Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Antario wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.

But your government is part of the council of ministers and the European council who in turn are the bosses of the bureaucracy.

So no voting out politicians then. Instead I have to write to my elected representative, hope they care, hope they have are able to somehow get enough support across all states to bin the politician in enough time before they retire. Hmmm

You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

 Da Boss wrote:
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

So how do I vote out Junker?

Don't vote for Tories - he's the Centre Right's candidate.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

So how do I vote out Junker?

Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.

 Antario wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.

I believe you're arguing that these have value. Why? To play Devil's advocate, it just insures that those that control the means of production can move it to the area of cheapest labor, or inversely hire that cheap labor into the home country. It benefits the ownership class but not the working or professional class.

I'll say it again, what is the advantage of the EU that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

 Antario wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

So how do I vote out Junker?

Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.

So one of the most powerful men in the EU, who proposes new laws and legislation, is not directly accountable to the voters. Hmmmm

 zedmeister wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

So how do I vote out Junker?

By voting for you preferred representative* for the European Council which nominates him, and voting for your preferred representatives in the European Parliament who appoint him and can directly sack him.
* In the case of UK, this would be the Prime Minister

The core concept of a democracy isn't to vote people out. It's to vote for the party you think could represent you and your ideas the best. People very often confuse democracy with a popularity vote where major political decisions should be directly decided by the general populace - which is a HORRIBLE idea.

A democracy still is a government and not a prom

zedmeister: Look at it this way. David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK because he was chosen as the leader of the largest faction in your parliament - the Conservative and Unionist Party. You didn't directly elect David Cameron as Prime Minister, and you cannot directly vote him out until next election. Should he mess up spectacularly, he may be forced to resign, but he is Prime Minister because he has the support of the largest unified faction in the UK Parliament.

Junker was the nominee of the largest bloc in the European Parliament - the EPP. This is a centre-right bloc containing most of the conservative parties in Europe. (Interestingly, Cameron took the Conservatives out of this influential bloc and into the much less influential eurosceptic ECR group, which is seen as something of a betrayal by other EPP members, notably Merkel).

Had the balance of power in the European Parliament been with the Socialists, then the Socialist candidate would have been appointed, much as it works in the UK parliament.

So really, the situation is not much different. Junker is there because the majority of countries elected Centre Right candidates to the Parliament. If you did not know this, I would think it wise to reflect on why that is. (Hint: Your media does a terrible job of informing you on this stuff).

Edit to Add: I friggin' intensely dislike Junker by the way and feel that he stands for just about everything wrong with the EU. But I never vote for any EPP candidates. That's just how things are - if your opinion is in the minority, you don't get the call the shots.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.

France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.

Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.

The Uk and other counties pay in based on GDP, but nothing gets paid out so simply. The EU pay outs are heavily weighted towards certain activities, most notably agriculture. Agriculture is highlighted because ther true special advantage case in the EU, France, insists it is. This is almost inevitable because the French agricultural union is immensely strong and has a vast membership is grossly inefficient but is mobile and motivated. Generation of French governments have been unable to do anything except pander to them.
This has a knock on effect across Europe, agriculture gets the lions share of subsidy even though poverty and need can occur in different industries.
The UK, which has a very efficient agricultural system, both in terms of profitability and in terms of manpower has little need of such subsidy compared to other nations, but has need for investment in other areas.
Due to the overfocus on agricultural payouts and the efficiency of the British farmer the UK was paying in a highly disproportionate amount of money and getting very little in return. Thatcher therefore demanded a rebate to balance, and due to her strength of personality achieved her goal.

 Da Boss wrote:

To an extent, this is part of how the EU works as it is a bunch of nations pressing for advantages at times. France has done similar with CAP, Ireland has done similar with regard to social issues, Germany has thrown it's weight around in the crisis. This is the cut and thrust of European politics, and sometimes it can be aggravating to be on the wrong side of.

So you sort of recognise this, but its ok if they do it, but not if the UK does it.

 Da Boss wrote:

What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.

You must be immune to facts then, It has been explained clearly enough.
What you are saying is 'la la la not listening'.

 Da Boss wrote:

As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.

Hopefully the EU isnt as racially motivated against us as you proclaim.

Christ, the British are not a race Orlanth.

I am not immune to facts, I merely do not accept your premise.

It is exactly as okay when the UK does it as when anyone else does it - as in, not really, but it's an inevitable part of complex diplomacy.

Banging on about the CAP was relevant in the 80s, but the money allocated to it has been dropping year on year for ages. It's much less significant than it was.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Antario wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.

I believe you're arguing that these have value. Why? To play Devil's advocate, it just insures that those that control the means of production can move it to the area of cheapest labor, or inversely hire that cheap labor into the home country. It benefits the ownership class but not the working or professional class.

I'll say it again, what is the advantage of the EU that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

It lowrs unemployment, a fundamental problem in Europe. The free movement directive does not allow employers to pay EU imigrants worse than the national population and local benefits apply. Social policy is coordinated to prevent a race to the bottom unlike free trade agreements.

However, as in the case with the UK, poorer immigrants have been coming from Eastern EU members correct? Those members are willing to work for less, thus undercutting domestic labor.

Inversely those for pulling out the EU, the UK would then be subject to the same tariff schedules and nontariff barriers that we outside the EU all know and love.

Random Thought:

This is interesting that the UK has traditionally held itself apart from Europe and only intervened when the Balance-of-Power was at stake. Therefore, I can see why joining the EU would lead to a gut-reaction of pushing away.

Since WWII they have more closely aligned with North America and Australia/NZ than the EU. However, can an EU isolationist policy actually work in these globalist times? I really do not know. Good luck to you!

It most certainly can. The big strength the UK has is its tight alliance with the US and the high potential for industry. The UK certainly profits from the EU, but as others already said, it doesn't get much in return for what they turn in. Truth be told, that's the general problem of the German...eh...European union and its richer countries, but it's special for the UK given its unique state.

 Ketara wrote:

...
What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.

...

The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive.
The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)

Why look at policies advantageous to the UK alone, though? There probably are various different policies that are advantageous to different countries. The fishing policy hardly is likely to affect Germany and Slovakia, for instance, but they no doubt benefit from the policy on straight skis, along with France but not Greece, Spain or Portugal.

 Frazzled wrote:
However, as in the case with the UK, poorer immigrants have been coming from Eastern EU members correct? Those members are willing to work for less, thus undercutting domestic labor.

Inversely those for pulling out the EU, the UK would then be subject to the same tariff schedules and nontariff barriers that we outside the EU all know and love.

That is hard to determine as the 4 freedoms also allow companies to move as well, so there is extra supply of labor on the one hand, but extra demand on the other.


Imagine we'd split up the US into 50 states and you couldn't work, start a business, sell your products, rent a house or go to school out of state without permission from the other state. Do you think that would improve or decrease living conditions for most people?

Kilkrazy - a minor point, but Ireland was pretty much forced to not go for Schengen when the UK did, due to the Common Travel Area and the border with Northern Ireland.

We did want to be part of it, but it wasn't practical if you guys stayed out.

This does annoy me because it's a big inconvenience to me living over here having my passport as my only valid form of ID and having to carry it around with me. It's currently being renewed so I have no ID til it comes back, which is very annoying.

The engineer in me has to point out that the UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive was so our market traders could carry on using old trading patter - we use the system internationale d'unite (SI units) everywhere else, since it makes more sense for international trading.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

...
What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.

...

The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive.
The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)

I'm afraid I can't see how choosing to not enact a optional piece of legislation is equivalent to having a piece of legislation or policy which favours us. The EU could enact an optional policy making puppies illegal tomorrow that we choose not to enact. That doesn't make it an EU policy advantageous to the UK, any moreso than choosing to not actually be in the EU is somehow an EU sponsored advantage.

Why look at policies advantageous to the UK alone, though?

Curiosity primarily. I'm aware that there a handful of cases of obvious 'no-downside' favoritism in the EU relating to other countries. I was merely wondering if anyone could point to any in our department (for no other purpose than curiosity).

Judging by the lack of unarguable clear cut examples, the answer would appear to be no.

Is the "Units of Measures Directive" the root of the "The EU tried to scam us out of a full pint!" claim I heard?

EG, a hypothetical attempt to make alcoholic drinks be sold as 500ml instead of 568ml?

 Da Boss wrote:
Kilkrazy - a minor point, but Ireland was pretty much forced to not go for Schengen when the UK did, due to the Common Travel Area and the border with Northern Ireland.

We did want to be part of it, but it wasn't practical if you guys stayed out.

This does annoy me because it's a big inconvenience to me living over here having my passport as my only valid form of ID and having to carry it around with me. It's currently being renewed so I have no ID til it comes back, which is very annoying.

I didn’t know that, however it reinforces my point that the UK got a special consideration to opt out of Schengen.

If you visit the continent, you will quickly realise there are places where things simply could not work without Schengen. If you nip over from the UK to Calais on the car train, you can within about two hours drive through France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Luxembourg. The locals often cover three countries in a day, either commuting to work or just to nip to the supermarket with the best prices for apples or whatever.

 SirDonlad wrote:
The engineer in me has to point out that the UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive was so our market traders could carry on using old trading patter - we use the system internationale d'unite (SI units) everywhere else, since it makes more sense for international trading.

It also relieved us of the necessity to change all our road signs to read in km rather than miles.

Obviously all our international science and engineering is done in SI units and has been for a long time. (NASA changed over to SI in the 1960s, I believe.) This is an example of how the UK is forced to conform to international standards whether we are part of the EU or not. There are many other examples of international standards that predate the EU (Greenwich Mean Time, International Postal Union, and so on.)

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

...
What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.

...

The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive.
The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)

I'm afraid I can't see how choosing to not enact a optional piece of legislation is equivalent to having a piece of legislation or policy which favours us. The EU could enact an optional policy making puppies illegal tomorrow that we choose not to enact. That doesn't make it an EU policy advantageous to the UK, any moreso than choosing to not actually be in the EU is somehow an EU sponsored advantage.

...

If these pieces of legislation were optional it rather undermines the idea that the UK is subject to brutal interference by edicts from faceless Eurocrats. However, they weren’t.

 Compel wrote:
Is the "Units of Measures Directive" the root of the "The EU tried to scam us out of a full pint!" claim I heard?

EG, a hypothetical attempt to make alcoholic drinks be sold as 500ml instead of 568ml?

Its noit a scare.

Heard of the 'metric martyrs'? Market traders who wanted to reserve the right to sell goods in pounds and ounces to their customers and were prosecuted for it under EU law.
Its the sort of area the EU should butt out of.
Road signs in miles, beer and milk in pints, traditional stuff.

Yes, indeed, and the UK has a opt-out from the Units Directive to enable UK traders to continue to offer Imperial measurements.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
To return to Ketara's question, if I understand it correctly, we are looking for pieces of EU legislation (directives, etc) that only affect the UK and give the UK an advantage compared to other EU members.

The thing about searching for this kind of case is that the EU creates legislation that applies to all member states, and there can be opt-outs and exceptions, like the many ones that the UK has already got.

The EU doesn't make laws for the UK alone. Technically it doesn't make laws for anyone. The individual member states have to pass their own legislation to bring their internal law into line with the directives (like Working Time or Units and Measurements, etc.)

Perhaps I have misunderstood that whole question?

It's little stuff like signs in miles, pints as pints not 500mm that gets annoying.

They want to dicate everything....

What the feth does it matter a 568mm pint or traders shouting out by the pound and ounces.

Miles, miles are the unit of measurement every driver in UK used, also the change would require changing car speedo at times, replacing every road sign in the UK with a speed on.

Next want us to drive on other side of the road....

Perfectly called for to ignore that rubbish. Last time!r I checked we still have some sovereign rights left.

If 'they' want to dictate everything, why did the UK get an opt out from the Units and Measurement Directive?

It's a bit hard to dictate stuff when you keep not dictating it.

UK car speedos have been marked in MPH and KPH since the 1970s. It became the law in 1977.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Antario wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.

So how do I vote out Junker?

Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.

So one of the most powerful men in the EU, who proposes new laws and legislation, is not directly accountable to the voters. Hmmmm

I consider myself to be very pro-European but the method of national governments selecting European commisioners (who then vote for European President) is extremely dubious. It would rate very highly on my list of essential reforms. Sadly it wasn't on Cameron's list.

......








same person , you might recall, did this during the election






..... I ...

..well..


..... guess that's Eurovision sorted then

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If 'they' want to dictate everything, why did the UK get an opt out from the Units and Measurement Directive?

It's a bit hard to dictate stuff when you keep not dictating it.

Because we said no and fought for the opt out? The very fact that an opt out had to be negotiated and put in place shows that the EU did want to 'dictate' it originally.

People were prosecuted over this before we got the opt out.