UKC

In the EU parliament national parties align in groups. The largest group, The European Peoples Party has no UK MEPs aligned to it. The second largest has Labour aligned.

Imagine walking into the polling booth for the General Election next year and finding Green, UKIP, BNP, Lib Dem. No labour or conservative in your constituency. Wouldn't you be a bit unhappy not to be able to cast your vote in favour of your party of choice?

Does it matter? I don't know how much party politics affects the parliament, but it does seem strange.

In reply to Philip:

"Does it matter?"

It matters that the extremist parties (BNP, UKIP) in that list *don't* get the vote...

Neil

In reply to Philip:

The same thing happens now in the UK with some of the smaller parties. You may find yourself in an area where that party isn't standing.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Fixed that for you.

In reply to Philip:

That's because David Cameron took the Tory MEPs out of the EPP group in the European Parliament in some rather pitiful domestic grandstanding. I say pitiful because virtually no one in the UK seems to have noticed or cared, and the end result was that he pissed off Merkel and the Germans of the CDU variety who have been the Conservative's natural allies within the EP.

The Tories then had to set up a new right of centre party bloc for its MEPs within the EP, mainly with one of the medium sized Polish conservative parties and a handful of MEPs from other countries mainly who were the sole representative of their party in the EP. When journalists started looking at the Tories news partners within the EP, they found that lots of them were quite far right and had some unpleasant views that at least the Parliamentary Conservative Party has moved beyond. The one Latvian guy used to go on a march for SS Veterans or some such as one example.

I think the EPP is putting up candidates in the UK on their own aren't they? Yep - google knows all - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/new-uk-epp-party-vows-be-alterna... Bet they won't get many votes though.

In reply to TobyA:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/may/22/nigel-farage-u...

In reply to Philip:

I've voted. I was horrified that not counting the Greens ALL of the "others" were varying degrees of right wing isolationists: BNP/ English Democrat/ Harmony - very far right and then UKIP/ An Independence from Europe (Splitters!!)-only slightly swivel eyed. That alone makes voting in this election probably more important than the General Election, where apart from a minority of swing/ target seats, your vote won't make that much of a difference.

Surely the point about the surge in UKIP's popularity is partly due to the fact that most people are now fed up to the back teeth with the two main parties and the LibDems and see little to choose between them. Labour won't commit on a referendum, Cameron, IF he is returned in 2015 will I believe find another excuse to procrastinate on the issue. Labour sweep immigration under the carpet, deny that there is any concern about it and if anyone dares to mention it they are immediately branded as racist and so it goes on. Despite what "experts" and main party politicians profess, voters are concerned about these other issues as well as the economy. They see the EU becoming an increasingly undemocratic bureaucracy intent on airbrushing away individual nation states and identities and becoming an all powerful superstate.

When the Common Market, as it was then, was established people assumed that that was all it would be - a trading bloc. They now feel they have been duped into being swallowed up by an unanswerable dictatorship.

I'm certainly not saying that UKIP are perfect but I can understand why they are likely to gain a high percentage of protest votes. I do find it abhorrent that the left wing seek to identify UKIP with odious groups such as the BNP and I believe that the two main parties together with the LibDems, because they are running scared of UKIP have been doing a hell of a lot of mud-slinging and perhaps even infiltrating UKIP.

Finally, before anyone accuses me of being a closet UKIPer and thus racist, homophobic and mysoginistic then you do not know me. I don't give a toss whether the person next to me on the bus is black. white, brown, green, pink, gay, male or femail.

In reply to toad:

Two things.

1. I think voting in UK elections is important not just because of the direct result but because of the polling of people's view. Large parties will look to why people vote for the smaller ones.

2. There is no option in the UK to vote for a centre-right EU group that isn't Eurosceptic. Vote Tory and get the mildly eurosceptic, vote UKIP and get the more extreme. Similarly, the Socialists and Liberals require each other's support in the EU parliament - neither are big enough and even together they don't make 50%. So if you're left wing leaning then the Labout and Lib Dem choice splits the vote favouring the right.

You could argue that the latter point is also true in the UK gen election, but that is where UKIP is a good thing in that it provide an alternative right in the same way you could argue the LD do to the left.

In reply to mypyrex:


But you just don't want them to share the same fundamental rights as you if they're from a different EU country? Is that right?

In reply to Philip:


You don't get it do you? My objection is to the ever increasingly powerful overbearing EU "superstate" where nations no longer have independent control over matters that affect them.

In reply to mypyrex:

Which matters do you want the UK to control that it currently doesn't?

In reply to MG:


Everything that has been ceded to the EU

In reply to Neil Williams:


Which policies of UKIP are "extremist"?

In reply to TobyA:


Or rather, it was a fundamental disagreement. A core aim of the EPP is "ever closer union". The Tories do not want that.

In reply to mypyrex:


I doubt 'most people' will vote UKIP.


Cameron does not need an excuse, he did not win a majority so is in no position to offer a referendum.


Most people voted for parties committed to Europe at the last general election. When I see posts like yours I get the impression UKIPers are a size-able minority, who are basically sulking because they don't get their own way. Your best chance of an EU referendum is a Tory majority.... which is increasingly unlikely with UKIP splitting their vote.

In reply to mypyrex:

Err why? You see no advantage in pooling some powers?

In reply to mypyrex:


This, and that Farage is good media fodder and so gets levels of exposure which are stratospherically out of proportion to his actual place in politics, UK, or EU.

But to your original point, yes, it is also a major contributor to the fortunes of the Yes (to Scottish independence) campaign.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It's not. Here is what they say about Europe (in part)

"According to the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union must restrict itself to those tasks which cannot be adequately dealt with at lower levels. A lean European Union is built on self-governance by local and regional authorities and the identity and the role of the nation states."

Quite why Cameron left is unclear but getting to bed with bizarre nationalist extremists of various stripes was not a good move.

In reply to mypyrex:


Give me an example - I'm quite politically ignorant and could do with educating. I guess I could look it up, but then it wouldn't have that special mypyrex flavour...

In reply to MG:


As I said in my contribution the EU has now moved beyond pooling"some" powers. It is establishing itself as the all powerful superstate - not dissimilar to the old soviet empire.

In reply to tlm:

Obviously

In reply to mypyrex:



But you said you want all powers removed from the EU. Do you see no advantage in, for example, EU trade negotiations, or common safety standards for cars (or climbing equipment)?

In reply to MG:

Here is what the EPP also say (it may of course that they're not entirely consistent):

"l. The European project, an ever closer union of united nation states, is not to destroy the nation states of Europe, but is a prerequisite to avoiding nationalism [...] European integration is a prerequisite for the solution of the fundamental problems our nations face [...]"

2012 Party Platform.

In reply to tlm:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/EAgreenEU.html

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well I took my passage from the "policy areas" section of their website, which I assume lays out their policies. You seem to be quoting them citing the aims of the European project, so it is not their policy, let alone a "core aim".

Moreover, since the quote includes the eminently sensible "is not to destroy the nation states of Europe, but is a prerequisite to avoiding nationalism [...] European integration is a prerequisite for the solution of the fundamental problems our nations face", I don't really see the problem. Even if that isn't exactly in line with Tory policy, is it really less aligned than the extremists they have grouped with?

In reply to mypyrex:


Thanks, myP. I feel a bit disappointed though. I did say I wanted to know what you thought, rather than what David Green thought. Unless you ARE David Green?!

Anyway - I will just have to make do.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually it's worth quoting the whole text from their policy area. I'm not sure I find anything to disagree with http://www.epp.eu/policy-areas

"The promotion of the European model is crucial if we want European values to have an impact in a rapidly changing world. It is our task to adapt the European Union to the realities and needs of the 21st century by setting the right priorities and by bringing the European Union closer to the citizens.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union must restrict itself to those tasks which cannot be adequately dealt with at lower levels. A lean European Union is built on self-governance by local and regional authorities and the identity and the role of the nation states.

The EPP calls for gradual progress towards a genuine European Political Union. The institutional setup must be developed further around the EU’s basic principles. It needs democratically representative institutions including a more effective European Commission.

The co-decision procedure between the Council and the European Parliament has to become more transparent and the Council of Ministers should decide publicly on legislation.

The direct election of the President of the European Commission is one of our goals. This would reduce the perceived democratic deficit of the European Union and foster a greater shared identity among EU citizens.

The elections to the European Parliament must develop into genuine European elections in the sense of having more real European issues debated because we take the democratic rights of European voters seriously.

We believe solidarity and social, economic and territorial cohesion are important objectives of European integration.

Enlargement has been one of the most successful European policies in promoting freedom, democracy, peace, stability and economic development as well as human rights and the rule of law across the whole Europe. The EPP aims to form a truly united Europe through membership or strategic partnership. This concept should be developed more concretely in order to represent a real alternative to full membership to European countries which cannot or do not want to become EU members. Conceivable options could be multilateral agreements covering participation in the single market and close cooperation in the field of foreign and security policy."

In reply to mypyrex:

When I read Civitas I stopped reading

In reply to mypyrex:


You are absolutely correct. Since 2004 when our parliament was disbanded and the rules changed so we must carry identity card. The rise of the secret police and the deportation of citizens to far flung places (Scotland?).

At least we still have this one last forum to criticise the government before we are all shot.

Oh, my mistake, that turns out not to be true.

In reply to MG:


I was quoting from their "Platform" which is their fundamental principles. Yes they are then quoting the EU aim of "ever closer union" but they are explicitly associating themselves with that aim.


I don't like some of their associations, but that is a fault of the EU system that requires them to associate to get funding. Just one of the ways in which the EU systems themselves are biased towards enforcing integration.

In reply to MG:


How about this bit:

In reply to mypyrex:


Which is?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well it's a bit vague if they mean aiming for powers distributed something like the US or Canada in 50-100 years, I wouldn't have much problem with that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yep, so instead of staying in the biggest EP grouping where they were IIRC the second biggest party present after the CDU and making their case there, they left- marginalised themselves in the EP and further marginalising UK policy in Europe. Why? To make a point to some Westminster backbenchers who were getting a bit to cosy with Nigel's gang.

In reply to mypyrex:


You certainly wouldn't find me sitting on the bus next to the Daily Mail's women's page!

In reply to MG:


I'm not opposed to cooperation in many areas, but it should be on an a la carte, opt-in basis. Each aspect of the EU should be a distinct multi-lateral treaty that countries could either participate in or not as they saw fit. This would have the huge advantage of forcing the EU Commissionaires to come up with policies that would actually be popular.

Thus, to take your example of common safety standards for cars, such a common standard could be set up, and governments could then decide whether cars sold in their country needed to meet it, and/or consumers could decide whether to buy a car that meets the standard.

Ditto for the common agricultural and fisheries polices, which we could just opt out of if we didn't like them.

One of the big advantages of such a policy is that things could move *faster* in areas where some wanted to. For example, on aspects of car safety or emission levels, a nation would be free to set a higher standard than the "norm", and then governments would be free to opt into that, rather than everything proceeding at a slower rate driven by the need for prior agreement by everyone.

In reply to MG:


Maybe you personally would not have a problem with it, but aiming for a US/Canada-style federal system on a timescale of 50 years or so gives a very definite favour to all EU policy and is a very different mindset to that of many Tories currently. It's not surprising that they want to say no to that.

In reply to TobyA:


And to make a point to Merkel et al that they really do not want "ever closer union", and that they really do mean it when they say that, and that sometime there needs to be a fundamental debate about the future shape of the EU.

If there is going to be a political-union Euroland akin to the US federal system, then we in the UK need to decide either to join in, or to carve out some alternative arrangement. Pretending that there isn't an issue and that we should just proceed with short-term issues and ignore the bigger picture is perhaps worst of all.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


As always when you propose this you miss the huge tangle that would result. On safety, one point of common standards is that it also allows for free trade - if a car meets the standards it can be sold in any EU country. In your system if countries A,B and C agree free-trade and also common safety standards all is fine. As soon as A raises safety standards unilaterally, cars made in C can't be sold there unless upgraded specifically for one market. And it gets worse if B changes standards in conflicting manner This magnified hundreds of times over many areas of policy is one reason why pooling some powers at EU level is so much more efficient - you get a coherent(ish) set of rules not an almighty mess.

A practical example of what I am talking about is the professional registration of engineers in the US which is done at state level. People find they can work in some fields in some states due to mutual recognition but not others. And then the rules change. It is a mess

In reply to MG:

One thing nearly everyone doesn't realise about the EU is what it is actually doing behind the scenes. In the countries worst effected by the eurozone crisis there is currently a fire sale of public utilities and national assets into private hands (Thatcher would love it). You need a loan from the ECB? Then privatise your water utilities and give us the collateral.

Who makes these decisions? An ex goldman sachs banker of course (Mario Draghi) in cahoots with Lagarde and Barruso. Two of those three are not elected and the other only by the european parliament. Not very democratic. One of the main reasons why the EU will continue to exist and there is very little you or I can do about it is because these guys are making their buddies very very rich. In fact, there is a school of thought that says that the leaders are using the crisis to promote neoliberalism and weaken workers rights. Maybe thats a bit too tin foil hat for some..

But you won't read any of that in the bumph on a libdem flyer

The whole "supressing nationalism" is a red herring as far as I am concerned. They are getting far to rich to let you or I fck it up. No referendum for us. the EU is a right wing wet dream for those in power

In reply to MG:


You exaggerate the "mess". The situation you describe is what we have now, with the US, EU, Japan, Korea, etc all having different rules. Yet the big car companies cope with it and sell to these markets.

If a country goes out on a limb then the consumers in that country will suffer higher prices and/or smaller choice, thus giving an incentive to join common standards.


So there is obvious advantage in multi-state mutual-recognition deals, which leads to the question of whether there are good reasons for the differences or whether it is simply local bureaucrats. Picking an example where it is not working well is not the same as saying it can't work well -- all human systems have bad implementations at times.

I'm also not saying there should be no drive for wider multi-national agreements, I think there should be a drive for them, driven by the clear advantages they can bring, which consumers and governments can see.

In reply to Philip:

I've noticed that everything mypyrex suggests he wants he could get voting green rather than the racists light party :p

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Cope in the sense the markets are bigger enough for different models to be sold in each. The days of Swedes driving Volvos, the French Renaults etc are over.




Wherever such multilateral agreements work (WTO, US Federal system, UN) they come with a central bureaucracy that imposes structure on the process of making rules. The EU is just another example, and a reasonably democratic one (that's why we can vote today). Removing it and trying to get 25+ governments to agree multilateral treaties in myriad areas either wouldn't work at all or would result in a much more bureaucratic process.

In reply to Neil Williams:

"Does it matter?"

It matters that the extremist parties (BNP, UKIP) in that list *don't* get the vote...

Neil

Interestingly, police presence at all polling stations in Tower Hamlets. Never happened to this extent before to prevent intimidation. Not sure who is intimidating who, but not good...all the same.

In reply to MG:


This is what you're missing, you don't need to get all 25+ governments to agree all at once, you get those that want to to agree. It may be only 15 or 11 or 7. Then, if you have set up a *good* system, that has clear advantages to it, then others may well want to join. The beauty of the voluntary-opt-in principle is that you do not first have to get everyone to agree, which is usually the stumbling point.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well OK 5+ countries. I still don't see the advantage. We pretty much have what you describe with the EU but in a formalised system.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

What a ridiculous idea. Can you imagine the paperwork involved in trying to do business with different countries that might be in or out of different agreements.

In reply to Philip:


Sure, in the same way that Apple sells to the US, EU, Japan, Australia, South Africa, etc.

In reply to MG:


The point is that you could opt in to some parts and not to others at will.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Which is no doubt a pain even for large companies.

Currently if you are a widget manufacture in Spain, providing you can meet CE marking standards you can sell your widget anywhere in the EU/EEA. Under your scheme Widget Corp would need different approval in each of several ever changing groups that had come up with widget specifications. It would be grossly bureaucratic, expensive and destroy trading opportunities.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If your suggestion were so great, wouldn't the big corporates be supporting our removal from the EU? Except I seem to remember 70% of British businesses being for Britain's continued EU membership. As was that paid lackey of the American corporate interest, aka POTUS, who also suggested it would be a very bad idea.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Apple. Really. The archetypal European business.

And do you read the news? Apple have had just one or two small problems with Samsung.

In reply to MG:


What you're continually overlooking is that, if it were "grossly bureaucratic, expensive and destroying trading opportunities" then there would be strong pressure to conform, namely citizens and consumers and governments would see the advantages of joining the standard.

Put it another way, in IT there are *huge* advantages in joining a standard, and thus we have worldwide standards, those are all continually being updated. It works because of market pressure. But it works *well* because of market pressure, in that companies join the standards they want, and can go beyond old standards or develop new ones if they wish. No area of our lives has developed as fast as IT capability and hardware, and yet this is not because of an EU committee having dictatorship over everything, it is because of the advantages of opting into standards when they are good ones and staying out of bad ones.

In reply to seankenny:


American opinion is very much a self-interested opinion, they are not concerned with what is good for the UK, they want the UK to influence the EU to be more UK/US-like rather than France-like.

In reply to seankenny:


What the businesses want is continued free trade. I agree, that's one thing we do want and should opt into or stay in.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually, what businesses want is to stay in the EU. At least, that's according to the CBI: http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2013/09/8-out-of-10-firms...

And my apologies, it was 80% not 70%.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

and yet this is not because of an EU committee having dictatorship over everything,

Similarly EU standards don't result from dictatorship. Have ever been involved with developing any EU standards? In my experience the process is built around both consensus and taking the best bits from around the EU to build on what has gone before.

Sure in narrow areas like say USB specs or something there is no need but in others, safety standards for example, market pressure doesn't result in an optimal solution and there is need for government to have a role. In some of these areas it is better done at supra-national rather than national level (in others locally).

In reply to seankenny:


Yes, because they want the free trade.

"a substantial majority of CBI members would support staying in, fearing an exit would affect access to trading markets and business investment, ..."

On the latter, when we were deciding whether to join the Euro, lots of people were saying we had to be in the Euro otherwise inward investment would suffer. It hasn't.

In reply to MG:


So the Common Agricultural Policy is an example of "taking the best bits from around the EU"?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't know about that, which isn't really a standard. I was referring to technical standards and the like.

In reply to MG:


Exactly, so the "technical standards and the like" we opt into. And the CAP we don't. Hardly rocket science.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Except that access to the single market depends on signing up to other common European policies, whether you are in or out of the EU, which totally makes sense as other countries will want to be on a level playing field.

What you would end up with is the UK with no voice in the EU but still have most of the rules.


Maybe you would gain some more freedom on "technical standards" and the likes, but I doubt this would make a great difference as you woudl have to comply to EU standard anyway.

For example I doubt that the British car industry would be able to sell any cars in the rest of the EU if they were not conforming to EU regulations. So in the end they would still have to conform to exactly the same norms, but without having a say.


I think a much smarter approach is to try to be an active and influential member rather than pulling out and still having to comply with everything but with no say.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And because they want the UK to have influence in policies that affect them. I'm just reading the press release here...

In reply to RomTheBear:




Exactly. Coel makes it sound like a hotel where you choose if you want room service or not and this has no bearing on whether you can sleep in the room. It's in fact a club with benefits but also rules you need to follow to get them. You can't take the benefits and ignore the rules.

In reply to MG:

... except he can't call it a 4-star hotel as his quality criteria were developed independently by a consortium of all the hotels in Chipping Hamlet, while most hotels elsewhere worked closely together in agreeing a common system. His website fully explains the differences but he still can't get listed with hotel.com because it isn't worth their while adapting their systems to cater for obscure exceptions.

In reply to Philip:


Perhaps the best result would be a huge majority for the extreme right-wing parties. Here in France the "Front National" is heading for a record
number of "Euro Deputés". Having won their majority, they could simply propose and vote to have all their powers removed or the European Parliament dissolved.
( I have no knowledge of the rules governing the European Parliament and if such actions would indeed be possible).

In reply to mypyrex:

Far better in the hands of the EU than the bunch we have.

I am EU all the way

In reply to MG:



That's simply because that is how it is set up currently. The whole point of what I'm suggesting is to change the rules!

In reply to Pyreneenemec:
The Parliament doesn't have much power because the national governments prefer the power to remain with the commission who do what the national governments decide in treaty negotiations. But I am quite possibly completely wrong!

In reply to john arran:


Except that your rebuttal actually supports *me*. The hotel star system is not a government or EU-directed thing, simply an opt-in standard for anyone who wants to opt in. In other words you can adopt the European standard for hotel stars without having to accept the CAP and all the rest of the EU stuff.

Wiki: "The HOTREC (Hotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe) is an umbrella organization for 39 associations from 24 European countries. At a conference in Bergen in 2004, the partners drafted a hotel classification system in order to harmonize their national standards."

In reply to RomTheBear:






Good post.. this is what the likes of Mypyrex are missing.. whether we are in Europe or not we will have to abide by their standards.. nothing will change we'd just be a small shitty country sandwiched between giants..

if we stay in we can influence and push for deals which suit the UK.

We put a lot in but we also get a lot out of europe. Hopefully UKIP will continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well of course we would, just as if we sell to the US we have to conform to their standards, and if the EU sold to us they'd have to conform to ours.


Yes, but then we could opt out completely of all the bits we don't want to be in (common agricultural and fisheries polices for starters, but lots of others).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Depends on your definition of continually updated, if you mean rather slowly and problematically then you would be right.
You only need to look at the history of IPv6 for how it can be somewhat slow.
Or the long, expensive, evolution of HTML for when a lack of standards gives major problems, for examples of this just have a quick look at why companies still use xp.

IT has several standards bodies and there are quite a few problems currently as they try to step up to the challenge of being a mature and highly important part of the economy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Its not perfect but we'd also lose a lot of science funding..

But the Fisheries policy is slowly evolving..

In reply to dissonance:


Would this be better were the EU bureaucrats in charge?

In reply to IainRUK:


Small beer compared to the cost of the CAP.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ah a nice loaded question.
As opposed to other bureaucrats? Who are even less accountable?
Good question, however I was answering your rather inaccurate claims about technology standards. Anyone who deals with them will know that they tend to be rather slow to develop beyond the first mad rush (which then leaves the issue about whether to just sacrifice the early adopters or deal with legacy pain for years).

Although since you mention the EU and technology. One of their better efforts although so far achieved via threat of action rather than specific laws is for mobiles. Have you noticed how you no longer add to a drawer full of old chargers, all with different adaptors.
Although longer term it may be interesting to see how flexible it is.

Oh and whilst we are discussing unaccountable bureaucrats and crappy decisions for technology the new gTLDs tick that box. Nice expense for business with uncertain value.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Sure they would probably sell to our standard at a higher price. And still your point is irrelevant because most of the stuff we make would still have to conform to all CE standards if we want a chance to export our products, except we would have no say in it whatsoever.


Are you sure it will be possible to opt-out of the CAP and still be able to buy cheap products from France/Spain without paying elsewhere ? I doubt it. It seems much smarter to me to try to reform the CAP, which is already happening.

In reply to toad:

I think some of the parties did miss a trick with their slogan eg
BNP: "The original and best racists. Dont accept any substitute"
Random other nutters: "We are even more racist than those lightweights. honest".

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sigh. Once again: I am not advocating *leaving* the EU, I am advocating a fundamental *reform* of the EU to make it an a-la-carte system of opt-ins. Thus we could OPT-IN to the CE standards stuff and have a full say in it, just as now, and OPT-OUT of things we don't like, such as the CAP. Clear yet?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense at all. If everything is "a-la-carte" then it's not a single market, and not even an union.
Do you think other EU countries would be happy to let us buy cheap fruits and vegs from Spain and France without customs tax if we don't contribute to the CAP ?

I'm all for reforming the EU but the "a-la-carte" system is not a reform it's a total destruction. I would much prefer that we set common rules that are fair and democratic and set a level playing field all across Europe.

A country like Norway who opted out of the EU and tried the a-la-carte system you prescribe has had to sign plethora of other EU agreements covering borders, immigration, foreign policy, agriculture and so on to retain access to the single market, to the point that according to experts they are as deeply integrated as the UK, but have no voting rights.

In reply to Philip:

Am I the only one in UKC whos surprised that UKIP seem to be doing well? Jeez! Wake up & smell the apathy.............

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Lovely bit of contempt there for the British public by Steve Bell. Just goes to show the snobbery of the middle class left.

In reply to stroppygob:


Where's all your normal contempt for political correctness and not 'saying it as you see it' etc etc?

In reply to RomTheBear:


The free-market would be one of the things that countries could opt into. It's easy to have a free market without political union, the North American and Australasian free-trade areas are examples.


You seem to think that the CAP makes things cheaper, it doesn't, it makes them more expensive. And OF COURSE they'd want to sell us stuff! That's the whole basis on which people make money. "No, we won't sell it to you, so there, we'll stop growing it and sit around unemployed. And we'll close down our car factories and sack all the workers rather than sell you Fiats and Seats and Citroens." And you accuse *me* of not making any sense?

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's exactly what is wrong with the bullying, monopolistic, we-control-everything attitude of the EU, and exactly why an a-la-carte attitude would be much better.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

What about treaties that are not economically beneficial to member states, but require coordinated action - fishing quotas and climate change levy springs to mind. No country would sign up to either of those voluntarily.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Or air quality.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-154_en.htm

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Changing the rules of a club requires agreement of at least a majority of its members. As your scheme would increase bureaucracy, slow down decision making and be generally inferior, I doubt it will be approved by other EU members. So, even assuming the UK thinks it is a good idea, it would have to be done unilaterally and this would involve the UK leaving the EU. The response of the remaining members to the UK trying to cherry pick what it liked without contributing to the whole would likely be similar to the response Switzerland received went it recently pulled out of the allowing free movement of people. That is, they also lost a whole swathe of other benefits as a result. As an academic you must be aware for example that Switzerland can longer obtain much EU research funding.

Separately, Switzerland is not in CAP but still spends a fortune (more than CAP subsidies apparently) on agricultural subsidies. Would in your scheme the UK do that or let it's farmers go bust?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But do you realise that does not make sense ?

If I call my energy company tomorrow and I ask them to opt out of the payments but I'd like to keep the supply of electricity on, I don't think there is any chance they would agree.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


EH? (1). In what way is the EU any of those things? We elect MEPs and they approve and amend proposed EU legislation (along the the Council). Basically a mirror of the London parliament-local councils.

EH? (2). What do you expect to happen between Norway and the EU if not endless treaties? On the one hand you propose this multiplied n times between all states, on the other you object when it happens once!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And how long did NAFTA take to negotiate? And how much is it loved by industries where it has impacted adversely on them (US trucking firms for example)? Setting up free-trade areas may be many things but "easy" is not one of them, if so the EU and the US wouldn't still be arguing over setting up a TAFTA.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Maybe you should have a look at that agreement again, every country had to accept some rules regulating each industry on which the free trade applies, which again completely makes sense.

Sure you could not be part of the political union and have only free trade, but you would have to follow exactly the same rules, see Norway.




And of course other countries would still sell stuff to us I have not said otherwise anywhere, but if you want to buy subsidised products they'll probably ask you to pay some kind of membership fee don't you think ?

CAP brought us food security in Europe. I agree it's broken, but overall it was not a completely bad idea.
Anyway it's currently being reformed, and at a cost 0.08% of our GDP, frankly it's mostly a detail compared to all the benefits we get from the single market.

In reply to 999thAndy:


Hold on, protecting fishing stocks is *best* done by nation states controlling national waters (e.g. Iceland, etc), who have the best incentive to protect their fish long term; it is *worst* done by big conglomerations like the EU where most of them don't care and use the issue to play politics.

"After four decades of EU fisheries policies, nine out of ten fish stocks are overfished." -- admittedly that's a Greenpeace quote, but they do have a very good point. The idea that the EU is the best way of protecting fish stocks is bizarre.


The reason countries sign up to such things is voter pressure.

In reply to MG:


That's because they have lots of small-scale farmers tilling marginally-viable small patches of alpine hillside.


Most of UK agriculture doesn't need support and will be fine, being well able to compete on the open market. There is an issue of whether you support things like marginal sheep hill-farming. But, whether and how to do that is best decided on a national basis.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Free-trade agreements are good for each side. E.g. Canada and the US have a free-trade agreement. That does not mean that Canada has to pay the US for the privilege of being in the free-trade area, any more than the US pays Canada. Ditto all the other free-trade areas around (AANZFTA etc).

The idea that one side has to pay the other to be in a free-trade agreement is a product of the bullying, monopolistic, we-control-everything attitude of the EU, and shows how warped and bizarre EU policy has become.

In reply to TobyA:


How much time and effort goes into ongoing EU negotiations about just about everything? A vast amount. The idea that being in the EU reduces the amount of time one has to devote to such things is bizarre.

You're right, setting up free-trade areas is not "easy" but it is the way to go, and the way we should be going. We should be pushing for a free-trade agreement merging the NAFTA with EFTA and AANZFTA. And no it should not be on the basis that some nations have to pay the bullies for the privilege!

In reply to RomTheBear:


Once again, the EU and the CAP do not make products cheaper. Typical prices for food in the EU are *above* typical world-market prices. The CAP is an anti-consumer protectionist cartel.

We are not getting products *cheaper* because we are in the EU! There are no products where we'd be forced to pay more if we were buying on world-markets. And of course people would want to continue selling to us, selling goods is how one makes money.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Look at every free trade agreement out there and you'll find that they all set common market /competition rules. Exactly as the EU does.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't think that is true Coel, producing cheap food that the poor can afford these days is in dire need of farming subsidies. How we got to this I have no idea, but farming needs government subsidies unless the prices go up astronomically for basic food and millions would die.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes I know that, and those sort of free-market rules are the things I would be happy to opt into. It is much of the other stuff that I would not opt in to.

The suggestion that we either have no rules at all or have to have a full-blown ever-closer union along EU lines is bizarre. Why can't we just have a free-trade zone along the lines of NAFTA and AANZFTA, and then if some countries want to opt for closer union in some areas then they can?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'll bow to your superior knowledge about over fishing, but I think agreement with Spain about quotas is a better solution* than sinking any Spanish trawler in our waters...

On a more general point are you arguing that a free market will always deliver the best solution to the problem?


*Geopolitically speaking, I'm sure the cod would be quite happy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The fact they are above world market prices have nothing to do with the CAP.


Of course people will keep selling to us, not at the same price though, that's how they make money as you say.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's what we voted for in the original EEC election, and things have steamrollered on from there without the people having a say. I think a return to those conditions should be one of the options when we get a referendum.

In reply to 999thAndy:


It is EU agreements that have led to overfishing in just about all EU waters.


No.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh FFS, which bit of WE ARE NOT GETTING THINGS CHEAPER OWING TO BEING IN THE EU are you not getting?

It is not the case that if an American rings up and orders 100 crates of Spanish olives that they say "ok, but we'll charge you extra than we would charge a Brit because you're not in the EU".

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Don't you understand it's not possible ? Free trade means you need a level competition, which means you need some common policies.


Any free trade agreement with the rest of the EU would come with conditions and common polices attached to it.
Sure you could have a lesser trade agreement with less trade benefits and less common policies, but it would be a lesser trade agreement.

But to say that we could be part of the single market with exactly the same conditions and opting out of everything that comes with it is nonsense.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are you sure ? Do you think that if the EU was not producing enough food prices would be cheaper ?


No but they'll probably put customs fees on it, to protect their own producers, as a result your Spanish olives won't sell very well in the US compared to American olives. Now I don't think that helps driving the price of Olives down for the American consumer.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'd like to see some evidence of that...

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes, ***some*** common polices. Common polices to the extent that NAFTA and AANZFTA have agreed common rules for free trade. Which is vastly, vastly different from the much-more-encompassing "ever closer union" on which the EU is embarked. And yes, the looser free-trade area **is* possible. We know that because NAFTA and AANZFTA exist!


The EU is currently negotiating a free-trade deal with the US. Do you really think that that will result in the US paying the EU for the privilege, along the lines that Norway has been bullied into?

In reply to RomTheBear:


And that is **not** the EU imposing those extra costs in sending the stuff to a non-EU customer, it would be the *Americans* choosing to add to the costs.

Now, let's have a think about what the Americans could do about it if they didn't like the idea of the Americans adding to the cost of buying from the EU? Well, perhaps they could -- just a thought -- not add those import duties!

As I said: "It is not the case that if an American rings up and orders 100 crates of Spanish olives that they say "ok, but we'll charge you extra than we would charge a Brit because you're not in the EU". Thus being a non-EU customer does NOT add to the cost of buying from the EU!

In reply to RomTheBear:

>> It is EU agreements that have led to overfishing in just about all EU waters.


Well:

* For the last 4 decades EU agreements have controlled fishing in EU waters.

* Just about every EU water is over-fished.

Whose fault is that? The Australians? The Martians? Nigel Farage's?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Really? We were overfishing in the 50s and 60s, and looking here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_in_the_North_Sea it seems that Norway, not bound by EU treaties are fishing more now than we did then, whereas the UK catch has been dropping since the 70s.

In reply to 999thAndy:

As I understand it the Grand Banks cod supply has been entirely destroyed by overfishing. Since this is outside EU waters it suggests, if anything, overfishing has been marginally curtailed by the policy, not that it can be seen as a great success.

In reply to MG:


You're pointing to what is accepted as the worst disaster along these lines, as though that would be inevitable were we not in the EU. However, as a rule, the best-protected fish stocks tend to be where you have a relatively small nation state controlling its own national waters. (Admittedly it's more complicated where fish migrate across such boundaries, and there you do need international cooperation.)

In reply to 999thAndy:


Exactly. Norway currently has a bigger catch because it can do so sustainably, because it has not largely destroyed its fisheries! As you say, "UK catch has been dropping since the 70s" because there are few fish because EU policies have failed to conserve them properly.

The fact that Norway does a much better job of conserving its fish, and doesn't want to hand them over to the EU, is exactly why Norway is staying out of the EU.

In reply to Coel Hellier:






That's an obvious logical fallacy.

Did you consider that without EU regulations to protect the stock, it would probably be a lot worse ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Equally the Norwegians could be depleting "our" fish stock rather than conserving "theirs", which they can do because they aren't in the EU.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Of course, and it doesn't do anything for the american customer.


Yes, and kill their own olive producers in the process, who will be undercut by subsidised Spanish olives. I really don't see why in their right mind they would do that (and they don't).

This is exactly why in WTO and all free trade agreements you can find you'll find clauses protecting against unfair competitions and restricting subsidies to a common framework.


I don't see why you don't understand that free trade agreements in general can't exist without common competition rules.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Bollocks, you'll find that they did hand it over to the EU, in fact they have a fisheries agreement with the EU implementing quotas, exactly like any other EU country.

Why ? Simply because they don't have a choice, the EU is not going to let them sell their fish freely in the single market and let them fish a lot more than we allow ourselves, that would be stupid.

In reply to 999thAndy:


They just happen to have a bit more fish, but in fact they have the same fishing quotas as everybody else in the EU.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Without EU regulations, but with national regulations to protect national waters, it would likely be much better.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I DO UNDERSTAND IT, as I have stated multiple times, and opting into those free-trade agreements is exactly what I want to do!

But I don't want to opt-in to much of the rest of the EU stuff. And what you don't seem to understand is that you do not need an all-encompassing, ever-closer-union EU in order to have a free-trade agreement. See NAFTA and AANZFTA for demonstrated counter-examples!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Why is nobody answering my point that food is far too cheap at current prices than the effort/land etc that is put into it than people could possibly afford without subsidies, without control and subsidies millions would die of starvation.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Wrong, they did not. They made an *agreement* with the EU.


That's because some fish stocks straddle the boundary of the two areas, so there needs to be competition. Coming to an **agreement** is not the same as being in the EU and having to accept EU policies.


You really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you? The EU currently gets most of its fish from outside of the EU, and does so from places that *do* fish more than us, and that is because EU stocks are so depleted. And many of these are imported at a zero rate of duty, under GSP rules. So they are currently doing exactly what you have just said "would be stupid".

Anyhow, these trade barriers are also gradually reducing, under GATT, and things like the proposed US-EU trade deal.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They "just happen" to have a bit more fish?? Nothing whatsoever to do with fishing policies over the last few decades???

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I don;t really see your logic, EU policies have implemented quotas to limit fishing, not to increase it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well if you end up with the same quotas it's kind of the same things isn't it ? An d it;s barely an agreement, Norway does't really have a choice, either they implement quotas or they get their export taxed, as simple as that.


Then again with your logical fallacy. Do you really believe there would be more fish in the sea if we didn't have EU quotas and everybody would do as they please ?


And you'll find the the EU-US trade deal will prescribe a lot of common policies, everybody wants free trade but nobody wants unfair competition.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And their quotas have always been far too high, and that has over-fished nearly all EU fish stocks.

As a result, they have now taken to bullying West Africa into allowing them to fish lots of African fish instead. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-fishing-west-africa-m...

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I understand what you are saying, but I doubt that you would be able to have the kind of very large free trade deal like you have in the EEA without close integration.

The case of Norway is the perfect example.

Sure you could get a free trade deal with less constraints, but the scope of the deal would be reduced a lot.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes very well, do you really think individual government would have restricted their quota more than the EU did without any guarantee that their neighbours would do the same ?
Plus there is nothing in EU law preventing individual EU countries from fishing less if they want to, your argument is completely illogical.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Norway gets a far better deal if it stays out of the EU and then the EU has to reach *agreement* with Norway, than if Norway joined the EU and the EU decision-making mechanism. That, in a nutshell, is why Norway is not in the EU, it doesn't want to hand over all its fish to EU decision making.


If by "everybody do as they please" you mean "nation states manage and conserve their own waters" then yes I do. Where is the "logical fallacy" in that?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



So paying Mauritania 477m Euros for being allowed to fish in their waters, while other countries just do it on a pirate basis, is bullying? You sound very like some the religous people you rail against here - everything you see as bad is the fault of the EU/Atheists.

(Not that the whole fishing situation is anything other than insane short-term exploitation.)

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh FFS, the national governments CANNOT "fish less" because they do not control things! It is the **EU** that sets quotas, and the national governments cannot prevent the fishermen -- often from other nations -- fishing up to those quotas. Thus you are utterly wrong, the individual countries CANNOT enforce lower fishing levels in their waters than the EU quotas!

In reply to MG:


Well there you are, I rest my case m'lud. Who is it who controls "the whole fishing situation" in EU waters?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



There are I think 9 EU countries with North Sea/Atlantic waters. Do you really think 9 conflicting sets of fishing rules would work better than one coherent, if flawed set? And if you answer is "well, they would come to a combined agreement", then I agree - they would probably call it a common fisheries policy or something. Now, wait...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


We were talking about Mauritania!

In reply to RomTheBear:


^This.^

I picked on fishing as an example of the EU doing something across borders because fishing is about exploiting a resource common to several countries *none* of which would act *alone* to limit fishing, because the voters in each country would make sure they didn't.

We can argue the toss about the level of quota being too high for too long, but without the EU it's unlikely there would be any quotas at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:


On the subject of logical fallacies, just to point out this one:

A little up thread you were saying that the problem with not being in the EU is that then they would *not* sell us their subsidised produce at a subsidised price, therefore it would cost us more.

Then, when I rebutted that argument (it's not true that the EU charges non-EU customers more) you immediately switched to the claim that the problem would be that they **would** sell us their subsidised produce at a subsidised price!

Can you try getting your story straight as to which of these would be the problem?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But then again it doesn;t make any difference, they still have to us

The logical fallacy is to pretend that if every country was competing on it's own they would have reduced their fishing quotas voluntarily.
Do you realise how little sense that would make for a country to voluntarily reducing its fishing quota whilst others don;t and get all the fish ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Well since I didn't say that it's fairly simple.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think you'll find there is absolutely nothing preventing countries from fishing less than their quotas.
You seem to be struggling a bit.

In reply to 999thAndy:


What utter tosh, of course national governments can impose quotas, and of course they can make agreements with their neighbours when a fish population straddles a boundary.

That sort of thing -- fish populations moving from, say, UK to Iceland waters, is best negotiated between the relevant parties that have the strongest interests, namely UK and Iceland. It is bizarre that such a negotiation should be EU-level and involve Austria, Luxembourg and Italy as well.

If anyone doubts that, then why are Norwegian stocks (where they negotiate deals with Russia, Iceland, EU neighbours, etc) in much better health than EU stocks generally?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Which 'other stuff' then? Free movement of labour?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



There are lots of possible answers, possibly including the fact Norway has lots of fish and not many people. If you going to use that to support your argument, you can't dismiss the Grand Banks as an example of what happens when waters are under the control of one country as an indication of how terrible this is.

The fact is EU fish policy is poor but not demonstrably poorer than many other fishing policies (Grand Banks, Mauritania etc). Given the geography, any NorthSea/Atlantic fishing policy would require agreement between states and the EU is a good mechanism of reaching that agreement.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No, the US govt. puts an import tariffs on them and US consumer pays more.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ha so you want a common fisheries policy then !



Because they implemented very good management and fishing practices in their own waters. Something every other country could do if they wanted to, there is nothing in EU law preventing other countries from fishing less if they want too.

In reply to MG:


Well, actually, the biggest exploitation of the Grand Banks occurred when international law only gave nations control out to 12-miles of ocean. Everything beyond that was a literal free-for-all and it was that that started the destruction of the Grand Banks fisheries.

It is true, though, that when the limit changed to give Canada control out to 200 miles, the government then was way too exploitative, and with everyone "used" to the large catches of the free-for-all era, it allowed those over-large catches to continue for much too long. This was bad policy and lack of good scientific data on the fish levels, but it does not indicate any fundamental problem with the idea of a nation controlling its own fish stocks.


Those two do not amount to "many" and are hardly the best comparisons. The fact is that Iceland, Norway, Greenland etc are all doing better than the EU.

In reply to RomTheBear:


As I said, where fish populations straddle boundaries, the neighbours should reach agreements. That is not the same at all as having EU-wide decision making on qualified-majority-voting, so that Italy gets the same say over the North Atlantic as the UK.


Whereas the EU hasn't.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Maybe they do, nothing prevents the EU or individual countries in the EU to do better if they want to, the problem is they are not all as forward thinking as Norway.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Well how about this list, which includes quite a few Norwegian and Icelandic stocks?

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf

The problem seems to be independent of how the quotas are arrived at. The EU is just a convenient way of arriving at a not-quite-the-worst situation.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And you really think that without regulation everybody would have been very responsible and impose themselves even tougher quotas than the EU did ? you are very optimistic, or just naive.
Plus as I said there is nothing preventing countries from within the EU to do their own agreements between themselves if they want to implement lower quotas in their common waters.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, the problem is that EU-level decision-making is almost bound to be worse than a national government controlling its own fish stocks. The whole point of everything I'm saying is that EU decision making is very bad; you can't excuse it by saying that "nothing prevents" them doing better -- the whole point is that the whole EU structure is very badly set up.

It's blatantly obvious that fish stocks and agricultural policy are exactly the sort of areas that, on a principle of subsidiarity, should be the competence of nation states. Then the EU can do useful things, such as setting CE standards and negotiating free-trade deals with the US.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh FFS, your post just before that accepted that Norway had indeed done better.

As a general principle, if a nation state is looking after its own fish stocks, it does a better job of it and has a greater interest in making a better job of it, than a more remote and larger conglomeration.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I never said a national government can't impose quotas, I'm saying they wouldn't unless forced to.

Over fishing was known to be a problem for years before the quotas were introduced. Why did the UK government not act earlier? Why did the Norwegians not act earlier? or the Spanish?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If individual countries decide they want to fish less they can very well do that, all the EU does is to impose an upper limit. If an individual country decide to fish less it can very well do that.
Do you really believe the UK for example would have decided by itself to impose tough quotas and destroy its industry whilst Spanish fishermen could get all the fish ?

I understand you are trying to defend your position here, but this argument is just ridiculous.

In reply to RomTheBear:


This is just not true, EU law governs this area - and this is the difference between being in the EU as opposed to making agreements with it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well given that most EU countries with a fishing industry have all tried to push the quotas up or try to cheat their way out of them, I doubt than national governments would have done much better on their own without any external pressure.
Anyway this whole argument is so preposterous I don't even know why we are discussing this.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Well sorry but this is wrong, if a country decide to fish less than its quota it can.
Are you arguing that if a country decides to fish less than their quota they would be fined ? Do you realise how ridiculous that is ?

Sure you can make agreements with the EU but they are barely agreements if you don't have a say and no leverage.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You really are talking shite.. You are taking specific examples and making sweeping statements.. Many small nations can't stand up against bigger nations plundering their stocks..

In reply to RomTheBear:


How exactly can a country do this? They can't make law requiring it.

In reply to 999thAndy:


Of course they will!


There are a lot of examples of how environmental awareness has increased over time, but there is nothing to say that the EU is better at it than nation states.

In reply to IainRUK:


In law countries now have a 200-mile territorial zone. You're right that sometimes the big countries buy them off, as the EU does with some West African nations, but that's hardly an argument in favour of a large bully-boy EU.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Of course they can, they can very well have national fishing restrictions, as long as they are within the limit of the EU quotas.

Basically all the CFP does is to set quotas for very country, and then countries can implement exactly the way they want as long as they don't exceed them.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And why do EU countries push for the greatest quota for themselves? Because they DO NOT HAVE CONTROL over their waters! If *they* didn't fish their own waters then other EU nations would do it! EU policy is: "As a general rule, fishing vessels registered in the EU fishing fleet register have equal access to all the EU waters and resources that are managed under the CFP".

Thus the UK cannot reduce the amount of fishing in UK waters to, say, half of that allowed by the EU. All it can do is reduce the amount of fishing by its own boats, and then watch other EU boats fish there up to the EU quota limits!

This is the big difference to, e.g., Norway, where Norway can control the total catch from Norwegian waters.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
large bully-boy EU.

You keep using this phrase. What behaviour do you see as bullying?

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's not true either. Member states can't implement however they want, they can only implement within EU law - and Coel's pointed out already why the limits of what we can do make reducing quotas of fish caught in our waters impossible.

In reply to MG:


For starters, saying to Norway and Switzerland that they'll only agree free trade if those countries pay for the privilege.

Why should Norway and Switzerland pay the EU to trade with them, when the EU doesn't pay Norway and Switzerland? Note that the US doesn't demand that Canada pay to be in a free-trade area; Australia doesn't demand that New Zealand pay, et cetera. And you can sure as heck bet that the US will not pay the EU if/when the US-EU trade deal is settled.

The EU attitude is pure bullying, saying that they're the big boys around here and the little guys can;t refuse. Free trade areas benefit both sides, so why should one side have to pay?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Since the UK has exclusive fishing rights around its coast it's not true, plus nothing prevents UK boats to do the same and fish on the Spanish coast if they want to.


Which is why they had an import ban of their fish in the EU as long as they didn't let EU boats fish in their waters.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Simply because Norway and Switzerland have more to gain from trade with the EU than the EU has to gain from trading with them. This is simply about leverage, not "bullying".

In reply to RomTheBear:


It sets quotas for that country's **boats**, and it allows the country control over that country's **boats**, but it does not allow a country control over that country's **waters**, because other nations of the EU have the right to fish there, up to *their* quota.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You might call it the biggest boy around using his "leverage", whereas I call it bullying.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Is that correct? According to Wiki "However, general fisheries policy remains a "shared competence" of the Union and its member states"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy#cite_note-3 A maximum quota with voluntary lower quotas, providing equal access is maintained would seem reasonable.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But where? The example you gave above was of the EU paying Mauritania for its fish. I don't see how this is using leverage, let along bullying.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Only out to 12 miles. Beyond that it doesn't.


Exactly!!!!!! Now you're admitting that national governments do **not** have control of what is fished out of their waters! This is about the fifth blatant contradiction in your "arguments" today.


As far as I'm aware they have had no such ban yet. But if they did it would be a blatant example of bullying.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well at least you are giving me a real argument for once.
As far as I can see this is not as simple as that because there are also restrictions per zones and also countries like the UK have exclusive fishing rights in their coastal waters anyway.

But what you are saying is that the Common Fisheries Policy needs to be designed better, which I agree with, this is completely different from arguing that every country should do what they want.

In reply to MG:


See my post at 15:08 for an example.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I've been saying that all along.


Only out to 12 miles, not to the main deep-sea fishing grounds.


But the whole point of my argument is that having things like this decided at an EU level will almost inevitably lead to worse policies than giving the nation states competence over their own waters.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's just ridiculous to claim that as bullying. Setting up the free-trade area costs all EU states money (the EU budget). There is no reason why Norway or anyone else should benefit without shouldering some of the cost. NAFTA isn't free.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Ever heard of the Mackerel wars ? And this is not bullying, why would you let Norway sell fish in your single market when they have completely different rules? It would be just a bad deal.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No you;'ve been saying that countries would manage it better on their own. I don't think so, I think they would simply fish as much as they can.


Are you sure ? Do you think that for example the UK would let it fishing industry die and import Spanish fish at great expense ? I don't think so, I think they would just fish as much as they can the longer they can, which is what they were doing before they were quotas.

In reply to MG:


What sort of costs are we talking about here? The costs of administering a free-trade zone and monitoring compliance with the rules? If so then, yes, fair enough that Norway and Switzerland should contribute to that, which they will be doing of course since some of the costs will be incurred in those countries.

But that's very different from the EU demanding a fat fee for "access to markets" just because they are the big boys and the little boys can't refuse.


Which payments between countries are you referring to here?

In reply to RomTheBear:


For the same reason that they let lots of other countries sell fish to the EU when they have very different rules (over half of fish in the EU is imported).


Why?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The point is they won't be unless they contribute to monitoring etc. Since this happens within EU structures there is a "charge". Apparently Norway pays about half what it would as a full EU member, which given its fairly extensive involvement with the EU seems reasonable to me.



I am referring to the NAFTA secretatirat and associated legal structures etc. I can't see a budget here but none of that is free

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Default.aspx?tabid=113&language=en-US

In reply to MG:


Not sure what general fisheries policy means exactly. According to the EU protecting fish stocks is still EU exclusive competence - http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences/faq


Why would people comply with these voluntary lower quotas? Not sure I understand what you're suggesting.

Will look back later anyway, must work - bunch of interesting threads on here recently imo.

In reply to RomTheBear:


<Sigh> Which is why countries that *do* have control over their own waters (Iceland, Norway, etc) have done a much **better** job of preserving fish stocks than the EU has done over EU waters.


Oh my god, you're a complete moron. I've just been pointing out that countries like Norway -- with control over their own waters -- have done a much ***better*** job of preserving their fish stocks, and thus have a much ***healthier*** fishing industry, and you reply by suggesting that national-control amounts to "letting the fishing industry die and import Spanish fish at great expense"!

Tell me, are the Norwegians "letting their fishing industry die and importing Spanish fish at great expense"? Are they???

Are you actually a UKIP stooge seeking to put the pro-EU arguments in the worst possible light? It's the only way of explaining the utter idiocy of your postings.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Please give me an example where the UK govt has acted against economic interest for the benefit of man and fishkind, *without* being forced into it.


Apart from the fact that through the EU we have quotas, whereas before we didn't.

Oh if you could avoid shouting and name calling, that would be a bonus

In reply to Coel Hellier:


<Double sigh> You are just cherry picking data to suit you agenda. Globally all easily available fish stocks are stressed. The details of how quotas are set doesn't affect this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Mostly because they have a low population and a lot of fish.
If they had the same demand as we have I can guarantee you they would have fished the hell out of it.


Well you don't have to resort to insults. You don't think that they have a healthier fishing industry simply because they have a lot of territorial waters and don't eat that much fish ? Unfortunately not all the countries are in the same position.

Before the fishing restrictions all other EU countries were depleting the stock, which is exactly why quotas were put in place, now if you think that countries would have applied quotas by themselves I think you are very optimistic.

In reply to MG:


Why, I entirely agree, they should indeed contribute to that sort of administrative cost.

Now, the Norwegian contribution to the EU is Euro 188million a year, and that of Switzerland is 500 million Swiss francs per year. Those two add to about a sixteenth of the total EU (scaled by size of economy), so that would be a pro rata share of 9,600 million euros.

Now, is the EU spending 9.6 Billion euros a year on **administration** of the single market? If they are then they're doing to wrong! I strongly suspect that the actual admin costs are nearer 100 million, and thus that the Norwegian share should be around 10 million, and that they're being way over-charged for "access to the EU market" because the EU are bullies.

In reply to 999thAndy:


The whole point is that conserving fish stocks **is** in your economic interests **if** you have control over those fish stocks, but *not* if it just means that someone else will plunder them. Google "tragedy of the commons".

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nope, I think they have a healthier fishing industry because they've had national control over their fishing!


<sigh> And has Norway applied quotas to itself?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It's much more than just admin. Everything from common crash-test standards to food labelling rules adds to the working and value of the market. All this costs money. 9.6B euro in fact strikes me as quite a small cost for more than half a billion people - <20 Euro each per year.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So you think that the fact they have more fish that they can ever consume doesn't play a role ?

The fact that they took good decisions doesn't detract from the fact that the other EU countries did not give a damn until they had quotas imposed to them.

In reply to MG:


Well exactly, the admin cost of running the UK government is about 25 times bigger per capita than what we spend on running the EU.

In reply to MG:


This is a very good example. The EURO NCAP organisation is *not* an EU body, it is voluntary opt-in body of members -- exactly the sort of thing that I advocate and that my critics are saying can't work.

The funding for the EURO NCAP crash standards does not come from the EU, it comes from the opt-in members and from car manufacturers paying to get their cars tested.

http://www.euroncap.com/members.aspx

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not at all -- see the Grand Banks debacle for overfishing for profit.


You're overlooking the fact that several self-interested nations imposed quotas on their own fishing grounds before the EU started imposing quotas. Iceland and Canada are examples.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

POssibly not the best example but my main point about costs stands. Also the EU does all sort of safety stuff too.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/safety/index_en.htm

In reply to RomTheBear:

Coel is looking at this way to simply.. there was huge socio-economic pressure to keep fishing.. even if we hadn't joined the EU we'd have gone a similar way. Norway and Iceland are different. Norway had money but also not the same pressure. Iceland literally went to war over its stocks, we couldn't do that in the UK waters. There's too much under too much pressure. We still get ships coming in fishing illegally and struggle to police as it is. Its why we need our fisheries protection vessels..

The EU fisheries policy was a huge mistake, but it was just building on the systems that the other countries had anyway.. There's no way we could have minor workable agreements with all the other states interested in fishing our water.

Re small countries managing their own, it just doesn't happen, the West Africans were keen to deal because they had no choice, the japanese, Russians et al just come in and fish without such deals in place so they have to take all they can.

The EU is changing its fishery policy slowly but we do have a fair control over some aspects of our fishing but almost always scientific advice is basically ignored or considered too conservative so overfishing continues.. I was in a meeting about the Clyde Sea Fisheries on an Island where the fisherman blocked the ferry's until their demands were accepted... I was with a government advisor at the time and he just put up his hand and said 'Taxi for X'... basically saying lets go..

The problem is that all these fishing ports almost always have bugger all else going to them and slowly die, its the same in North America (read Cod), and we were never aggressive enough in just saying well it should happen.. as it is we ended up with two ecosystems screwed rather than just one..

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Good for them, but I see no evidence that the UK or Spain ever even tried to do the same.

In reply to IainRUK:

I think that is what about a dozen people have been trying to get over to him for two days now! Since you actually know something about this, perhaps he will believe you!

In reply to MG:


OK, so if you can convince me that these payments are a fair proportionate cost of this sort of stuff then I'm ok with it.

However, to take a wider example, the "EN" marking and "CE" marking organisation is again not an EU organisation, but is a wider opt-in organisation of 30 members, including places like Turkey that are not in the EU nor EFTA. There are also "affiliates" including Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Ukraine and all sorts. It also has "partner standardisation bodies" such as Australia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Committee_for_Standardization

This is exactly the sort of multinational organisation that I am advocating and which my critics tell me cannot exist or function. Again, I am fully supportive of this sort of thing, and of the members (which are wider than the EU) paying their fair share.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Euro NCAP is simply a rating system, and is completely voluntary.
Plus many governments as well as the EU back NCAP financially.

But this has nothing to do with the EU car safety standards.

In reply to RomTheBear:


By that time they were already in the EU and no longer had control over their waters. Just because the trend to quotas came after the EU was in existence, doesn't mean that the EU was necessary for it.

In reply to IainRUK:


Exactly.


Why not, Norway does?


OK, agreed, the West African nations have little choice because the big-boy bullies are bigger than them. That's hardly relevant to us, since our Navy is capable of policing our waters to a sufficient extent.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well yes but the thing is we built a free market in Europe. What do you think would happen if a country like the UK decided to suddenly impose fishing quotas ? We would simply kill our fishing industry, and other EU countries would get all the stock and export it to us, without having to pay any customs.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Again, they don't really, as soon as they want to export the fish to us, they have to agree to EU quotas and EU boats fishing in their waters.
Currently Norway has EU boats fishing in their waters, and has quotas with the EU, and they accepted that simply because they need a single market to export their fish.

In reply to RomTheBear:


This is utterly bizarre, you seem to be agreeing with me entirely that the EU policy of allowing boats from anywhere in the EU to fish UK waters is bad.


And as I've said, owing to the fact that the EU has to *negotiate* an *agreement* with them, they get a much better deal than if they were part of the EU.

Put it this way, if the EU were such a brilliant mechanism for controlling fishing, why aren't the Norwegians and the Icelanders begging to hand over control of their fish to the EU?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Where are "our" waters? IIRC under international law we get 12 miles off the coast, after which it's international. As Iain pointed out we have too much vested interest to look after our fish stocks properly. The UK Govt have never acted against such vested interest.

Give up on this one and find an argument you can win

In reply to 999thAndy:


No, it changed to 200 miles in about 1976. (See Icelandic "Cod wars" for the history.)


It is *precisely* *because* we have a vested interest -- just like Norway does! -- that we *can* look after our fish stocks properly.

And it precisely because most of the EU doesn't care that much that the EU doesn't do a good job. The demonstrated fact is that Norway, with its strong national interest, does a way better job.

As for the EU, well remember that in the early days they heavily subsidised fishing, giving huge subsidies to build new fishing boats and fish-processing plants, all to boost development in countries like Spain. Then they realised that there was a problem with too few fish, and for a while it was both subsidising new fishing boats and AT THE SAME TIME paying the owners of those boats not to go fishing!


I've found one thanks, an am utterly gobsmacked at the sheer idiocy and self-contradiction of many of the counter-arguments presented!

In reply to the thread:

For all the EU-philes here:

"A few weeks ago, the EU agreed an historic overhaul of its troubled common fisheries policy, setting binding deadlines to end decades of over-fishing that have depleted stocks from the Mediterranean to the North Sea.

"But just when it seemed safe to go back in the water, the European parliament’s fisheries committee ... approved an amendment allowing the use of up to €1.6bn in EU funds to help build new fishing boats.

"For anyone with a brain this is completely outrageous and very difficult to understand,” said Markus Knigge, a fisheries advisor to the Pew Charitable Trust, citing estimates that the money could result in 19,000 new boats.

"The EU ended subsidies for new vessels in 2002 amid international pressure. But it has continued to hand out billions of euros in other fisheries subsidies, including payments to encourage fishermen to scrap their vessels.

"... the money did little to deliver on the goal of fleet reduction because fishermen simply used it to build newer and more powerful vessels capable of catching ever-more fish.

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2013/07/11/the-eu-has-too-many-fishing-boa...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I agree on that, but I disagree with you when you say that it's possible to haver a free market and no common rule. If you don't have a common rule then every country is going to try to outdo each other and you get a race to the bottom.

Which is exactly why Norway has now essentially the same rules as every other EU countries.



Well I don't think so, essentially they get more or less the same conditions, similar quotas, and other EU boats have the right to fish in their waters.


They do, not because it's the best, but because they want access to our free market.

In reply to RomTheBear:


For the 11th time I have never said *no* common rules, I have said that one can have free-trade areas with the degree of common rules exemplified by NAFTA and AANZFTA (i.e. not much), and that one doesn't need the degree of integration required by the EU.


Bollox. The Norwegian total fish catch is about 2,200,000 tonnes, whereas the UK's is about 600,000 tonnes.

Yes, they have quota swaps (some EU can fish their waters, in return for some of their boats fishing in the EU), but they still have control over the total fish taken from their waters, which has allowed them to conserve their waters to a much greater extent than we have.

In reply to Philip:

If you estimate that you have two or more brain cells working together in unison then it is extremely important that you vote because otherwise the result will be dominated by those who don't.

In reply to TobyA:


Yawn. please quote examples of me doing so.

Thought not.

In reply to Philip:
This tread has gone wildly off the OP and now seems to be talking merely about fishing. Nobody has answered my question that food is really undervalued as regards the rewards without subsidies and control for the amount workers and landowners put in. We have to have subsidies or millions would starve to death.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


And if you are 'educated' ( more fan two brain cells ) you will not vote for UKIP.
Apparently .

In reply to Neil Williams:

Careful !
It is very likely that some the policies that may being tarred as extremist at the moment , will be hijacked , and adopted by the Tories to fight UKIP in the next election. ( but of course the will not then be racist or extremist)

In reply to stroppygob:
I remember you seeming to get very annoyed by women who speak out against sexism in the past, so a quick search came up with:

"Just another feminist whine about imaginary slights against women."

And (of course jokingly) refer to women posters who argue with you as "dear", telling one "Back in t’kitchen lass, bring me my tea."

So if a cartoon (the mocking and jokey nature of which is hinted at by being called a f*****g 'cartoon') "just goes to show the snobbery of the middle class left" what does your laugh-along 'ironic' sexism show?

Oh, and here's another that comes up next in the same search http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552860&v=1#x7376729

In reply to TobyA:

So the only post of mine you care to put in any form of context was one where I expressed surprise that an advert here hadn't attracted the ire of feminists. Though what that has to do with Steve Bell's condescending snobbery in his cartoon I don't know.

In reply to Philip:

Point or no point, I'm off to vote this morning. Like for most people it's not so easy these days to chose, the certainties of the past have blown away, but as it's my only chance to vote in "political" elections as an EU citizen living in France I don't intend to waste it. In fact given the low turnouts the weight of each vote for those who do is multiplied.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

just back from voting, I think there were 25 lists to choose from... including such 'novelties' as pirates, royalists and legalise cannabis - don't think I've seen any of those in the UK (but no Monster Raving Loony Party, at least by that name)

In reply to Doug:
There are 30 lists in the UK, including one purely individual! As the deposit is £5000 and he will certainly lose it - you have to get 2% IIRC - then he is clearly a fairly committed character. Like in France (31 lists) they are not all present in all constituencies. Where I voted only 20 of the 31 had sent ballot papers so they won't get many votes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27218759

(For info, in France it's not like in Britain where you tick your choice on a list of all the possible choices, you choose a printed paper, lots of little piles of papers, and put it in an envelope.)

In reply to Philip:

youtube.com/watch?v=KicA_0LNrsw&

In reply to Philip:


I'd vote for the least bad option if there were no good option (there are good options in your list).

jk

In reply to stroppygob:
You were being condescending to women through that thread - jokingly maybe, but then the Bell cartoon is a joke, isn't it. We are meant to laugh along when you do that and think that it doesn't reveal anything deeper about your view of women but be upset when Bell does makes fun of UKIP? Sauce for the goose etc.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

They had to subsidise fishing, fishing was another mining industry disaster on the cards.. we already had many towns in mining areas just cut adrift from society, with impacts still being felt 3 decades on, and they wanted to try and stop that with fishing too... to suddenly just lay this at the door of the EU is just very odd. You seem to hold ver black/white fews, correlations = causation, its just far more complicated. the decline of the fisheries was a huge mess of ecological, international and domestic socio-economic and legislative issues.. just not simply a discard policy issue..

In reply to Coel Hellier:






Ok, so if its so simple and easy how come we have so very very very few sustainable fisheries? You don't think that maybe you've picked some unique examples?

But its also much more chaotic.. Iceland overfishing impacts on UK and EU fish stocks.. Iceland wouldn't enter the EU because the EU wanted cuts to their fisheries. They have themselves had overfishing issues..

In reply to IainRUK:


No they did not have to subsidise fishing, if there had been less fishing then the whole thing would be in better shape now. And the subsidies were mostly not about supporting existing boats (which were doing fine), it was a deliberate policy of expanding fishing by building new boats as a way of boosting development in countries such as Spain.


No I don't, the evidence is that small nations in charge of their own fisheries (and not being bullied by larger nations) works best, which is exactly what you'd expect.


Again, Icelandic fisheries overall are in much better health than EU ones.


No, it's not because the EU wants them to fish less, it's because they'd have to hand over control to the EU, which could then allow boats from all EU countries to fish there.

In reply to IainRUK:


More on this alleged "overfishing" by Iceland. On the topic of mackerel, which has recently caused all the trouble, traditionally the big mackerel shoals did not move into Icelandic waters and the Icelanders did not fish them.

Then, owing to warmer seas, the mackerel shoals started moving into Icelandic waters. The Icelanders therefore decided they wanted to fish a share of mackerel. The problem was that the others (EU, Norway, Faroes, Russia) were already fully exploiting the stock. It was not that Iceland would be over-fishing, it was the sum of everyone would be overfishing.

The EU wanted the Icelanders not to fish mackerel at all (despite it being in their waters), whereas the Icelanders wanted a share.

In the fairly recent agreements over this, the EU gets by far the biggest share -- Scotland alone gets twice the quota of Iceland, and the EU as a whole gets 5 times what Iceland gets. So I fail to see why anyone should blame "Icelandic overfishing".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Instead of talking about fish what about the election results? In France it's pretty dramatic, worse than expected with the extreme right Nationalist party, the National Front, getting the most votes, >25%, the present government PS only 15%... worse than predictions even. What about Britain? You all voted on Thursday and I can't find the results yet... partial results give the UKIP at 30%... how come the results, or at least an estimation, aren't out yet?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
UKIP doing well including their first seat in Scotland where Labour just overtaken SNP which is a surprise.

UKIP, cons, labour in that order for uk as a whole.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am a bit confused by that as well. Thought it would all be up instantly.

In reply to dissonance:
I think the uk count starts on sunday evening when polls close across Europe.

In reply to elsewhere:


How mad is that?

In reply to dissonance:

Final Scottish results will not be out until tomorrow. Western Isles votes aren't counted on a Sunday.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Or Friday or Saturday?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


In deference to our neighbours we wait until they can be bothered to get off their arses and vote before starting to announce results.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Iceland is.. because their is so much less direct pressure.. in the EU we all fish each others stocks.. hence by only a joined up approach will work...

Which is the point of what you are saying.. that an ecosystem should be managed by all that have an ownership of it... any management of the european shelf seas should be at the EU level.. to argue against that makes no ecological sense.

Its only recently we are understanding how management needs to be holistic ecosystem level approaches, never mind species level.. reverting back to national management / species would be an ecological disaster.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Counting not allowed to start until the polls close across Europe.

In reply to IainRUK:


Agreed, where fish stocks cross boundaries there should be coordination and joint agreements. That's very different from the "common" EU approach where any EU boat can fish any waters up to their quota.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well good, it might be a wake-up call. Politicians need to realise that there is very deep unhappiness with the EU across many nations.

What we need is an a-la-carte EU where nations may opt in or out of any area of policy. That would force the EU to come up with policies that people actually want.

People are increasingly resenting that idea of an EU where they have the whole package forced on them and they can't do anything about it, whichever mainstream party they vote for. It forces them to vote for the extreme parties as the only way of registering that point.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You really think that voting a bunch of fascists & near fascists into the parliament is for the good ?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

In reply to Doug:

And does Coel think that people are really voting because they share his same view of the EU? For most EU is well down the list of priorities.

Coel - did you vote for UKIP?

In reply to Doug:


I think that fascism is what you can get when democracy breaks down. For too long the EU have been contemptuous of actual voters, thinking that they, as the political elite, are embarked on an historical project, and the little people should be told what it good for them. Hence the lack of referendums on the issue and the tendency for any referendums going the "wrong" way to be told to vote again and get it right this time.

In reply to TobyA:


Yes.


Not really, it is the heart of many issues. For example immigration policy is high on the list for UKIP voters, and within-EU immigration policy is set by the EU, not by the individual nations. The fact that UKIP have done much better in the EU elections than the local council elections shows that people are sensible enough to realise this.


No. I didn't vote this time (probably the first time I've ever not voted), since there wasn't any party I actually wanted to vote for.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Talking about this with my wife this w/e. I have skepticism of the EU because, while I want and hope that it can provide the route to sustainability in food and energy, and provide coherent strategy and coordination on energy, the EU seems to have been much more about the free market, and the increasing the readiness of resources and overall productivity, which actually exacerbates many of the problems I am most concerned with. My wife is from Kilkeel, and she remembers the transformation of the harbour there from small local fishing boats, sustainable for local families, fish to local and national markets. Then in the late 70s, the huge boats came in and took over, most of the family owned boats were put out of business the big boats being owned by small groups, the markets stopped, and an associated industry for the continental distribution of fish grew from there. In contrast to IainRUK's assertion, Kilkeel did not do better for it having many of the same issues it had back in the 70s.

In contrast, was talking to someone senior in one of the big energy companies who was saying that the market is artificial, performing in accordance with its design, which is to say poorly, and that it should be nationalised, or even supra-nationalised as an EU coordinated infrastructure project.

For me, I kind of agree that protectionism and fisheries operating under local juristiction may well have been much more sustainable, but I don't think the same applies to energy, and agree that nationalisation and coordination on EU wide energry provision is essential.

In reply to TobyA:


I share many of Coel's concerns, and I think a great many people do, without necessary recourse to emotional issues like immigration. I've to date been pro-EU and have put my faith in the institution, but feel let down by it. I think the EU failed in the resposne to the financial crisis, with Germany, who have benefited so much, being at the heart of an isolationist tardy response, that will drive economies like Greece further down, cutting the nose off to spite the EU face, with a tardy ECB, and the demand for austerity which has forgotten so easily the extent to which countries like Germany have historically economically benefited. I share Coel's concerns on CFP, and CAP for that matter. I think this is an environmental disaster which there seems to ne intellectual stasis over within the EU. I also believe that while the EU has been good for globalisation, the free markets and productivity of member states, I see this as the easy meat to the much more difficult tasks required on energy and food infrastructure and sustainability, not to mention issues like global warming. I'm not anti-immigration in that a) I like multiculturalism b) I believe it's economically beneficial for the UK and c) represents the ethic I believe in in inclusivity and human benificence. I remain pro-EU just, on the basis of faith in necessary international approaches to these issues. However, I am a believer in localism, and its quite obvious given turnouts in the UK that the EU is a far less democratically tangeable institution, which maybe fatal if not rectifiable. I do not think the EU has a positive recent history to shout about, and the above issues are exactly those that I weigh up in how I vote (Lib-Dem previously, Green this time), which I think Coel has rightly touched upon, but I am sure losing my faith!

In reply to tlm:

Yes - note that there are no Scottish MEPs included yet - that has to wait for the count in the Western Isles.

Scotland elects 6 MEPs. Not 100% certain yet but looking like SNP 2, Labour 2, Conservatives 1 and UKIP 1.

In reply to tlm:

Wow; 4,351,204 stupid racists voted.

In reply to Philip:

Interesting, adding the overtly anti-EU parties, (An Independence From Europe, BNP, English Democrats, NO2EU, Britain a total of 5,085,331 votes, presumably all aimed against our remaining in the EU.

Do you think our mainstream politicians may get a message from that? In the 2010 general election 29,687,604 votes were cast.

Makes you think.

In reply to contrariousjim:

I agree with much of what you say although I don't think Germans have necessarily done as well as Germany - if you look at the stagnation of real wages there for example. I think the EU has been an excellent for security - globally really - it has brought many countries together who have historically been rivals and included states in the regional security apparatus without necessitating that they also join NATO. Things could have gone terribly bad after the end of the Cold War and that they haven't is in no part a result of the EU being there as a pole of attraction. I suspect also that most European countries would end up just having to bandwagon with one of other of the superpowers (economic or military) if they weren't part of the EU. I don't think either the Chinese or US model is particularly attractive, but as a conglomeration the EU can and does offer alternatives, be that on security, economic or environmental issues. Much of that business in the EU is still done as a "club of governments" - and those governments are democratically elected by us, as citizens of the respective member states. It's easy for national politicians to blame "Brussels" when things go wrong but they join up for stuff on the basis they think it's in their country's (or their own political) best interests.

In reply to TobyA:

The Germans can have a decent roof over their heads for a reasonable price and the British can't. That is fundamental. The German economy has experienced property price inflation but never has it been so all-consuming and destructive as the UK house price religion that distracts the British from developing a sustainable industrial economy on the scale of their neighbours.

In reply to stroppygob:


It's not much is it.. 1 in 14/15 of the population...

In reply to IainRUK:


No. But how much of the population could be bothered to get of their ar*e and actually vote ??

In reply to arch:


Exactly, its those that want change who have the energy to vote... voter apathy is huge, has been for a long time.. but the antiEU isn't as great as its made out, not by a long long way...

UKIPs success has been totally overblown, they've actually gained very little in actual power, councils etc...

In reply to IainRUK:


France ??

In reply to arch:

very low turn out by French standards.

In reply to Doug:
......But those who could be ar*ed to vote, voted for the NF. You either vote or you don't. Simple really.

In reply to Doug:

But I think it was slightly more than at the last EU elections... It could also be that this is the second vote this Spring, and lastly many left voters may have abstained because the couldn't stand they are fed up with present government but can't bring themselves to vote for the right?

What I find more worrying is the North of France, it used to be a bastion of the left but now it is where the extreme right has most electoral support. When interviewed on the telly many said they had lost all faith in the left, they hadn't kept their promises on employment etc and didn't expect any better of the traditional right so they turned to what remained. Despite this the PM just made a speech saying he would stick to his guns and continue the same policy... Clearly neither the PS or the UMP have the slightest idea of anything original in the way of policies so why should the rise of the FN stop?

In reply to IainRUK:


This is one of your more stupid posts (or, for someone who is supposed to be a scientist, just intentionally self-deceiving).

They couldn't gain councils in the local elections that were just held, it was mathematically impossible. Nor did their share of the local election vote drop.

British local council elections are not comparable from one year to the next. Roughly 1/3rd of councils have ANY election in any given year, for those that do, only 1/3rd of the seats are up for grabs. This was originally probably intended to make local councils more stable over time. If you compare the map of those councils that were voting in 2013 with those voting in 2014 (1/3rd of the seats that is), 2013 were largely rural shires, with few or no metropolitan areas. 2014 was the reverse, quite a lot of large conurbations, so not natural UKIP territory. Also, in may areas, they did not put up candidates locally, particularly in London, a sensible strategy for a small party with limited funds and resources, so people could not vote for them even if they wanted to.

As they were starting with only 2 seats in the areas voting, and only 1/3rd of the seats were available, many not contested, clearly they could not take any councils, despite jumping to 165. Far from having a drop in the local %, it was a dramatic increase, considering how different the areas voting were.

The commentariat that put this "they did worse than last year locally" story around know it is nonsense - comparing apples with oranges. True in headline figures, but deliberately misleading. Though it was hinted at with reference to the Labour stronghold of Rotherham, where they were described as "winning nearly half the seats THAT WERE AVAILABLE".

In the only national poll that they could fight, the EU elections, they beat all 3 conventional parties, winning in seats and votes. The opinions or inclinations of people who did not vote are irrelevant, no-one can say who they would support if they did do so. For a minor party to beat all the mainstream ones fairly clearly, in a national election, hasn't happened for hundreds of years, if ever.

In reply to Simon4:
I was talking about in general, of them now being part of the big 3, now a big 4... I just don't see it..

results will be very different come next year..

In reply to IainRUK:

Without doubt, but the influence of this election will reverberate for some time to come.

In reply to TobyA:

Point taken. And I know a fair few scientists of my age who are not nor are likely to be on the housing ladder, whose rents are fairly high, and with aggressive rentiers who don't just take your deposits for what in my eyes would be normal wear and tear, but would take legal action too.


Agreed on security, but I wonder whether the EU is still necessary for what has often been very ad hoc commitments from individual countries? But yes, I agree the EU has been good for security, but for the modern challenges of cyber secutiry and terrorism, is the EU necessary, or just a rigorous interpol and intelligence sharing, which again seems quite ad hoc.


Give me some hope Toby! Will the EU reform, and will the big infrastructure, environmental and sustainability problems be surmountable via the EU in the following generations?