movement so that women could have the vote.
• Two World Wars so that other, at the time failed and discredited nations/governments, might not simply rule us, forcibly and by their dictate – the GG will scoff at this, but, and reduced to simple terms, millions died so that we could sit here and argue the toss on a web-forum. If we don't think that the opportunity to vote for our governers is important, why did all these poor folks die? Kinda cheapens their sacrifice NOT to vote.
• The Miner’s and General Strike of 1927 which gave birth to the representative voice of the workers which became the Trade Union Congress (TUC).


From the Magna Carte onwards, we have, in these islands, guarded our independence, and our ability to act thusly, as a birthright. And then Edward Heath – after Neville Chamberlain, one of the most misguided men in UK political history - came along and gave it all away over night and suborned us to the overly bureaucratic and massively inefficient political morass which we now know as the EU. The not small irony in this being that De Gaulle had, twice, successfully vetoed our entry into same – but enough of him; that man’s sins are far too many in number to go into here, especially after we gave him and the Free French succour and a place from which to run the ragged arse country from which he escaped – again with our help.

So, what of the EU Commission?

Now bear in mind the above points about liberties hard won: simply put, you can’t vote for the Commission, you can’t remove them, they run riot with your taxes (indeed, in certain aspects, they make the UN blush with their levels of wonton profligacy) and we get very little back, in kind or in benefit.

The EU works to a corrupt and dual-standard: the axis of Germany and France, both of whom have consistently failed, at least for the last six years, to balance their respective national books or meet or curb spending ‘initiatives’ set by the EU, and would like to think they, indeed do, de facto, rule the EU roost. And what do they get by way of punishment or correction by that same EU standards-setting body? “Naughty boys, don’t do it again…” A joke, carrying all the toothless threat of a UN 'Fact Finding' mission to Rwanda.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a farce – we donate billion of pounds a years to it and get sod all in return (except requests for more money) – in effect we pay for other European farmers to produce the goods which they then sell back to us whilst our own farmers go bankrupt by the battalion.

A ‘Common Defence and Foreign Policy’ with the EU? Please. Wake up and smell what you’re shovelling! We, as a nation (cf. the Iraq War), are diametrically opposed to most of what our European neighbours consider worthwhile or worth fighting for.  It is also a truism that every other – without exception – EU nation’s armed forces (outside of some of their Special Forces units) are, in operational terms, a joke: most of them are still conscript armies/forces and have the weekends off – they are also woefully under-funded, under trained, completely not battle-ready or hardened and lack the skills or experience to deploy in any meaningful way - remember the Dutch UN forces in Banjaluka and Srebrenica who stood idly by whilst the Serbs carted-off over 7,000 Bosnian men and boys and slaughtered them – the Cloggies were asked/told, politely, to put down their weapons whilst the Serbs hand-cuffed everyone of them to railings and set about their filthy and murderous tasks. This single action resulting, a couple of years later, in the entire Dutch government resigning is disgrace. Is it any wonder the EU wants British forces to take care of business? We’re the only ones with a Scooby about to do the job properly.

Why should UK forces be called to some bullshit task for which some non-elected bureaucrat in Brussels sees fit to call them out? They shouldn’t. Common Foreign Policy? Come on, you’re having a laugh. If you can find any meaningful area of foreign policy (again, decided by people you can’t vote for or remove) on which we can agree, I’ll buy you a cigar. And before anyone trots out the old chestnut ‘The Middle East’ – here’s the news: EVERYONE wants both sides to come to the table and stop killing each other – and such has been the cry since the Balfour Accords and the end of the British Mandate in Palestine – there is NOTHING new here, and certainly no commonly required revelation.

The whole EU ideal as a simple trading entity has merit; tying us to Judicial, Foreign, Defence, Tax and other policies, on which we are not in a position to vote, is not my idea of democracy; nor does it meet the strictures of the very word itself.

In short, we have, as a nation, had many a scrap, some bigger than others, and managed to stave-off rule by those whom we can not remove: this ‘One Europe’ experiment may have had merit once; now it is merely a gravy-train for failed politicians (Prodi, Salanes, Delores, Kinnock, Patten at al) and takes no account of the very real and, in certain aspects, to be celebrated national, social and political differences and aspirations of over 480 million souls who make up the area.

No problems with expanded work opportunities, travel, education, trade etc.

I vote no any further tie-in to being run or governed by an expanded EU, or allowing them a greater say/jurisdiction in our judiciary, tax making capability, defence or foreign policy – because I can’t put them in that job and I can’t remove them. Why would I say yes to that?

Some of you voiced long and hard views on UK ID cards and the ‘Big Brother’ aspect which it raises: what is ‘Big Brother’? It’s a bunch of people (whom you’ve not had the opportunity to put there, and whom you can’t remove) making up policy for you and telling you how it’s gonna be. And some of you actively want this to come to pass – or more so than it already has done?

Sorry, but give me old-fashioned one-man-one-vote democracy, any day. Vive la difference!

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Bren - a lovely rant as usual but what you've missed is that most Guardian writers agree with you.

The majority of Guardianistas would argue that the commission is undemocratic, unelected and is an anacronism in modern Europe.

I've always seen European political integration as wrong as it doesn't not have the necessary political checks and balances.

Bren - stop reading the ultra-free market corporate nonsense in the Torygraph and the Spectator and join with me and take the New Statesman. You know it makes sense &nbsp;

[Mr T.]

Hey Gav,

Never been one for the Spectator - Boris is far too much of a fop-n-dandy for my liking; a bit like a fourth-former who's been allowed to play for the upper-sixth first-fifteen

As for the New Statesman, I've not read it since doing Government &amp; Politics for A Level, and under Kellner's tutelage, it was a less than even-handed rag. Mind you some of the best Fabian Soc minds of the day were arrayed against their arch-nemesis: Thatcher, hence their output.

I am a fan of the Economist, though: less parochial than most of the UK press.

Any how, have a butcher's at yesterday's leader from the Torygraph - seems to be pretty much on the money, regardless of your politics.


This is what we wanted
(Filed: 02/05/2004)


Yesterday should have been a great day for Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike. About the only European cause which has attracted support from both sides is that of eastward enlargement. For 15 years, successive British governments have poured their energy into securing the admission of the old Comecon states. We have had to make all manner of concessions to get our way. Yet, when we finally did so, the national mood seemed curiously deflated.

This is partly an accident of timing. Expansion has taken place at a moment when the Blair administration generally, and its European policy specifically, are disliked. As we observed last week, a waning Prime Minister is locked in a danse macabre with an dying idea. In such circumstances, virtually anything he says about the EU will be sullenly received.

This is unfair, and a terrible pity. The accession countries are hardly to blame for Mr Blair's predicament. Although the precise terms of the enlargement round were far from perfect, we should not lose sight of the magnitude of what is happening. Sixteen years ago, when Margaret Thatcher in Bruges looked forward to the reunification of Europe, her words seemed outlandish. The continent was divided into armed camps, and millions of Europeans lived under a semi-Asiatic tyranny. Today, Mrs Thatcher has been vindicated. Europe is whole.

Yet, as a country, we are being strangely churlish about the whole thing. Much of the commentary of the past week seemed rooted in Bismarck's dictum, &quot;Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong&quot;. We are a Eurosceptic newspaper, but we are not Euro-nihilists. We have in no way softened our opposition to British membership of the constitution or the euro; we continue to believe that Britain must repatriate powers from Brussels and restore a respectable measure of independence. But it would be ungenerous, today of all days, not to welcome the newcomers.

To reduce the entire question to one of immigration seems mean-minded. Heaven knows that there is a great deal wrong with our immigration policy: our borders are too porous, our visa regime is too lax and we almost never enforce deportation orders. None of these problems, though, has anything to do with the admission of workers from the accession states. People are rightly uneasy about the presence in Britain of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Third World; but it is hardly reasonable to take this out on a few thousand legal immigrants from central Europe. An inchoate fear of appearing racist makes people reluctant to voice the view that there is a difference between Polish nannies and radical Islamist preachers. But the difference, when you think about it, is rather an obvious one.

There is another reason why many observers are cool about enlargement, and it is a more legitimate one. It is that the original rationale for expansion, at least from the British point of view, now looks false. The reason that successive British administrations poured so much energy into widening Europe is that they saw this as an alternative to deepening it. Bringing in countries with widely varying conditions and needs, so the theory went, would make it impossible to apply uniform policies. No one would be able to devise a single agricultural regime that applied to the reindeer herds of Finland and the lemon groves of Cyprus, or common employment rights for Swedes and Slovaks. The logic was impeccable, but Brussels ignored it. Instead of bringing more flexibility, the assimilation of the new states has been accompanied by the most ambitious power-grab in the EU's history: the constitution.

That document, however, has yet to be adopted. There is a good chance that it will be put to a referendum in several of the new member states, at least two of whom - Poland and the Czech Republic - might easily vote &quot;No&quot;. Here, at least, Britain has friends. The new members are not identical, of course. Some of them - Hungary and Slovenia, for example - are more at ease with closer integration than others. But, in general, the new members tend to be English-speaking, Atlanticist and tax-cutting. True, their EU representatives will soon go native, just as ours have. But this will take a little while. In the meantime, considering everything together, it is hard to deny that the European union is a more congenial place today than it was on Friday.

None of this is to deny that there will be problems. The application of the EU's acquis communautaire to the new states is bound to erode their competitiveness. There will be strains on the EU budget. And, in joining, the new members have surrendered a measure of their hard-won democracy. That, though, was their choice. For us, enlargement offers a different opportunity. We can at last put right the wrong that we did at Yalta [[Bren's edit: AMEN!!]]. Sixty years ago, we condemned millions of our wartime allies to Stalinism. Yesterday, they became our allies again. There are days when even the most hard-bitten Euro-sceptic must acknowledge the idealism that can still sometimes be found flickering in the embers of the EU. Yesterday was such a day.

[Iestyn]

<font color='#000080'>

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]This level of condescension is breath-taking in its arrogance.

Couldn't agree more...

[louigi]

<font color='#FF0000'>basicaly ive gone for bugger off it was my country and I want it back. now I've got nothing against my european bretheren so long as they realize weve kicked the shit out of them so often that weve proved we ought to run this dictatorship.
or to put it another way fine lets have everything on an equal footing fredom of movement equal taxation etc. but can we keep our individualisum. and customs.

can istill hang the cross of st george out side my house. Sorry we arnt aloud to do that now. never mind looks like its back to the pen.

have fun and remember were er britopean.

[Mr T.]

Welcome foreign friends
(Filed: 02/05/2004)


Oliver Pritchett compiles a humorous guide to British customs and manners for the benefit of visitors from the 10 countries that joined the European Union.

It has been said that we British particularly welcome foreigners who come here to take on jobs that we now consider too demeaning and are no longer willing to undertake. This is particularly true of soccer. The top clubs in the Football League now use almost entirely imported labour for players and for managers.

British men do not wish to play for these clubs because of the unsocial hours, which mean that they would have to turn out to play at weekends and often in the evening, so teams such as Manchester United and Chelsea are crying out for people who just know one end of a pitch from the other.

If you want to play for a Premier Division side, the best thing is just to show up at the ground an hour or two before kick-off and let them know your preferred position. It is helpful if you can bring your own boots.

The average British man in the street knows little about soccer, but is always eager to learn, so do not hold back in giving your opinion, if, for example, you think Arsenal are rubbish or Millwall players are effeminate. Many people seeking knowledge about soccer gather in Britain's merry taverns, where the customary greeting is: &quot;It's your round.&quot;

Here are a few more tips about living in &quot;this suspect isle&quot; - as Shakespeare so eloquently called it in Richard II, the play he wrote for A-level students in Tudor times.

You will find Britain is a relaxed and happy-go-lucky place and there are no annoying regulations or one-way streets. Smoking is permitted just about everywhere, but please always observe the &quot;No Inhaling&quot; signs - a picture of a cigarette with a diagonal red line going through it.

The low standard of British cuisine used to be legendary, but all that has changed and we now have some of the best food in the world and we also make the best television cookery programmes. If you are in London, make a point of going to The Ivy restaurant for its brilliant eat-as-much-as-you-like buffet for £6.50 on a Friday night. No booking - it's always first come, first served at The Ivy. It's wonderful for hungry young kids.

If you go to a restaurant run by the famous chef Gordon Ramsay, make a point of getting to meet the great man himself. His signature dish is Daddy's Sauce and he'll be flattered if you ask for it.

A lot of nonsense has been written about British formality and reserve. We are, in fact, a very emotional people. Shaking hands is out; hugging is in. Always make a point of hugging the postman when he arrives in the late afternoon. Taxi drivers expect a hug. We no longer say &quot;How do you do?&quot; to people; we hug them and, rather quaintly, we wish them many interesting experiences, inviting them to &quot;get a life&quot;. So-called &quot;high fives&quot; are appropriate only when greeting senior members of the clergy.

There is a lively and relaxed gay scene. You will soon discover the main gay meeting places, such as the Long Room at Lord's cricket ground and the outrageous clubs that line Pall Mall, in London, where membership is just a formality. In the North, Hadrian's Wall is also a popular place for gays to meet. People wearing cagoules or carrying orange rucksacks are indicating that they are looking for a partner.

Folk culture and folk art are thriving here. If you have a hand-woven rug or some pottery you wish to sell, you can set up a stall in any building that has &quot;Next&quot; written on the outside. The London Library welcomes buskers. A Farmer's Market is held at Harrods every Tuesday.

Even though we occupy a comparatively small island, there are important regional differences that you should be aware of. The people from the North of the country are known as &quot;nerds&quot;, from the Pictish word meaning &quot;grower of large leeks&quot;, while those from the South are proud to be called &quot;anoraks&quot;, from the Saxon for &quot;trimmer of hedges&quot;.

The Scottish people are now almost entirely assimilated into English culture and count as honorary Englishmen. In fact, it is generally considered insulting to suggest that a person is a Scotsman. Be sympathetic to those who have not yet succeeded in losing their accent. For some unknown reason, there is an extremely high proportion of dyslexics in Wales, which means that most of the road signs are misspelt. Yorkshire is simply another name for Lancashire.

Britain is a law-abiding land because the people are conscientious and public spirited. You are expected to make a citizen's arrest if you happen to see anybody illegally using a mobile phone on public transport. If you meet with resistance and get into difficulties you can call on the assistance of a member of the crack armed undercover police who are disguised as nuns.

The main strictly observed religious festival in Britain are the Feast of Makeover (April 25 to May 9) and Decking Sunday (the second Sunday in July) and the Celebration of the Conversion of Lofts on October 4. On religious festivals, all rail travel is free.

Finally, a word about the welfare system. In Britain, this is proactive. This means that you do not need to apply, as the agencies are constantly on the lookout for people who need financial help. You are sure to find a member of their staff in any main shopping centre; they are easily recognised by the fluorescent waistcoats they wear and the clipboards they carry.

These people stop passers-by and ask them if they can spare a few moments to talk things over. If there is something you need, just give them your bank details and they will do the rest. And, of course, they will gladly provide you with a pair of soccer boots.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Bren Tierney @ May 03 2004,13:12)]This is what we wanted
(Filed: 02/05/2004)


Yesterday should have been a great day for Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike. .... There are days when even the most hard-bitten Euro-sceptic must acknowledge the idealism that can still sometimes be found flickering in the embers of the EU. Yesterday was such a day.

Edited purely for the sake of space.... &nbsp;agree wholeheartedly with the above leader....Wise words from the 'Sunday Bigot'

Enjoyed reading your thoughts guys.... &nbsp;

Helen

[Bunny]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ April 30 2004,14:48)]What's the question?

I think THIS is the real issue.

I work for a European bank, I'm pro-free trade, but VERY anti the concept of a European State with a central Government... I could go on... but I haven't got time.

But the real danger is how Blair phrases the question. He is quite capable of throwing out the baby with the bathtub and over generalising the question in order to manipulate the outcome.

I.e. &quot;should we leave the European Union&quot; is not the same as &quot;should we subscribe to the European Constitution&quot;.

So whilst I have voted No, I actually reserve judgement till I see how they phrase the question.