Support NeoGAF

[Walshicus]

What about the Chunnel?

Someone really needs to build a tunnel between Ireland and Scotland...

 

[dalin80]

NATO?

And even if you're just talking about European Union defence structures rather than the principle of supranational defence... there just hasn't been much history here. I mean there have been a few uses of EUFOR and it did relatively good work in Bosnia and Central Africa. But the whole system is still quite young.

NATO works because it is 90% US lead so follows a relatively simple command structure i.e. do what the Americans say. I'm mostly referring to things like the Eurofighter and NFR-90 / Horizon projects. Differing national requirements causing weapons systems that are decades late and several times over budget.

What about the Chunnel?

Unless we have filled it with explosives in an attempt to keep the French out then I don't think it counts as a defence project.

 

[Purkake4]

Unless we have filled it with explosives in an attempt to keep the French out then I don't think it counts as a defence project.

Oh, sorry, missed the defence part. Carry on.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Oh, sorry, missed the defence part. Carry on.

It's also actually a fairly decent example of a bi-lateral agreement, given that it was basically finished by the time the EU was actually founded in 1993.

 

[anonymous_abc]

It's also actually a fairly decent example of a bi-lateral agreement, given that it was basically finished by the time the EU was actually founded in 1993.

I vacuum cleaned my flat yesterday, that is a fairly decent example of extremely localised decision making. It's probably best if I get control over the judicial system within it. I could have multiple bilateral agreements with my neighbours to take care of any cross border disputes.

Spoiler

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I vacuum cleaned my flat yesterday, that is a fairly decent example of extremely localised decision making. It's probably best if I get control over the judicial system within it. I could have multiple bilateral agreements with my neighbours to take care of any cross border disputes.

Spoiler

Seriously, I like the chunnel - it's still kind of mind blowing to me that I can get the train from Preston to Paris in about 5 hours - but it's not an example of something that needed the EU to happen. It was just an agreement between Westminster and the French National Assembly.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Seriously, I like the chunnel - it's still kind of mind blowing to me that I can get the train from Preston to Paris in about 5 hours - but it's not an example of something that needed the EU to happen. It was just an agreement between Westminster and the French National Assembly.

I'm not disputing that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Seriously, I like the chunnel - it's still kind of mind blowing to me that I can get the train from Preston to Paris in about 5 hours - but it's not an example of something that needed the EU to happen. It was just an agreement between Westminster and the French National Assembly.

Aaaannnddd the UK side was entirely privately funded

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I'm not disputing that.

What was all that stuff about cleaning your flat and the judicial system? I don't get it.

 

[anonymous_abc]

What was all that stuff about cleaning your flat and the judicial system? I don't get it.

Just a lame joke, that yes there are things that are better not done on a EU level. That doesn't however mean nothing is better done on EU level.
The channel tunnel being a good example of bilateral agreements doesn't mean everything is better done bilaterally.

Anyway back on topic.

The EP is off to a fun start.

British Eurosceptics trade accusations with other MEPs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28124320

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Just a lame joke, that yes there are things that are better not done on a EU level. That doesn't however mean nothing is better done on EU level.
The channel tunnel being a good example of bilateral agreements doesn't mean everything is better done bilaterally.

Oh right. Well, I don't think anyone was making that claim.

Aaaannnddd the UK side was entirely privately funded

Just as well, since it apparently ended up costing 80% over its predicted budget!

 

[JesseEwiak]

The basic problem with the EU, speaking as an American, is that you're still in your "Articles of Confederation" stage. For example, in the US, we've had about a century of sending tax money from one state to another. So, even though mostly rich blue states are sending money to mostly poor red states who hate us, we don't mind because hey, we're all in this together, and even though rednecks in Alabama hate us gay Muslim athiests on the West Coast, we'll still kick in to pay for their kid's Medicaid and such, because it's the right thing to do 'cause we're all American's at the end of the day. We know Alabama will never be a top ten state, but people will always be there.

So, in a sense, Germany, France, and other 'rich' EU states have to be OK with the idea of basically, bailing out states like Greece forever. Now, obviously, in a more united Europe you'll have more control over their finances (OK, you want money to pay for your health care, roads, and so on. Do this, this, and this), but you'll have to not be under the delusion Greece is going to turn into some economic powerhouse anytime soon.

 

[TeddyBoy]

Just as well, since it apparently ended up costing 80% over its predicted budget!

Wow, someone's bad at estimating xD

The basic problem with the EU, speaking as an American, is that you're still in your "Articles of Confederation" stage. For example, in the US, we've had about a century of sending tax money from one state to another. So, even though mostly rich blue states are sending money to mostly poor red states who hate us, we don't mind because hey, we're all in this together, and even though rednecks in Alabama hate us gay Muslim athiests on the West Coast, we'll still kick in to pay for their kid's Medicaid and such, because it's the right thing to do 'cause we're all American's at the end of the day. We know Alabama will never be a top ten state, but people will always be there.

So, in a sense, Germany, France, and other 'rich' EU states have to be OK with the idea of basically, bailing out states like Greece forever. Now, obviously, in a more united Europe you'll have more control over their finances (OK, you want money to pay for your health care, roads, and so on. Do this, this, and this), but you'll have to not be under the delusion Greece is going to turn into some economic powerhouse anytime soon.

This is a big problem that only time and less nationalistic (speaking as a Brit) education can do right now if a United States of Europe were to happen. Hopefully I live long enough to see this, it seems way more than a life time away right now though

Subscribed to the thread!

 

[Guerilla]

The basic problem with the EU, speaking as an American, is that you're still in your "Articles of Confederation" stage. For example, in the US, we've had about a century of sending tax money from one state to another. So, even though mostly rich blue states are sending money to mostly poor red states who hate us, we don't mind because hey, we're all in this together, and even though rednecks in Alabama hate us gay Muslim athiests on the West Coast, we'll still kick in to pay for their kid's Medicaid and such, because it's the right thing to do 'cause we're all American's at the end of the day. We know Alabama will never be a top ten state, but people will always be there.

So, in a sense, Germany, France, and other 'rich' EU states have to be OK with the idea of basically, bailing out states like Greece forever. Now, obviously, in a more united Europe you'll have more control over their finances (OK, you want money to pay for your health care, roads, and so on. Do this, this, and this), but you'll have to not be under the delusion Greece is going to turn into some economic powerhouse anytime soon.

Not the same. The biggest difference is that unlike USA the rich states want to keep the union in the Articles of Confederation state forever because it suits them. They also don't "give money to the poorer states", they loan them with interest and become even richer. Alabama is being practically subsidized by the rich states, Southern Europe is being forced to sell their national wealth to rich countries corporations and impoverish the population though wage cuts and layoffs, policies enforced by the rich countries and specifically Germany.

 

[Mr. RHC]

The EP is off to a fun start.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28124320

Embarrassing lot.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Charlie weighs in on the meaning of federalism.

European 'federalism' isn't what you've been told it is

This term is key to the EU debate, yet politicians and the media cynically equate it with the imposition of a European superstate


David Cameron's defenestration at the hands of his European allies has engendered the usual war of words across the English Channel. It really seems that the era of megaphone diplomacy has, alongside Margaret Thatcher's handbag, been resurrected. Yet it is hard to maintain any meaningful discourse when the political vocabulary being employed by both sides means different things to different players in different places.

Nowhere is this more true than where the words "federal" and "federalism" are concerned. As the prime minister was pushing his Sisyphean boulder up the Brussels hill, I was in Strasbourg, speaking at the Council of Europe on its ground-breaking report into the future of its troublesome cousin, the EU. Needless to say, the British government officially didn't see much point to this exercise. This despite the fact that the council, comprising 47 countries and 800 million citizens, predates the original common market by quite some way, being formed in the aftermath of the second world war to guard and promote human rights through the European convention and the European court. Its membership (the Russians are suspended) is drawn from all national legislatures involved and deserves a hearing, a sentiment with which our prime minister must surely sympathise.

What struck me more than ever was the extent to which the political meaning of federalism has been twisted and caricatured out of all recognition in what passes for British political debate on matters European these days. The true (continental as well as North American) definition was well summed up by Andreas Gross, the Swiss socialist under whose name the report was published. I doubt that even the most arch-Tory Eurosceptic could take exception to his front-cover summation: "Rather than constituting a model for an ever closer political union or a European state, federalism implies a process of balancing power in a differentiated political order which enables unity while guaranteeing diversity."

Most continental politicians would at one and the same time recognise, approve of and wish to apply that definition. Yet "federalism", in the context of political and media usage in Britain, has come to mean the creation and imposition of a European superstate, one centralised in Brussels. Two generations of opportunistic British journalists and politicians alike must shoulder the blame for such wilful misinterpretation and misuse. It goes to the heart of the prime minister's political conundrum.

The UK government has observed of that very same paper, "It should be nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary." Those of us who advocate the liberal cause will very much concur with this principle of subsidiarity. The report reiterates that "a European federal democracy, therefore, would not mean more Europe and fewer nation states". The apparent argument between Britain and the rest of Europe is like an argument between two ships passing in the night – the same word means, politically, utterly contradictory things. It renders rational discussion of the European dimension within UK politics well-nigh impossible.

[...]

The Guardian

 

[CyclopsRock]

Aaaah, Charlie. I think he's being a bit of a dullard there, for two main reasons.

First, as this thread has shown, the definitions of what's "Europe only where necessary" vary wildly, with some of the more Europhilic members of this here thread including basically everything except schools and healthcare, where as others take a far "less connected" approach. So when Charles Kennedy, who's party's official stance is still that we should join the Euro as soon as practical, tells me "Don't worry, we'll only do what's necessary", that's when I run to the hills.

Second, I think he's ignoring the part where the EU's power has gradually been increased over the past 30 years or so - with the consent of our parliament, no doubt, but the eyes of most people without their consent. People were promised a referendum on the EU Consitution which we didn't get when it morphed into the Lisbon treaty, even though it involved transfers of power from our national parliament to the EU Parliament (for example, the role of the European Commissioner is now, as we've seen, the responsibility of the parliament and not national government's to decide). I think Charlie's fighting an uphill battle if he wants to convince people that his vision of a federalised Europe (which "implies a process of balancing power") will remain a static thing. That balance can change - does Charlie really think it won't? And does Charlie really think that we think it won't?

 

[Walshicus]

(for example, the role of the European Commissioner is now, as we've seen, the responsibility of the parliament and not national government's to decide)

Not true.

The post of commissioner is proposed by Member States who are now obligated to take into consideration the outcome of the EUP vote. Parliament's responsibility is to approve the candidate, not choose it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not true.

The post of commissioner is proposed by Member States who are now obligated to take into consideration the outcome of the EUP vote. Parliament's responsibility is to approve the candidate, not choose it.

But in what way is that not a shift in power? There were howls of derision in the EU Parliament election thread about the idea of it being anyone but Juncker due to the changes brought about in the Lisbon treaty. The results of the EUP elections now matter in a way that they didn't before.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are rumours abound that Spain is blocking the UKs entry into the European Arrest Warrant to try and wrangle concessions over Gibraltar. #evercloserunion #ignoringthewillofthepeople #Spainsecretlydoingusafavour

 

[anonymous_abc]

Seems like no one in the UK wants to be a commissioner.

Following calls for the job to given to a woman, he added that Lady Warsi was "manifestly a woman".

BBC

lol what an endorsement.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's like sending someone to Coventry. Unless you really like Croissants, I honestly don't know why anyone with any sort of ambition would want to go there. It's the ultimate sidestep off the edge of a cliff.

 

[anonymous_abc]

It's like sending someone to Coventry. Unless you really like Croissants, I honestly don't know why anyone with any sort of ambition would want to go there. It's the ultimate sidestep off the edge of a cliff.

Some countries more than others.


Somewhat related

France fears waning EU influence

The French secured only a handful of the coveted jobs in the European Parliament after the May elections and many believe they only have themselves to blame.

So it's probably with some irony that the French look across at their British partners. They may be more Eurosceptic than ever, but British politicians can at least work the European Union machinery.

"The British and the Germans are better organised," former Prime Minister Francois Fillon recently admitted. "First time around, [their MEPs] learn the ropes; second time around, they establish themselves, and then they run the show."

For French politicians, the job of an MEP in Brussels is often seen as a cushy break in a lacklustre city or, worse, a forced exile from home politics.

France doesn't send its best and most talented to Brussels. The centre-right UMP delegation includes Rachida Dati and Michele Alliot-Marie, not considered rising stars, and Jerome Lavrilleux, who was suspended from the party for alleged party funding fraud.

"France has the influence it merits. You have to choose whether you send hardworking people who speak several languages, or if you use the EU to recycle politicians who don't do their job properly," says centrist MEP Sylvie Goulard.

BBC

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

France has a big deficit of brillant politician, on the national and on the european level too. Very self-centered country, even if l'ENA (école Nationale d'Administration, THE school of the political elite) has moved to Strasbourg to promote european integration, we either have people ready to sell the entire country or those who promote an isolationist stance.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Wanted: a strong EU foreign policy chief

[...]

The choice of the next high representative for foreign policy, whose role is combined with commission vice-president for external relations, is particularly important given the threats to the EU's values and interests from armed conflict, dysfunctional democracy, and state failure in North Africa and the Middle East, a continuing conflict with Russia, and instability in Eastern Europe.

Yet signs are that EU member states are again approaching this nomination in a business-as-usual manner, focusing more on a potential nominee's gender, political orientation, and geographical origin than on qualifications for the job. But EU leaders must set aside their habitual politicking and summon the courage to appoint an experienced senior foreign policy practitioner. A leader is needed who will not be afraid to take initiatives and who can build consensus among the member states for conflict prevention, conflict management and, when necessary, rapid reaction.

[...]

If the EU's ambition to develop a common foreign and security policy is to succeed, it must do so above all in the EU's own neighborhood, where its influence is potentially the greatest. A decade ago, the EU declared its intention to create "a ring of well governed states" around the EU through its "neighborhood policy." Events in Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, and adjoining regions show that this policy has failed. The new foreign policy chief's top priority should be to make a rapid and thorough review of this policy and to propose new initiatives. It would be useful for Juncker, as Commission president, to appoint a commissioner for Wider Europe to take on the daily work with challenging partners in the EU's neighborhood. This would provide essential support for the high representative, who, by most counts, will have at least three full time jobs.

[...]

The appointment of a convincing European figure as foreign policy chief will help to confound the image of a continent turned in on itself with declining influence in the world. It will raise the EU's profile in world politics and enable it to tackle pressing problems in its own backyard. The opportunity should not be missed.

euractiv

Hard to argue with that, We don't need another Ashton.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"If the EU's ambition to develop a common foreign and security policy is to succeed..."

I don't think it is, though, is it? I mean, on paper it might be, but the reason that military co-operation and the alignment of foreign policy has remained at such a flimsy clip when compared to economic and legal ties is because no one really wants their foreign policy, the deployment of their armed forces, the human and material costs of an engagement etc defined by foreign states. And aside from anything, if we thought the gulf in financial and economic output between, say, Greece and Germany was big, it pales into insignificance when you compare the military of France, the UK and to an extent Germany to other parts of the EU.

Finally, it's especially pointless given the fact that the vast majority of the EU is already in NATO, which has basically monopolised European military cooperation, with the added benefit of including our big brother across the sea, and is a far more "known quantity". Given all of this, it seems weird that anyone would expect the EU Foreign Minister to have clout anywhere, be it in NATO, bi- or multi-national talks, the UN etc.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The UK has just done a sneaky (MASSIVE) reshuffle - in fact, it's still going on now - and we now have a Foreign Secretary whose official position is that we should leave the EU if we don't see significant reform before 2017. This is a not-so-thinly veiled message to our pal Juncker that this isn't a bluff, I think.

 

[anonymous_abc]

The UK has just done a sneaky (MASSIVE) reshuffle - in fact, it's still going on now - and we now have a Foreign Secretary whose official position is that we should leave the EU if we don't see significant reform before 2017. This is a not-so-thinly veiled message to our pal Juncker that this isn't a bluff, I think.

I'm not sure this will play particularly well in the EU, I just don't see alot of appetite on the continent to give in greatly to British blackmail,
But it will be interesting to see nevertheless.

But the fact that someone who has said that they’d vote to leave if substantial powers were not returned to the UK in the renegotiation is now Foreign Secretary sends a clear message to the rest of the EU about the British position. Combine this with Dominic Grieve’s departure as Attorney-General, which paves the way for the Tories to propose leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and this reshuffle could be the precursor to some major shifts in European policy.

Sectator

David Cameron embarked on the most far reaching reshuffle of the parliament that was dubbed a new "night of the long knives".

Hehe, nice.

Clarke, the former chancellor, made clear that is prepared for a final great battle of his political career in the runup to the prime minister's planned EU referendum in 2017. In his resignation letter to the prime minister, typed on plain paper, Clarke said that the case for Britain's membership of the EU is
Setting himself at odds with the prime minister, who says that Britain's current EU membership terms are unacceptable, Clarke wrote: "I intend to remain as an active backbencher in the House of Commons. My belief in Britain's membership of the European Union remains as firm as ever and I think the political and economic case is made even stronger in today's globalised economy and dangerously disturbed world. We must not diminish Britain's ability to influence events in the next few decades."stronger than ever.


[...]

Some of Clarke's friends have said that the prime minister is risking Britain's membership with what they regard as pointless rows such as the recent one over the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission. Clarke recently undermined the prime minister by questioning why everyone was making such a fuss over Juncker.

Guardian

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't see what makes it "blackmail"? The worry here - leaving the EU - is an end in itself for many people (including the new Foreign Secretary), not just a method of getting something. If the EU doesn't wish to reform in the way that the current UK government wishes it to, then they know what the consequences will be, but in that instance the UK wouldn't be leaving as a punishment or for the fulfillment of a threat, but because the government and electorate (it's pending a referendum of course) think that it's better than staying in. The EU are free to ignore that if they wish.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I don't see what makes it "blackmail"? The worry here - leaving the EU - is an end in itself for many people (including the new Foreign Secretary), not just a method of getting something. If the EU doesn't wish to reform in the way that the current UK government wishes it to, then they know what the consequences will be, but in that instance the UK wouldn't be leaving as a punishment or for the fulfillment of a threat, but because the government and electorate (it's pending a referendum of course) think that it's better than staying in. The EU are free to ignore that if they wish.

The British government wants to get the best deal or what it perceives that to be from the EU in the next 3 years. Which is fine. Their threat of leaving the EU otherwise is losing it's sting with every passing day. And how is it not blackmail to say 'either you all change what we want or we will have a tantrum'
I just don't think it's going to fly.
If the UK hopes to opt out of free movement of people and workers within the EU, I'm pretty sure they are doomed to fail. If they decide to stick the goalpost out of reach it's up to them.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The British government wants to get the best deal or what it perceives that to be from the EU in the next 3 years. Which is fine. Their threat of leaving the EU otherwise is losing it's sting with every passing day. And how is it not blackmail to say 'either you all change what we want or we will have a tantrum'
I just don't think it's going to fly.
If the UK hopes to opt out of free movement of people and workers within the EU, I'm pretty sure they are doomed to fail. If they decide to stick the goalpost out of reach it's up to them.

Why do you think it's losing its sting? It's the opposite, imo - they're demonstrating very clearly that it isn't a bluff.

Also, leaving the EU is a foreign policy option, not "throwing a tantrum" and it's one that'll only happen with a democratic mandate from the people on the UK. Aside from anything, I think if we left, a few of the other nations with generally eurosceptic electorates might wonder why the citizenry of the UK got to vote on their membership and they aren't... But at any rate, it's not blackmail. Blackmail is when you threaten to do something in order to get what you want, where that thing you're threatening is unconnected to what you want. For example, threatening to hurt someone if they don't give you money, or threatening to release naked photos of your ex in exchange for sexual favours. That's not the case here: leaving is an entirely plausible option, and it is an ends in itself (unlike hurting the person or releasing the sexy pics).

As for negotiation, I think you're right. I don't think we will receive an opt-out of the free movement of people - it's too great-a element of the EU. We may, however, be able to receive reform that means that people that DO come to the UK get so little support and help that they effectively can only afford to do so if they already have a job or otherwise have a means to support themselves here, which largely amounts to the same thing in some ways (though not all of course).

 

[anonymous_abc]

Why do you think it's losing its sting? It's the opposite, imo - they're demonstrating very clearly that it isn't a bluff.

Also, leaving the EU is a foreign policy option, not "throwing a tantrum" and it's one that'll only happen with a democratic mandate from the people on the UK. Aside from anything, I think if we left, a few of the other nations with generally eurosceptic electorates might wonder why the citizenry of the UK got to vote on their membership and they aren't... But at any rate, it's not blackmail. Blackmail is when you threaten to do something in order to get what you want, where that thing you're threatening is unconnected to what you want. For example, threatening to hurt someone if they don't give you money, or threatening to release naked photos of your ex in exchange for sexual favours. That's not the case here: leaving is an entirely plausible option, and it is an ends in itself (unlike hurting the person or releasing the sexy pics).

As for negotiation, I think you're right. I don't think we will receive an opt-out of the free movement of people - it's too great-a element of the EU. We may, however, be able to receive reform that means that people that DO come to the UK get so little support and help that they effectively can only afford to do so if they already have a job or otherwise have a means to support themselves here, which largely amounts to the same thing in some ways (though not all of course).

I'm sure it's no bluff, there will be a referendum and I can easily see the majority of Tories standing solidly in the out camp.
It's loosing it's sting because I think more and more people and politicians in rEU are seeing it as a more likely possibility and as less of a problem in the long run. Many people are increasingly fed up with the UK's insistence on not being in or out.

I'm looking forward to seeing what compromises get pushed back and forth. What you suggest seems unlikely to me too, as it appears to be counter to the spirit of the whole thing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm sure it's no bluff, there will be a referendum and I can easily see the majority of Tories standing solidly in the out camp.
It's loosing it's sting because I think more and more people and politicians in rEU are seeing it as a more likely possibility and as less of a problem in the long run. Many people are increasingly fed up with the UK's insistence on not being in or out.

I'm looking forward to seeing what compromises get pushed back and forth. What you suggest seems unlikely to me too, as it appears to be counter to the spirit of the whole thing.

Then rEU is braver than I am! I'm sure the rEU will be "fine" in the same way they've been fine all this time, but it can only be bad when one of the largest countries - in terms of population, GDP, military power, trade, key industries etc - leaves. Demographically the EU is shrinking, with only a handful of countries producing more people than are retiring, and the UK is one of them (the EU's working age population was at its highest in 2012, and according to The Economist the ratio of pensioners to workers will change from 28% currently to 58% in 50 years, and even that assumes 1m immigrants a year). I don't anticipate the EU crashing and burning or being destroyed amidst a European Spring (with or without us) but I think it's hard to have an optimistic view of its prospects.

And I say that as someone who thinks we should stay! Imagine what the Eurosceptics think!

(Also, the UK's insistence in not being in or out? Maybe if more countries gave their electorates a referendum, there'd be less uncertainty all around! Any posturing on the part of the UK is down entirely to the electorate's alienation with the EU. If the UK's guilty of anything here, it's in offering its people a chance to decide.)

 

[kitch9]

The EU meddling in our freedom again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28102927

Normal competition created Three, who charge next to nothing for Roaming, even in the USA. Competition. Vodafones Eurotraveller plan also works out cheaper.

The EU has done effectively nothing. It makes a good press point for people who get excited by every little bone thrown to them, but in the grand scheme of things there are more pressing issues to address.

Then rEU is braver than I am! I'm sure the rEU will be "fine" in the same way they've been fine all this time, but it can only be bad when one of the largest countries - in terms of population, GDP, military power, trade, key industries etc - leaves. Demographically the EU is shrinking, with only a handful of countries producing more people than are retiring, and the UK is one of them (the EU's working age population was at its highest in 2012, and according to The Economist the ratio of pensioners to workers will change from 28% currently to 58% in 50 years, and even that assumes 1m immigrants a year). I don't anticipate the EU crashing and burning or being destroyed amidst a European Spring (with or without us) but I think it's hard to have an optimistic view of its prospects.

And I say that as someone who thinks we should stay! Imagine what the Eurosceptics think!

(Also, the UK's insistence in not being in or out? Maybe if more countries gave their electorates a referendum, there'd be less uncertainty all around! Any posturing on the part of the UK is down entirely to the electorate's alienation with the EU. If the UK's guilty of anything here, it's in offering its people a chance to decide.)

They shouldn't give people to chance to decide, they might decide the wrong thing because they are clearly stupid.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Let UK leave the EU. It will be interesting to see how they propose to stay the financial Centre of Europe if they lose access to the inner market.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Normal competition created Three, who charge next to nothing for Roaming, even in the USA. Competition. Vodafones Eurotraveller plan also works out cheaper.

The EU has done effectively nothing. It makes a good press point for people who get excited by every little bone thrown to them, but in the grand scheme of things there are more pressing issues to address.

Not even rivers of milk and honey could please you could they.

They shouldn't give people to chance to decide, they might decide the wrong thing because they are clearly stupid.

I am all for letting people vote and decide, but they need a fair chance of hearing both sides of an argument and a balanced debate in the press. This is not something the British public has enjoyed regarding the EU in the past. I can only hope it changes in the next three years.
Also you seem to conveniently forget that the vast majority of the electorate in Europe voted for pro EU parties. No matter how much the sceptic vote has increased the overall majority is still pro EU.

So first Commission nominations are surfacing.
UK nominates Lord Hill

And JCJ should be elected by the EP shortly.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Not even rivers of milk and honey could please you could they.

I am all for letting people vote and decide, but they need a fair chance of hearing both sides of an argument and a balanced debate in the press. This is not something the British public has enjoyed regarding the EU in the past. I can only hope it changes in the next three years.
Also you seem to conveniently forget that the vast majority of the electorate in Europe voted for pro EU parties. No matter how much the sceptic vote has increased the overall majority is still pro EU.

Not of the UK electorate: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leave-opinium-observer-poll

Flix, you should buy one of these new sashes! Only £107, bargain www.epsash.eu

 

[TCRS]

I am all for letting people vote and decide, but they need a fair chance of hearing both sides of an argument and a balanced debate in the press. This is not something the British public has enjoyed regarding the EU in the past. I can only hope it changes in the next three years.

It's been pretty balanced. We've got both pro and anti EU press unlike Germany for example. All press there is firmly in the pro-EU camp. Some might be more critical than others but there is no real critical thinking going on regarding the democratic legitimacy of the EU for example. It's touched upon every now and then but the general thinking seems to be that the ends justify the means. That's absolutely unacceptable for a country that has been a parliamentary democracy for 400 years.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Flix, you should buy one of these new sashes! Only £107, bargain www.epsash.eu

It's magnificent.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's magnificent.

From the website:

"Every sash comes in a black luxury box"

Like the new avvy btw ;-)

 

[anonymous_abc]

He got 422 votes out of the 729 in total who voted, despite strong opposition earlier from Britain.

• The eurozone should create a joint budget, separate from the EU budget, to help countries making difficult structural reforms
• The EU needs a 300bn-euro (£238bn; $408bn) investment plan to boost growth and create jobs
• "Maximum transparency" is needed in the EU's free trade negotiations with the US, to allay people's suspicions
• The EU "should not Europeanise every tiny problem" but "deal with the big tasks"
• The troika group - in charge of EU bailouts - must be made more democratic, with more parliamentary scrutiny
• EU rules on free movement of workers will not be changed - but national authorities must tackle abuses

 

[kitch9]

Not even rivers of milk and honey could please you could they.

I am all for letting people vote and decide, but they need a fair chance of hearing both sides of an argument and a balanced debate in the press. This is not something the British public has enjoyed regarding the EU in the past. I can only hope it changes in the next three years.
Also you seem to conveniently forget that the vast majority of the electorate in Europe voted for pro EU parties. No matter how much the sceptic vote has increased the overall majority is still pro EU.

So first Commission nominations are surfacing.
UK nominates Lord Hill

And JCJ should be elected by the EP shortly.

I don't see how I should be getting excited about potentially saving a tenner or so on my phone bill whilst in other EU countries if for some reason I can't be bothered to pick the phone up and make sure I'm on the correct tariff.

 

[anonymous_abc]

BBC's James Landale has interesting commentary on what job Lord Hill could get, and goes into the sort of different view points exist between the two channel sides.

What job might Lord Hill get in the new European Commission?

David Cameron has been quite clear that he wants Britain to have a big economic portfolio.

[...]

The list is traditionally understood to include trade, competition, internal market and services, and economic and monetary affairs.

But the latter always goes to a Eurozone country, some say energy should be included in the list too, and there is talk in Brussels that internal market and services could be divided into two separate jobs.

For now, the public strategy among British officials is to say that the UK is open-minded, that it would consider any of the economic jobs.

British diplomats are at pains to be accommodating to their European counterparts in an attempt to rebuild bridges after the battle against Juncker's presidency.

But I have been told that in private David Cameron is lobbying hard for the internal market job.

He wants Britain to have a role that will be central to his attempt to reform the EU.

Sources familiar with the discussions, however, have told me that Angela Merkel has made it very clear to the prime minister that Britain is not going to get internal market.

One source said that there are ten other countries lobbying for the job and Britain is low in the pecking order.


[...]

Having spent a day in Brussels at the latest summit, I have been struck by how many officials and diplomats say that Lord Hill's low profile and lack of experience will place him at a substantial disadvantage compared to other candidates, several of whom are former heads of government and senior ministers.

Some see it as a sign that Britain does not take Brussels seriously. Why could you not send a big hitter, they ask?

[...]

The other thing going in Lord Hill's favour is that many people in Brussels genuinely think Britain is teetering on the edge of withdrawal from the EU.

Whenever I go to Brussels, I am always struck how many there believe that the UK is in the departure lounge, in a way that most in Westminster do not.

But some Downing Street officials believe that they can use this fear to their advantage, allowing Juncker to believe that unless Lord Hill gets a good job, then the UK will take another step closer to the door.

Either way, there is a hard diplomatic slog ahead.

BBC

 

[CyclopsRock]

Why could you not send a big hitter, they ask?

We are, sexual repression aside, typically not a nation of masochists. Furthermore, Merkel saying we won't get it is as good an endorsement as you can find.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Man, the EU's pretty pathetic. What would Russia have to do for more significant sanctions to have to happen? That's a genuine question. They've invaded Georgia, annexed a bit of a sovereign neighbour, and now either trained separatists to shoot a passenger plane out of the sky, or otherwise put their own troops in sheep's clothing to do it. If the line hasn't been crossed yet, does it actually exist?

 

[anonymous_abc]

Man, the EU's pretty pathetic. What would Russia have to do for more significant sanctions to have to happen? That's a genuine question. They've invaded Georgia, annexed a bit of a sovereign neighbour, and now either trained separatists to shoot a passenger plane out of the sky, or otherwise put their own troops in sheep's clothing to do it. If the line hasn't been crossed yet, does it actually exist?

Yet you don't want a unified voice for foreign and security policy and prefer 28 people not deciding on anything?

 

[Dascu]

Any word yet on other new Commissioners?

 

[JonnyBrad]

Man, the EU's pretty pathetic. What would Russia have to do for more significant sanctions to have to happen? That's a genuine question. They've invaded Georgia, annexed a bit of a sovereign neighbour, and now either trained separatists to shoot a passenger plane out of the sky, or otherwise put their own troops in sheep's clothing to do it. If the line hasn't been crossed yet, does it actually exist?

Not have Germany and Italy pretty much dependant on their gas supplies. At the very least they should now be starting to ween off it as much as possible.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Any word yet on other new Commissioners?

Nothing will be decided till the foreign affairs and the president of the European Council have been chosen which will probably happen in August.
Various countries have nominated their candidates for the commission though, what they end up doing is very much undecided though.

 

[TCRS]

Yet you don't want a unified voice for foreign and security policy and prefer 28 people not deciding on anything?

Yes, because this shows that it can't be done.