Cameron and Europe

[mockney piers]

A slight aside, but NATO didn't really have anything to do for 50 years did it. It has struggled to define a role in the post cold war world and it's failed to get most members to engage in NATO operations in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying a European army is the way forward, nut it would make alot of sense financially. Europe spent almost as much on military spending (well, post peace dividend, pre war on terror at any rate) as the US with only a fraction of its military capability to show for it.

I tend to agree wih quids that you can be pro European but still question the direction of European integrtion. After all we managed to avoid war when it was just the common Market, pre European Union didn't we.

[Magpie]

Its all very well listing the supposed benefits of the European Union, but how many can you demonstrably prove are a direct result of the European Union rather than, for example, a result of better transport links and would have happened anyway.

[silverfox]

Just spent 30 minutes or so searching the web for figures, any figures, that show any hard and fast benefits to the UK. Most figures seem to be from 2005 and deal only with Britain's contribution (projected at ?6.1B 2010/11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/6772078/Pre-Budget-report-Cost-of-Britains-EU-membership-to-jump-by-1.2billion.html) and rebate.

Huguenot do you not give any citation for your figures and there seems to be a lot of supposition involved (not that I'm accusing you of making up figures or trying to mislead).

Figures must exist somewhere, and I'm not saying I'd understand them if they were produced. The country needs a real debate on this, a sort of The Sun 10 reasons to say yes and 10 reasons to say no rather than an Independent Europe has made Britain's food more continental approach.

[Huguenot]

Well I think you both make the same point.

There is no hard and fast answer to the financial benefits question. The only way you could do it was to have two identical planets where everything was identical up to 1957, and then one started the moves for European integration and one didn't.

The Reverend T. Blair made the pro-European estimates of 60% of GDP and 3m jobs in a speech in '99. He was subject to much criticism, but mainly on the 60% figure, not on the 3m. Civitas, the think tank, made the anti-European estimate of 10% of GDP from Euro activity, but again didn't challenge the 3m figure.

At the end of the day it is quite simply immpossible to say what would have happened had the common market, the EEC and the EU not developed. As magpie suggests, maybe all the trade would have existed anyway.

I simply don't think this is probable. The history of countries located on the edge of a common market is not one of economic success. Most major internationals are fiercely pro common markets for legal and financial reasons, and they simply would not have located themselves in the UK, trade tarrifs would have highly disincentivised UK trade.

The same applies for legislation and policing. Critics claim they have no effect, but victims of injustice are very quick to run to the Court of Human Rights when they feel the government has stitched them up. The Court fought to prevent torture of IRA suspects in NI. Priceless, and perhaps lead directly to the political solution.

It undoubtedly plays into the hands of euro-sceptics that it is easy to quantify the 'cost' of EU membership in terms of subs fees, but impossible to generate a consensus figure on benefit.

What is of no doubt in my mind is that even the 'worst' case figure for financial returns as calculated by the anti-Euro brigade far exceeds the cash paid oiut.

[Magpie]

On a cost/benefit analysis, it is probably the case that the common market between countries is beneficial for the UK. However, this could be achieved without any political or legal union. I can't see any real benefits of political or legal union.

Sure many "Victims" of injustice run to the COHR, but so do a lot of timewasters. The peace is NI was brought about by exhaustion on both sides (military for the IRA, political from the Brits) so ultimately they talked. Nothing to do with European Law.

[Huguenot]

Sure, all good observations.

I just think these things go hand in hand. You can't open up a common market without legislating for it, and standardising trading practices (straight bananas etc.).

This creates regional bodies by default.

A moral element to trade agreements is inevitable (I don't want to trade with Mugabe etc.), which inevitably leads to centralised political debates and integrated attitudes.

In other words, once you become mutually interdependent then political union is the endgame - and the last time we were truly independent was during subsistence farming in the 9th century. Everything else - war and political debate - has simply been squirming.

The practical consequence is that the high profile issues (e.g. abortion) take undue precedence when they represent a tiny percentage of the impact of european legislation.

There's four nations with opt-outs, and the only reason they've got them is because they don't really matter.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I would say Europe had a massive part to play in the Irish peace process

Not from any financial or legal perspective but Irish people stopped defining themselves in as narrow terms as they had previously. And it's this element of going further with integration that most appeals to me. I just don't understand the British, more specifically English, stance of being so "separate"

it's almost cute until you think of where it will leave England in years to come

[silverfox]

Maybe Europe did play some part in the peace process. To me, 9/11 sorted it. When Bush said there's no hiding place for terrorists the game was up. No more fund raising in New York and Chicago etc. Peace followed very quickly thereafter.

I'm not sure there was any road to Damascus change of mind where the Irish suddenly found themselves to be europeans. except for a few chattering classes liberals.

As far as I can see a few people grabbed the money and became very rich, later topping themselves when they realised the emperor didn't have any clothes and the rest took the EEC grants while their farms remained idle.

The celtic tiger was really a kitten being weaned in a cage of the EU zoo.

[mockney piers]

"I'm not sure there was any road to Damascus change of mind where the Irish suddenly found themselves to be europeans. except for a few chattering classes liberals.

As far as I can see a few people grabbed the money and became very rich, later topping themselves when they realised the emperor didn't have any clothes and the rest took the EEC grants while their farms remained idle.

The celtic tiger was really a kitten being weaned in a cage of the EU zoo."

Actually bonkers. It's so mad it's unfiskable it's that bad.

The one kernel of sense is did 9/11 make Irish terrorism unacceptable? I think they may have feared it did but I dont think it lasted. I think US acceptance of murder and torture immediately undermined a moral high ground; some Irish continue to think the bomb and the armalite are acceptable.

Thankfully the vast majority of northern Ireland doesn't. That has come about organically, I really think 9/11 has absolutely zip to do with it all.

[silverfox]

Think again

[Magpie]

I really think 9/11 has absolutely zip to do with it all.

Seriously? It may not have made the hardcore reject violence, but it certainly saw a big shift in the US re financial and political support to the IRA, and Gerry Adams realised that the game was up re violence.

Anyway completely off topic - the common market has some real economic benefits for its member states. In theory being part of a larger European body in a world of China/India/US/Russia makes some sense. However, lets be clear that no single member of the EU is happy to sacrifice its national interests for the common good - see the current fiasco in Greece. Therefore, a realistic view should be taken to the EU - ie we should accept what suits, and ignore/reject what doesn't, as every other country in the EU does!

Further, one can see why some countries are more in favour of the EU than others - only Britain, Germany and the Netherlands are net contributors to the EU budget - everyone else takes the subsidies and says thanks very much.

[mockney piers]

"Seriously? It may not have made the hardcore reject violence, but it certainly saw a big shift in the US re financial and political support to the IRA, and Gerry Adams realised that the game was up re violence."

I completely agree that affected funding from Noraid but I would argue strongly that Gerry Adams realised the military war was unwninnable in the 80s, ran a clever dual strategy in the 90s and was already working to committing the whole IRA to soley peaceful means prior to 2001. I'd say by the late 90s all but a hardcore were fully committed to a peaceful route even if public pronouncements (for obvious strategic reasons) weren't yet there.

I'm not saying 9/11 had no influnce but looking at the timeline of progress I think it's unsupportable to argue that it was a decisive moment, in fact I'd say the Omagh bombing of 1998 had a much much more powerful influence on the mindset of all the communities involved than did 9/11.

Anyway, yet another offtopication, I apologise....on the rest of the post I do concur.

[silverfox]

Magpie said:

"...However, lets be clear that no single member of the EU is happy to sacrifice its national interests for the common good - see the current fiasco in Greece. Therefore, a realistic view should be taken to the EU - ie we should accept what suits, and ignore/reject what doesn't, as every other country in the EU does!..."

I'm not sure it's that simple Magpie. In fact the whole concept of a supranational body is that the individual members delegate their sovereignty (ie, national interests) for the greater good of the whole. You can't cherry pick.

That in itself does not make the EU some evil monster.

[Magpie]

Clearly thats the ideal - but I don't think it works in practice. The Germans are refusing to bail out the Greeks, when clearly it would be for the greater good of the union were they to do so. My view is that a pragmatic approach should be taken, and we should only adopt laws etc where it is of a direct benefit or that we agree with. This is the approach the French, Germans, Italians etc take.

[Huguenot]

Magpie I think you're taking an absolutist position that isn't appropriate.

Politics is about the art of compromise - some of the benefits of a united Europe outweigh benefits solely in the national interest.

Many compromises were made by countries involved in Europe because they perceived the overall benefits of free trade, a global negotiating bloc and movement of labour to exceed the 'national interest' benefits of old fashion protectionism, restrictive labour practices and locally flexible taxation.

A single market cannot exist without consistent legislation. Consistent legislation can't happen without political convergence.

[Magpie]

Yeah but who makes the comprimises and who is to judge what is in the interests of the "whole". When do the French ever comprimise or indeed apply EU law that they don't like - such as rules limiting state aid. Its clear that most other EU member states apply the laws they like and ignore those they don't, and the UK should be no different.

[Huguenot]

Of course we opt out of laws we don't like - the UK shares top spot in the EU with four opt outs: currency, border controls, fundamental rights and police & judicial cooperation.

You could quite clearly argue that the UK is the country that's taking the biggest advantage of the EU by taking advantage of other state compromises whilst conceding fewer itself.

The UK's not only different, it's more indulgent!

And you reckon we're hard done by!!

*shakes head*

[Magpie]

Yet we are one of only three net contributors to the EU budget. In the absence of the opt outs how much more would the country get screwed over? Can you not see any legitimate complaint from UK taxpayers subsidising French farmers or Spanish fisherman? The EU is a anti-democratic and corrupt organisation, it is only natural that people have doubts across the EU, not just in the UK.

There are tangible benefits from a common market, but only theoretical benefits from political union, and the evidence on the success of the EU as a governmental body, is in my view, pretty unimpressive. The rational approach to the EU is a sceptical approach.

[Huguenot]

As I think I covered earlier, the net annual benefits from the EU could be calculated conservatively at +$146bn in GDP and +1.5m jobs.

It could be considered that what you're proposing is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

When I was paying tax in the UK I was certainly paying much more into the system than others who were driving the same roads, enjoying the same education, health and welfare state. I even took public transport everywhere and was scorned for it.

Myself and other people do this because the net social benefits far outweigh the disparity in contributions.

In fact the last time everyone paid equally, we had the poll tax riots. The last time we had poll tax riots in Europe we had WW2.

Europe works.

[Magpie]

We are going round in circles here - the benefits come from free trade - not from political interference from the EU. The CAP is the single biggest driver of EU spend, it directly leads to higher food prices, and acts to exclude food imports from the developing world, it is there to protect a vocal minority in France. It represents all that is wrong about the EU, and hence why people are right to be sceptical about the worth of its activities.

[Huguenot]

And back to... free trade can't act without legislation, legislation can't work without political convergence. These all require common european institutions.

All of these require a stable social environment within which to function. The CAP is part of this and is under reform, having dropped from 90%+ of EU spend to just over 50%.

The net annual outlay by the UK for these benefits is around $4bn, the estimated benefits is $146bn in GDP and 1.5 million jobs.

Mainly magpie, you're proposing that you want it both ways. That's just not plausible.

[nashoi]

How do you reconcile a pro-european stance with the belief that our current way of life is environmentally unsustainable?

The Green Party policy used to be one of leaving the EU, but now, as far as I can see, it is about staying within the EU and reversing the policy on free trade/single market thus leaving us with just the political convergence. The problem with this, is that it's the single market which is used to sell the European idea, and without it it's just dead in the water isn't it?

[Huguenot]

That's an interesting one there Nashoi!

It would be an interesting position to take if it's true. Logically if you don't intend to trade with a neighbour then you don't need any political affiliations at all.

I guess you could have a defence pact independent of trade affiliations, but I can't see why your neighbour wouldn't want to protect you if they get no trade benefits.

Any Greens reading?

[Magpie]

I think we may have to agree to disagree, political integration is not essential for a common market. Member companies need to sign up to a minimal common set of rules, but thats about it. There is no need for parliaments, commissions etc

[Brendan]

Especially since not having these things allows the freedom from regulation which richer economies need to have the upper hand over poorer ones. As we all know this is precisely what enterprise needs in order to flourish.