 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue
"At the contrary, its competences have been expanded every time they have been reassessed. The elections don't change anything about it."
Elections will change it. They have to unless it's anti-democratic. |
1. The elections have shown more support for Euro-supporters than for Eurosceptics. Sure, only among those that have voted, but there are many different interpretations for the abstentionists' behaviour, and nobody can say "the abstentionists want this or that". We're stuck with the actual voters.
2. The EU is antidemocratic. And this is precisely because of the lack of political integration that we're stuck with a hellish bureaucracy that is unaccountable to the population.
The MEPs will have no say on the direction taken by the EU until this power is given to them. Surprisingly enough ( ), it is the lovers of national sovereignity that make it impossible for the European Parliament to have such power.
Thus, voting for the UKIP in European elections is only useful in voicing an opinion, not in trying to weigh on the decisions. If you are serious about changing the EU, you have to vote UKIP / BNP in the next general elections.
quote: "or a one tier EU, in which every country follows the same evolution, which will be slower or even stagnating."
There is no need for further integration. We are better just reverting back to the free trade area. That is the only thing that benefits each nation. |
The common trade policy (i.e the fact that individual member states have no sovereignitiy whatsoever on their trade policy, which is decided at Brussels) has considerably benefited the EU, since the US now has a univocal equal in trade bargainings. Thanks to this, we don't sacrifice our trade interests to the US.
And if we are to give up some sovereignity to the EU, for the sake of efficiency (as the common trade policy so clearly illustrates), the EU in its form will remain.
Actually, the main debate among EU scholars is whether the benefits of further integration (which mostly concern the efficiency of decision making, and the democratic legitimacy of the EU) outweight the resistances offered by the sovereignity-groupies or not.
Basically, the "spill over" effect (the effect in which further integration was only natural) is finished, and we are now in the tricky part where further integration will be more efficient, but won't look as natural to politicians and public opinions.
Then we can regain sovereignty and regain control of issues such as asylum. Britain can also get a few billion pounds back to help our public services rather than paying inefficient French farmers. [/QUOTE]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:36
|
|
I believe you are talking about the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). I don't know what CEP is.
The British and to a lesser extent the Germans have been pushing for major changes in CAP for a while but this is only because they have to foot the bill for the lavish subsidies French Farmers gobble up. I doubt there will be any change any time soon though because the way the EU is structured Franch citizens essentially have votes that are worth more then German or British citizens. Each of the big countries get equal numbers of votes but the French have fewer citizens.
Last edited by Oerdin on 15-06-2004 at 20:55
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caradog
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue
After the latest bout of elections, what does everyone think? The press are acting like the turnout was high in the UK..yet it was still less than half. Lower in most other countries too.. |
That's not unique to European elections though. Local council and assembly elections do little to better that, and I think those elections provide for a better comparison than general elections which predictably attract a higher turnout.
quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue
Without the EU it's not like we're going to return to war. |
I agree that many times I've heard the argument that the EU is a force for peace and stability, but I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's fair to say the EU does improve diplomatic relations, but in this day and age, EU or no EU, the threat of Europe erupting into war is minimal (or non-existent).
quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue
And we can keep the essential part of it, the free trade. Everything else is just a waste of money and bureaucracy. |
I don't agree that everything else is a waste of money. Undoubtedly free trade is the EU's best asset but I do believe that some degree of economic co-operation can benefit Europe as a whole. I'm thinking of schemes that help regenerate and develop the poorer regions and nations, and not policies such as CAP or subsidisation of tobacco farmers. Admittedly, there are plenty of such policies that need to be removed, but I don't think that requires recreating the EU as a free trade zone and nothing but.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:36
|
|
with euro better prices -> opposite.
better employment situations -> it's the same.
great chance to influence -> yeah right staying outside would have meant more influence.
great subsisides -> yeah, outside Finland.
great chance to build up defense -> yeah, left outside the core and no questions asked -> no deal (:b
be bigger part in Europe -> hmm??? difference to previous situation?
great chance to finally bring us to the map -> difference to previous situation?
ultimately better salaries etc because of the better chances businesses get -> reality: opposite.
lower taxes -> YEAH! didn't happen. I bet many people voted because of this.
eradiction of few draconian taxes inside Europe for example bringing cars to Finland as we have very high prices it's ridicolous, inside EU we should be able to bring cars, righ? -> Nope.
And tons of other hints and indications.. People who thought they wouldn't happen were called ultimate pessimist and stuck up hicks. Looks like the stuck up hicks were right after all.
Other promises included that we would not even think of any common constitutions or other laws. Turned out to be BS.
It also started with 'we don't give up our currency'. Turned out to be BS.
Actually now that I think of it, the pro EU freaks pulled out all their pro claims out of their asses.
This naturally offends TRUE EUROS, because they don't like when they're reminded that none of the big promises happened, and were the reason why majority voted YES.
Furthmore there are only indications of things getting worse. Like the fact that few countries didn't have to pay the fine for braking the rules, where as other countries have paid and make no mistake they did not have the chance to just not pay it.
Also, why some other countries gets discounts on the membership? Some pay only 2/3 of the price. The money that's missing is paid by other countries who already pay their full admission. That's BS and you can have word plays and try to justify with what ever, but that's BS right there and I call on it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|