Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

You don't have to answer if you prefer not to; but I am curious to learn how others in Europe feel about being governed by the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt.

In France, most people don't care about Juncker and Verhofstadt because the key decisions are still taken by the French government and parliament at the national level and by the mayors and councils at the local level. You only have extremists like Le Pen's far right and Melenchon's far left who keep moaning about the EU, blaming it for whatever goes wrong in France.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Do you feel that the free movement of labour is a freedom for people, or a freedom for commerce?

Come on, you should know the answer! Especially since the driving force behind the creation of the Single Market (and the 4 freedoms) was Margaret Thatcher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
The 4 freedoms have been good both for the economy and for people wishing to live or work abroad (Just ask British expats, they love it).

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Do you feel that the Schengen Agreement is compatible with national security?

The Schengen area has been great for Europeans wishing to travel with minimum hassle. Does the Schengen area weaken national security? No, for the simple reason that there was terrorism in European countries well before the advent of the Schengen area. You may want to re-introduce EU border controls like before 1995 (in fact, EU countries are allowed to do it on a temporary basis; they can also perform random checks on suspicious individuals), but you won't be able to stop people from crossing borders because most European countries have thousands of kilometres of border and it would require one police officer every 50 metres to have a safe border. You may even adopt a Trumpian approach and build walls along the border, but Mexicans have shown that you can dig tunnels to go under a wall. If you want more security, you need more cooperation among European states. The Schengen Information System is a good step in that direction.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Do you feel enfranchised or disenfranchised by the activities of the EU Commission and Parliament?

Neutral, for the simple reason that decisions at the European level are also made by our politicians. The most important EU decisions are made by the Parliament, the Councils and the Commission. As you already know, European MPs and leaders are elected, and European governments and the EU Commission are nominated by European leaders. In the end, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I can't remember any EU decision that infuriated me.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Are ordinary people across the EU in the loop on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?

Your own version of Project Fear? Don't worry, the French and other European countries will never accept the U.S. demands. The EU has higher standards for food and pesticides than the U.S. Instead, you should worry about your own Brexiters who are keen on importing hormone-injected beef, chlorinated chicken and more GM food to make up for the loss of trade with the EU.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Do ordinary people in Greece get a say on how Greece runs her economy?

The Greeks were responsible for their own troubles: tax evasion, corruption, heavy bureaucracy, and poor governance. The EU intervened in the Greek debt crisis only because Greece was part of the Eurozone and could have pulled other European countries down. The choice for Greece was pretty straightforward: either exit the EU to regain full control of its economy, or stay in the EU to get loans and rebuild its economy. The Greeks opted for the second option because the first one option led nowhere.
It's funny that the Greeks used the EU as a scapegoat for their own problems because the UK is doing the same with Brexit and the Italian populists are also doing it now (they even blamed the EU for the collapse of the bridge in Genoa even though it was built by an Italian architect according to Italian standards).

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Do people in Hungary and Austria get consulted before the German Chancellor unilaterally invites several million unvetted young men from terrorist regions to walk into Europe?

A political mistake from Merkel. But quite understandable given Germany's dark past. Germans still remember the Holocaust and some politicians thought that it was criminal to reject those refugees fleeing war. The only mistake by the EU during the migrant crisis was the failure to come up with a plan quickly enough. But the real culprit for that mess is the US. You don't have those refugees if you don't have war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya (blame France for that one).

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Are we British the only ones with reservations about the European Project?

Yes, if you are talking about the past and present project. Most European countries can see the benefits brought by the EU.
No, if you are talking about the future project, especially Macron's dream of more integration. Most European countries are happy with the status quo, while those where there is a nationalist revival (Austria, Hungary, Italy) might want to destroy that status quo.

[haroldeye]

We who grew up after the war never experienced what every generation of Europeans since the fall of the Roman Empire over a thousand and a half years ago accepted as a mere fact of life: That some region of the continent would always be fighting another. How many generations of young Germans, Britons and French have died on this battlefield or that, fighting each other in one war or another?

EU meddling in the Balkans, Kosovo and the Ukraine hasn't exactly produced peace. The peace after WW2 was provided by NATO not the EU.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by G-Type

Questions over questions (hence, I haven´t shortened the quote ), but I will try to give an answer. While doing so, I hope to use the most correct English that I am able to.

I want to begin by thanking you for the time and thought you have invested in this reply. I should mention that your English is superior to that which I frequently hear spoken by people who speak no other language, and were born and raised here. Nigel Farage, for example, has been an MEP for 20+ years and cannot get by in French, except when ordering food and wine at the taxpayer's expense.

Originally Posted by G-Type

You British are certainly not the only one having reservations about the European Project - I would assume that everyone does have them to a certain extent. However, even though some decisions might not always be the best to one own´s liking, I still think that the positive things do profoundly outperform the negative sides.

When it comes to personal liberty, I could never imagine to have physical borders again. The fact that I can hop from one country to another, using the same currency is wonderful.

You can´t imagine how proud I was to have the first Euro-coins and bills in my hands. For me, this was the ultimate sign of different nations being joined. Not a single second in my life have I cried a single tear not to have the Deutsche Mark anymore.

I regret to say that I see the single currency as a Bad Thing. It is convenient for individual travellers and for commerce. But it works against arbitrage between national economies. The 1930s Great Depression was caused in no small part by the deadly effects of the Gold Standard and the refusal of first the Hoover and then the FDR administrations to print money and overcome the ghastly liquidity crisis. Britain printed money (its called "quantitative easing" these days) in 2009 to 2012. It will take a long time to get our public debt ratio back down to pre-2009 levels. However Britain averted a collapse in the economy which would have rivaled 1929-33. America did the same thing and averted the permanent destruction of key economic sectors such as the motor industry. Meanwhile in the Eurozone the ill effects were much worse because the European Central Bank pursued a Hoover-like austerity line.

Had Britain joined the Euro under Tony Blair (oh how he wanted to drag us in) it would have been extremely bad for British people, in the same way that being inside the former ERM proved to be extremely bad for Britain. We see it in the horrific economic problems of Spain, Portugal and Italy, where youth unemployment is at levels which torment young people now and will cripple their future lives.

Originally Posted by G-Type

A good friend of mine is a Medical Doctor who once or twice per month takes a plane on Friday afternoon and goes for a weekend-shift at a hospital in London. He earns quite good money and helps out due to shortages in your NHS.
There are also people from the UK who have come here to Germany, add to our society with their splendid work and are highly respected members.

Why do I tell this? Because I am utterly convinced that the concept of the EU has profoundly enabled (formerly opposed) nations to come together and to generate wealth.

This is the reason why we Europeans can´t (and won´t) never tolerate a dilution and limitation of free transfers. This comes in a non-separatable package.

Everyone sees immigration in a slightly different way. I certainly do know quite a few racist and zenophobic people who support Brexit as a respectable alibi for very unrespectable motives. I suspect some of them will feel a bit crestfallen when there are fewer Polish and Lithuanian nurses and more nurses from former Commonwealth countries working in the NHS and living in the UK. But I feel myself that rational immigration controls are what Britain needs. We were being sued in the ECJ by Mr Juncker for refusing benefits and social housing to EU citizens who have no skills, no education, can't even speak English, have never even been here before, but claim to be looking for work (begging, dealing drugs and stealing cars in some cases I am afraid) and want to be fast-tracked into benefits and social housing which our own born-and-bred population are not allowed to have. This is why immigration must have controls - anything else is unfair.

This is not at all the same thing as trying to ban or restrict immigration from people who will bring valuable skills, pay taxes in and be an asset to our population. I think though that in order to come here to live and work you should get a visa and go through a process; I would expect to do the same if I wanted to live in someone else's country.

Originally Posted by G-Type

As for the loss of sovereignity, I have argued my points on numerous occasions within this thread. Sorry to repeat myself here, but I just don´t get it.

For all what´s going on in my proper country, it´s my proper government who needs to be held responsible. This goes for good decisions, as well as for bad decisions.

You should never make it too simple just to state that all (negative) side-effects are mainly the result of Brussels Government.

My actual government is lead by Mrs. Merkel, yours by Mrs. May.

I can assure you that my Leave vote in 2016 was a vote of No Confidence in Westminster, just as much as Brussels. You only have to study the antics of the Remainers in Parliament since then to see why I feel this lack of confidence. People like Chuka Ummuna keep up the good work of Edward Heath, never losing a chance to sell us down the river. But if we leave the EU, it becomes harder to sell our national bottom hole in public toilets in Brussels, although we see in the Chequers Plan that the urge to do this has not gone away.

Originally Posted by G-Type

Of course, I am always aware that some major decisions are being made on EU-Level. As I have said above, not everything can be applauded upon.

But it would never harm my perception of German sovereignty if the EU-commission decided that we need to switch to British sockets or French standards to make cheese. If those decisions turn out to be the best option among alternatives, then so be it.

Bureaucratic stupidity is not limited to the EU. But there is no justification for outsiders micro-managing Britain's rules and regulations. Over the space of 43 years we learned that Brussels is a theatre of the absurd. Throwing dead fish back into the sea to meet quotas is not even the half of it.

Basta. Enough.

Originally Posted by G-Type

To cut it short: Perhaps there is indeed a deeply rooting, historically explainable position within your lovely country to keep individualism and sovereignty. I would not deny that the roots lay in your geographical location or your history of the Commonwealth.
Most probably, this is the main reason why you could not imagine to be under a so-called "hood" or community of values.

Don't forget about William the Conqueror. We would prefer not to ruled by foreigners, as our previous experience of this has not been encouraging.

Originally Posted by G-Type

Coming back to your question whether ordinary people have been asked in Greece on how to run their economy, the answer is "No". But it was their (in-)proper government who rode their country in the sh*t. If the EU had not launched programs to help and restructure, where would Greece be today?

Greece was betrayed disgracefully by her political class, starting with the Goldman Sachs scheme to falsify her accounts to make it look as though Greece was "convergent" and could join the Euro. But if Greece left the EU, this kind of treachery would not be so easily delivered. The economic case for Britain to leave the EU is doubtful, but the economic case for Greece to leave is pretty much cast-iron. Only by leaving can Greece default on her debts, and only by defaulting on her debts can Greece restore her economy. I think Greece should leave the EU today, without giving notice. It is patently in her national interest to do this and I would applaud her for doing it. Watch how quickly her trade and exports would pick up and her unemployment would go down. Tourism would recover as would economic growth. The mad and self-defeating austerity measures could be reduced to something sane and humane. If she is allowed to experience economic growth Greece might be able to afford pensions and healthcare again - wouldn't that be nice?

Originally Posted by G-Type

Coming back to your question whether ordinary people or countries like Austria and Hungary have been asked 2015 when Mrs. Merkel unilaterally has invited millions of refugees, the answer is "No". That´s why she has needed to face tremendous attacks - rightly so. But I can also state that here in Germany, we hold our Chancellor responsible for that particular situation and only a small minority would see EU (as a whole) responsible.


I agree that the protection of outer borders of the EU is a core issue and needs improvement, but I would never go that far to doubt the positive effects of free traveling over that.

Literally speaking, I want my children and grandchildren to have the choice to freely travel and decide freely whether their own future and fortune lies in whole Europe.

This is your prerogative and I wish you good fortune (of course). I have taken a different view. There is much too much crime and social damage arising from freedom of movement. I would prefer there to be rational controls, both to prevent and detect undesirables from travelling and to punish undesirables when they commit crimes on someone else's soil.

Originally Posted by G-Type

Literally speaking, I want that your children and grandchildren will always have the choice to travel freely and make their proper living either in the UK or the EU.

We should always keep in mind that it´s them whom we owe a world of freedom and liberty, because they are not interested what happened in the past but only what will happen in future.

Nations have a right and a duty to decide who can come in and who must not come in. This is also for the sake of future generations as well as present generations. The herd of pigs episode on New Years Eve in Cologne in 2015 was an extreme example; it is usually nothing like as bad as that. But to maintain public safety you must not let riff-raff come in. This is why nation states exist, to defend and protect their citizens.

Originally Posted by G-Type

Do the politicians in the UK and all the Brexiteers in particular have a sound answer to this vital question?
.

Yes.

Nations must not let anyone and everyone come and go without monitoring what goes on. This is because without safety, there is no freedom.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

EU meddling in the Balkans, Kosovo and the Ukraine hasn't exactly produced peace. The peace after WW2 was provided by NATO not the EU.

NATO meddling in the Balkans, Kosovo and the Ukraine hasn't exactly produced peace. The peace after WW2 was provided by the EU not NATO.
See how interchangable that is?

Your reductive argument is akin to an oncologist claiming that surgery is the only way to treat cancer. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are other ways to treat cancer, and a successful treatment of many cancers often involves a combination of all three.

Just like different organisations have played a role in producing peace in Europe. One could also mention the UN, OSCE and OECD. I believe that the EU is the most crucial one by far, because it is not merely a defense pact relying on outside enemies to justify its raison d'être, it interconnects economies, cultures and people to mutual benefit.

To use a simple example, how can war between France and Germany even work, when the biggest defense contractor of the French and German military is co-owned by both countries?

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

NATO meddling in the Balkans, Kosovo and the Ukraine hasn't exactly produced peace. The peace after WW2 was provided by the EU not NATO.

You reckon those Commies who ran the USSR were afraid to take on the EU?

To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the EU have?

[haroldeye]

Since the end of WW2 the peace was kept by NATO. The EU didn't even exist until the early 90's.

To use a simple example, how can war between France and Germany even work, when the biggest defense contractor of the French and German military is co-owned by both countries?

I would suggest that that is for the economic benefit of the owners rather than peace.

[haroldeye]

Apparently the Sun newspaper had a front page mocked up photo of some of the EU 'leaders' as Gangsters. Someone called Mrs Jourova who is the EU Justice Commissioner seems not to like this affront to the dignity of the Commission and has stated.

‘The traditional media are under enormous pressure from the digital world, they lose readership and advertising revenue, they have to cut staff which means less fact-checking, less quality reporting. And I would advocate a European approach to media based on quality and smart regulation, if needed.’

Mmmmm!

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

You reckon those Commies who ran the USSR were afraid to take on the EU?

To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the EU have?

You're missing the point I was making. NATO is (or more precisely, was originally conceived as) a pact of mutual defense to avoid war, like surgery is a treatment against cancer. Much like most cancers can't be cured by surgery alone (and sometimes surgery is not even applicable due to the location of the cancer), lasting peace can not be enforced through strength of arms alone. There is a gulf of difference between negative peace and positive peace.


I'm not denying NATO's role in pacifying Europe after the war and staving off potential Russian designs on the continent, I'm arguing that the lasting peace and amicable relationship between countries is far less a product of NATO than of the European project.



Take NATO's former antagonist, the Warshaw Pact, as an example. Mutual defense pact, fell apart more than a generation ago, many of its former members now have hostile relationships with each other. There is no Eurasian Union that could have kept Russia and Ukraine together beyond the end of the Cold War, and now both countries are locked into a de facto state of war. Such hostility would be unthinkable between Germany and France, or France and the UK, countries that have been busy fighting each other for the better part of the last thousand years. Europe has enjoyed eras of negative peace before - after the Congress of Vienna, for instance - but that limited kind of peace never lasts.

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Since the end of WW2 the peace was kept by NATO. The EU didn't even exist until the early 90's.

I don't like bad faith arguing. I think you know that when I speak of the EU or the European project in a historic context since the end of the war, I am not just referring to the precise term "European Union" established in 1993, but in a generic fashion, including all of its original and predecessor organisations, such as the CoE in 1949 and ECSC in 1951, EFTA, EEC in the 60ies and so on. I don't want to clutter my arguments with tons of acronyms that most people today are unfamiliar with, so let me make it clear that I speak of a 70 year history when I speak of the European Union in this context, and not just of the political body established with the Maastricht accords.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I am curious to learn how others in Europe feel about being governed by the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt. Do you feel that the free movement of labour is a freedom for people, or a freedom for commerce? Do you feel that the Schengen Agreement is compatible with national security? Do you feel enfranchised or disenfranchised by the activities of the EU Commission and Parliament?

1. No one is governed by Juncker or Verhofstadt. But some are governed by Ms May, who only has about 40% of the votes in her country. Fix your voting system if you don't want to be permanently governed by a democratically illegitimate minority -- that's where the democratic deficit is
2. Yes, free movement is essential. Without it, we are reduced to small nation states
3. Yes, because border checks would find almost nothing
4. No, because they're all elected

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

EU meddling in the Balkans, Kosovo and the Ukraine hasn't exactly produced peace. The peace after WW2 was provided by NATO not the EU.

Wow! You are seriously distorting the facts.

The EU or EEC was never involved in the former Yugoslavia. The Balkans were a mess before WW1, that's why they were called the 'powder keg of Europe'. They were a mess during WW2 with the Ustasha and the Chetniks (Croatian and Serb extremists). For a short period, between 1945 and 1980, there was peace in Yugoslavia, because of Tito's authoritarian regime. But Tito's death, and the end of the Cold War, led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, with ethnic hatred resuming again. You have Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, it was a tense situation similar to what happened during the wars of religion in Europe between Catholics and Protestants. What led to war in the former Yugoslavia was the yearning for independence of the small republics, in complete contradiction with Serbia's ambitions and their dream of creating a Greater Serbia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

The situation in Ukraine is different. NATO has tried to expand its influence over Ukraine, which is a casus belli for Russia, because the Russians consider Ukraine as part of their sphere of influence even though Ukraine is no longer part of the USSR. To block NATO's expansion, Russia ended up invading eastern Ukraine and Crimea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...NATO_relations
So blaming the EU for war in Ukraine is a complete joke! Blame Russia or NATO but not an economic entity.

And finally, peace after WW2 was provided by the EU, not NATO. You could almost add the Soviet Union: the fear of a Soviet invasion acted as a strong incentive for European nations to cooperate. Yes, NATO deterred the USSR from invading Western Europe. NATO played its role in preventing a global war. But it was the EEC/EU which built the peace in Europe. It was the Franco-German animosity which led to WW1 and WW2. Once those 2 nations started cooperating through the European Coal and Steel Community (the ancestor of the EEC and EU) in 1952, they had more mutual interests and it became more difficult for France and Germany to go back to a situation like WW1 or WW2.