blank_frackis

These are the sorts of posts that just confuse me, the UK is a part of the EU, when the "EU" makes a decision it includes the UK and not much due to our size and importance (I'll get the voting records out again if you like) is done against the wishes of the UK government.

As for this issue I absolutely do not think abortion laws are suitable for the conditions on foreign aid. However I'm fully in favour of putting certain conditions on aid, we should not (and I'm not talking about the EU here, this goes for the UK, the US or anyone else) give aid to regimes that act immorally when we have the economic power to change their policies. This is why I don't support giving aid to Palestine whilst it's under the control of a government who doesn't recognise Israel. However abortion laws are not one of those areas in my opinion.

John Carter

How's about we don't give aid in the first place?

What right do governments have to send their taxpayers' money out of the country? Really, who gave them the mandate to do that?

I'm all for charity (i.e. if you want to help Nigaragua, get your own chequebook out) but this Robin Hood stuff should be illegal.

Britannist

It doesn't confuse most people - they understand as easy as 1, 2, 3 that the EU gives far more aid to nations on its periphery to influence events there (on 'its border') than it does to Commonwealth countries which are mostly further away. Most nations near the EU border who had european rulers once tend to be ones which were controlled by continental EU nations, some of whom receive EU 'aid' (as a way of the EU trying to get them to stop their nationals coming into the EU area in search of work and/or benefits). Consequently ex-British colonies around the globe get less money from the EU than ex-French ones do.

It should also be pointed out for those who don't know, that the UK is required to give a third of its international aid budget to the EU each year. This means that we have no say on how that money is spent once the EU gets its hands on it. Although Blank Frackis will soon be telling us that how lucky we are - we have a vote comprising 8% of the total in the EU on how hundreds of millions of Pounds of our money is spent on EU aid!

The EU has just given aid to Mauritania as part of a new fishing arrangement (which is probably illegal by the way). Mauritania is not a former British colony. The UK could not stop this decision by the EU, even if it wanted to.

As for the claim (above) that little gets passed in the EU which is against the wishes of the British Government. We didn't want to give more money to the EU in December 2005, but Blair (negotiating on the UK contribution to the 2007 -13 EU budget) felt he had to cave in and cough up more cash). Do you think, Blank Frackis, that the UK Government wanted to do this?

There are over 100, 000 EU rules, regulations and directives - most of which the UK has been powerless to stop (most were passed after we joined the EEC/EU). Businesses in the UK certainly don't want those costly and meddlesome EU Directives - but it is not possible for the democratically elected UK Government to stop them. And all future British Governments have to obey these 100, 000 EU rules and directives as long as we stay in the EU. This means that future Governments of the UK will not be able to pass legislation in many areas because it would conflict with EU rules it (the new Government) will have inherited from the outgoing UK Government.

The areas where the UK can stop the EU doing anything are declining as each new British Government gives away our remaining vetos in shabby deals with the bullies who run the EU.

The UK has little influence and virtually no say in how the EU is run.

Anyone who can't see this doesn't understand the EU and is probably a europhile who does not want to see the truth.

blank_frackis

This is the thing, you have a conception of the EU as something like a ship with 27 sailors and as we're only one sailor alongside the other 26 how can we possibly influence the direction we sail in? It just doesn't work in this way. Aside from the fact that the most important areas are decided by unanimity, the threshold for QMV votes is so high that we only require minimal support from other countries to block legislation. In addition the emphasis is firmly on consensus, decisions which are passed against the wishes of one country (far less Britain) have legitimacy problems and are avoided as much as possible. The 2006 voting records speak for themselves -

Legislation passed - 86

UK votes in favour - 84

UK votes against - 0

UK abstentions - 2

It's a verifiable fact (as the above figures show) that little legislation is passed in the Council of Ministers which the UK votes against. One day I'll go add it up for the past decade, but 2006 shows that point clearly enough.

No, this is called a compromise. We didn't want to give the Soviet Union virtual control over Eastern Europe in the Yalta conference either, but this is what happens in negotiations between governments. As Henry Clay once said, a good compromise is one where neither of the parties are entirely satisfied.

How do you explain the voting records then? There are only two explanations which I've ever heard for this phenomenon -

1. Our government ministers are idiots, or get bullied round the negotiating table by the French ministers who gang up on them and call them names, or don't know what they're doing, or are Europhiles who want to create a superstate.

2. It's all propaganda.

Neither of these are particularly convincing to me, if they're convincing to you then fair enough, I won't argue with you.

Now if we accept that the voting records are what they are, we can talk about the ramifications of EU legislation - that it constrains future governments and that it isn't subject to the same scrutiny as legislation passed in a national parliament. These are the real problems with the EU, not that we have little power to shape legislation.

C_steam

why is such an explanation not satisfactory to you? I grant it is a little extreme, so perhaps we could say that 'in the main, our politicians are in favour of the EU and it's direction, and vote accordingly'

Why is this not an explanation?

Britannist

Exactly.

No amount of excuses from Blank Frackis in defence of the EU is going to alter the fact that the EU is passing hundreds of new regulations and directives which the UK cannot stop. There are also cases of where the British Government has tried to stop implementation of ridiculous EU rules and regulations and has been taken to the European Court which usually backs the EU - especially if it's the UK in the dock.

The supporters of the EU here (i.e. the UK Government and various political parties in the Commons) don't even bother reading most of the new EU laws. They simply dress them up as being British Government proposals and get them passed by the House of Commons. Most MPs in the Commons back the EU and many don't have a clue what they are voting through (i.e. rubber-stamping for the EU). Indeed, most members of the EU 'Parliament' don't know what they are approving. There was one session where members of the EU 'Parliament' had 57 votes in under an hour on different matters - they just voted as their europhile party bosses told them to. What they voted through then came to the House of Commons where it was rubber-stamped by a half-empty chamber by MPs most of whom were not aware - or were not bothered - that the legislation had been instigated by the EU.

We have a veto in the United Nations as a permanent member of the Security Council. But on powerful legislation affecting trade and commerce in the so-called single european market we have - despite attempts by Blank Franckis to play these things down - a meagre and useless 8% vote in the EU. In other words, no chance of stopping rules and regulations which are hugely costly to the businesses in the UK. No wonder so many small businesses have had enough of the EU - as a recent opinion poll showed.

The unrealistic approach to the EU of Blank Franckis (his acceptance of the failed policies of the EU which are damaging the UK and British businesses) is actually resulting in those damaging EU rules and regulations turning more people here against the EU.

mkpdavies

Bottom line is we have a bunch of utter traitors in power who just do as they are told anyway.

If they weren't there, then the EU wouldn't have any power over us. Therefore the public is getting what it deserves really.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep waking them up to the fact, that their "democracy" is a farce and that their "political leaders" are actualy just sock puppets for a bunch of Commies, crooks and one worlders at the centre.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

blank_frackis

The reason why I don't believe this is that I believe in treating politicians as rational actors. If we do that then politicians act to increase their own power. Creating a superstate would literally give away all of a national government's power to a foreign institution. Moreover we're not just talking about Labour, for the majority of the Thatcher years every vote in the Council was made under unanimity. We're therefore talking about every government in the EU and every government that has had power in these countries since they joined, wanting to create a superstate that would by its very definition give away all of their power. I simply don't buy that.

However, this is the sort of thing that it's not really possible to have a discussion about. If you believe that then all power to you, I don't and if I did I certainly would have joined UKIP a long time ago because I would never support a superstate.