Isn't there a more deserving target for criticism than the EU

[jimmer]

Some countries invade other countries and kill thousands of civilians in the name of freedom (oil). Other Supranational unions sit around and argue about bananas. Why are we more bothered about the latter?

 

jim

[bernardo]

Because there is a good purpose in liberating a country in order to prevent it from threatening its neighbours and to prevent internal genocide and to secure international trade and resources, whereas there is no good purpose in banning the sale of bent bananas (2257/94).  Oh, and because the EU is about the lack of democracy, lack of accountability, inadequate scrutiny, corruption, waste, mismanagement, and billions of pounds of taxpayers' money per year, as well as just bananas.

[jimmer]

now get off that fence bernardo. But the EU is also about building a democratic, accountable trading zone and has a proven record of raising the economic and social standards of its members to the extent that most other European countries are queuing up to join. Given Europe's history of conflict it also promotes Supranational interests and thus fosters harmony. I'm not sure what country recently "liberated" another country to prevent it from internal genocide. but if you're talking about iraq then 100 000 civilians killed by the coalition of the willing so far and still rising and still an occupying invading force who show flagrant disregard for  everything but america is not something to support.

[bernardo]

But the EU is also about building a democratic,

"Democratic"?  Ha ha ha!  The EU government (Commission and Council of Ministers) are not elected, nor are they accountable to the European Parliament on a day-to-day basis.  The "nuclear option" of sacking the entire Commission en bloc is not a sufficient level of accountability.

 

...accountable

"Accountable"?  Riddled with multi-million pound fraud, embezzlement, corruption, waste, and accounts which have not been properly audited for nine years?

 

... trading zone and has a proven record of raising the economic and social standards of its members to the extent that most other European countries are queuing up to join.

Maybe because they and their inefficient farmers and businesses want to be subsidised by some of the £20 billion which is paid by UK taxpayers to the EU every year.

 

Given Europe's history of conflict it also promotes Supranational interests and thus fosters harmony.

You don't need to ban the sale of bent bananas (or the sale of a pound of apples) in order to "foster harmony".

 

...I'm not sure what country

The USA, UK, Spain, Poland, Australia and c.30 other countries

 

recently "liberated" another country

Iraq

 

to prevent it from internal genocide. but if you're talking about Iraq then 100 000 civilians killed by the coalition of the willing so far

more like 15000, according to realistic estimates and reports

 

 

[bernardo]

...and still rising and still an occupying invading force who show flagrant disregard for everything but America is not something to support.

Maybe that's why the allied forces set up a sovereign Iraqi interim government then, instead of becoming a colonial authority for five or ten years?

 

(I think that a coalition of 30 countries should come and invade Answerbank and liberate us from the tyranny of the 2000-character limit :-)

[jimmer]

Only 15000, so glib. the americans havn't actually bothered to count so it could be anything between the two. how do you know the "realistic figure"? Oh and talking of realistic figures, the uk gets 16 billion quid back from the EU so we actually pay about 4 billion a year, its a progressive tax which goes to poorer members of the EU some of whom are net gainers. that seems fair to me. accountability, what about tony blair and his WMD lies? interim gov't put in place by americans for americans while they continue to demolish whats left of iraq. i'd like to see the USA get involved with Putin over this Ukrane situation, or north korea, or the sudan, or zimbabwe.

 

jim

[bernardo]

I was talking abou �20 billion net, i.e. the difference left after you subtract the amount we get back.

[bernardo]

The situation in Ukraine is not sufficiently serious as to warrant international intervention - it will resolve itself, and the democratic majority in Ukraine will prevail (i.e. the Yuschenko supporters) probably peacefully.  I agree with you in also wanting the liberation of North Korea and Zimbabwe.

[El D]

The liberation of north korea? or the enforcement of western values?

The EU is soo full of corruption it stinks to high heaven - e.g. paddy ******* ashdown - part of a commission REMOVED FOR CORRUPTION. can you imagine the uproar in a democratically elected body? - yet here this man is a fully functioning member of the EU. Same with Mendehlson (sp?) - another failed corrupt politician finding his niche in the sordid brown paper bags of Brussels. I am flabbergahsted that noone picks up on this sort of thing, yet because it is out of the news noone cares. It really is a detestable institution.

 

 

Yet for all that, I do believe Britains financial contribution affords it a place at the bargaining table. But would we have one anyway - probably. Im sitting on the fence a little bit but I still hate the bureaucratic, corrupt, filth ridden EU.

[Bangkok]

Hmm, corruption.  A thread on 'is any elected body that holds power free from corruption could be quite short (although I might try it).  The original intention of the EU - the Common Market - was  to stop Germany and France going to war again, and hsa been very successful.  Undoubtedly there are problems, but there are lots of positives as well. 

 

To address the question, we should focus more attention on international diplomacy and all that that entails.  However, bananas are the tip of the madness (!) in the way the EU is run and should also me address

 

Finally, Bernado, did you take account of the fact that the UK Govt remits 90% of the customs duty collected in the UK on behalf of the EU, or does your 20 billion include the customs duty (which is legally not UK revenue).  The 10% balance is admin fee to cover the costs of collection, so in fact Brussels is subsidising the protection of the UK coastline by Customs. 

[Hgrove]

Bangkok has made a valid point.  The original idea was to ensure that European countries would be economically linked and the general standard of living similarly high throughout Europe in order to avoid WW3.  It has been completely successful.  It was a hard lesson learnt after WW1:  the humiliations heaped on Germany gave rise to the Nazi movement.  Around 1972 the then EEC was doing very well without the UK and the UK was not particularly wanted (in fact the UK economy was not in good shape at the time).  At the outset (1957) the UK refused to join, having been given the option, because the government of the time relied on favourable trade terms with the Commonwealth.  They naively assumed the Commonwealth countries would be happy to continue to be economically and politically subjugated the the UK.  Several years later they realised their ready market was disintegrating.  They realised they had missed out on a good opportunity and had to go cap in hand to ask for EEC membership.  If the UK were not a member state its economy would be disadvantaged.  Furthermore, certain areas like competition or intellectual property cannot, repeat cannot be regulated at the national level.  By the way I have had dealings with the Commission and found them helpful and efficient.  They are the Civil Service of the EU.  The civil service is not elected here (UK) either.  National interests are represented by the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers, both powerful and influential bodies made up of member state Prime Ministers and Ministers, therefore elected.  The new constitution provides for the co-decision procedure to be extended.  This means that the Parliament's legislative role will be greatly enhanced .  The trend has been consistently throughout the years for democracy/transparency etc. to increase. 

[Hgrove]

By the way I have gone on Lexis and read Reg. 2257/94 in full.  It is not too long.  It is common sense:  it just says that bananas for sale should not be attacked by pests, fungus or other diseases and the flesh should not be damaged etc.  It does not say that bent bananas cannot be sold.  It only says that bananas should not be ABNORMALLY bent.  It is obvious to me that a banana bent at 90 degrees is diseased.  Anyone reading the Regulation without prejudice will find that it is not Brussels lunacy etc etc.

[Hgrove]

I confess I am a little disappointed that there have been no further posts to this thread.  I was waiting to read comments disagreeing with me and I wanted to know what people thought about what I had written but - nothing.  Has this thread been "closed" perhaps?

[jimmer]

Sorry Hgrove

I was away from my computer yesterday. i'm sorry but i am going to be very boring and agree with everything you said. Many people seem to have the idea that we are not already in Europe and by joining the EC we would be somehow disadvantaged by corruption and bureaucracy. There is a strong anti-european agenda in the UK which attempts to maximise our differences with the rest of Europe.  the truth of the matter is that membership of the EC is very much in the british interest and i would welcome further integration. Unfortunately we do not seem to be winning the argument at the moment. I find it frustrating that people get so pumped up by utter nonsence like the banana debate and can only put this down to the success of the anti EC press.

 

jim

[Hgrove]

Thank you jim

[El D]

what amuses me is that people dont seem to realise we are already controlled a huge amount by Europe - to some extent we have signed away our sovereignty in the European treaties.

[Hgrove]

May I clarify that, under the principle of conferral, any power (competence) the EU has, is given by the member states to the EU via the Constitution (this is in the new constitution).  The member states can give it or take it away again.

[El D]

which would have to be ratified by all members? how likely is that?

[Hgrove]

I do not understand your message, El D.  Art. 48 of the Treaty on European Union provides that unanimity is required.  In the new constitution, the procedure for amendment of the treaties is in Part iv, Arts. 7 and 7a.  I am not reproducing here the whole thing, but the requirement for unanimity has been kept.  (This is unanimity among the member states of course).