Do you know just how far-reaching and undemocratic the EUs powers are?

This video says it all.

Clicky

oh stop it. there is little difference between stupid EU politicians or stupid British politicians. they both shouldn't be in politics.
you should be blaming them not the whole EU.
 
oh stop it. there is little difference between stupid EU politicians or stupid British politicians. they both shouldn't be in politics.
you should be blaming them not the whole EU.

Right, in that case there must be no difference between a stupid politician that is elected by a democratic system and accountable to it, and a stupid dictator.
Because of course, the cornerstone of politics is faith in individual politicians, and not the checks and balances of the democratic system. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:
 
Undemocratic?

That's funny, I remember voting in EU elections.
 
Undemocratic?

That's funny, I remember voting in EU elections.

I don't. In any case, having the right to vote does not make a system democratic, and in no way, shape or form does our current government represent the people but funnily enough I remember voting in the general election.

And this video should be required viewing for all.
 
Right, in that case there must be no difference between a stupid politician that is elected by a democratic system and accountable to it, and a stupid dictator.
Because of course, the cornerstone of politics is faith in individual politicians, and not the checks and balances of the democratic system. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

well philosophically there is a difference, but practically they are gonna screw you no matter what you say.

i've seen the video and the only thing i can comment is the hilarious legislation procedure, where people just trow up arms and the guy gives a quick stare and decides the vote. that is actually outrageous, but sadly this kind of bullshit is going on everywhere.
 
I don't. In any case, having the right to vote does not make a system democratic,
I thought that was the essence of democracy, silly me!

It's at least as democratic as the UK's government system. Moreso in some ways.

and in no way, shape or form does our current government represent the people but funnily enough I remember voting in the general election.
Matter of opinion. Do you consider Major's first two years of government to have been unrepresentative of the people too?
It's how government and parliament works in the UK, if you think it should change that's another topic altogether.


And this video should be required viewing for all.

It's nothing new, just the same old anti-EU intensely melodramatic scare mongering that's always been around.



(Begun, the Quote War has.)
 
well philosophically there is a difference, but practically they are gonna screw you no matter what you say.

While I appreciate the sentiment, and I am inclined to agree, I think it's fair to say that doesn't make it a wise idea to just throw away our democracy because politicians are bastards.
Personally I think the problem of constantly abysmal government could be solved quite easily - a requirement to have considerable commercial/managerial experience, or possibly eligibility based on service to the community, in order to be allowed to stand for office.
This would ensure there is a much higher quality of candidate eligible to hold office. As it stands, any ****wit can become a politician - and the result is that any ****wit DOES become a politician. Most of them have never held a real job in their lives, they have no experience from which to gain competence. Ministers get put in charge of various different government departments which now more than ever have a managerial function and yet they know NOTHING either about management or what they're supposed to be managing. It's very disturbing.

i've seen the video and the only thing i can comment is the hilarious legislation procedure, where people just trow up arms and the guy gives a quick stare and decides the vote. that is actually outrageous, but sadly this kind of bullshit is going on everywhere.

Personally I find the fact that 75% of our laws are dictated by the EU, the amount of money we spend on the EU compared with the amount we get out of it, and the complete contempt for the democratic process are equally outrageous.
Regardless of your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, on the EU, the fact is that the vast majority of people neither want nor trust the EU constitution - the politicians know this and are determined to deceive us and **** us over regardless. On an issue like this which will have repercussions for hundreds of years, I'm inclined to count that as treason.
 
I thought that was the essence of democracy, silly me!

It's at least as democratic as the UK's government system. Moreso in some ways.

The essence of democracy is representative government. A democracy without checks and balances is not a valid democracy. A government which is run based on pure self-interest and not held accountable to the people is not democratic. It's fair to say that our government is a very long way from being truly democratic. As I mentioned in the above post though, the bigger concern is competence. 99% of politician are completely incompetent - the business of government is supposed to be about running the country, but these days it's just a bullshit ideological battleground. In the history of parliament, I doubt politicians have ever been so detached from the people they're supposed to represent.
Having laypeople for politicians might have worked in the days when government was small, but it doesn't work now.
Going back to the above, a supranational supergovernment can never be representative either. The entire concept is undemocratic, and serves no purpose other than to consolidate the powerbase of those who pull the strings.

Matter of opinion. Do you consider Major's first two years of government to have been unrepresentative of the people too?
It's how government and parliament works in the UK, if you think it should change that's another topic altogether.

No government elected by our system is truly representative - but none are worse than New Labour. As I'm sure you know, the power is much more centralised within the cabinet under Blair's "reforms", and MPs from opposing parties have much less opportunity to derail Labour's plans.

It's nothing new, just the same old anti-EU intensely melodramatic scare mongering that's always been around.

What's melodramatic about it? Where's the scare-mongering?
 
If we are to be run by numskulls they should be British numskulls.

Seriously though, there is no need for an EU government, waste of money.
 
The essence of democracy is representative government. A democracy without checks and balances is not a valid democracy. A government which is run based on pure self-interest and not held accountable to the people is not democratic. It's fair to say that our government is a very long way from being truly democratic. As I mentioned in the above post though, the bigger concern is competence. 99% of politician are completely incompetent - the business of government is supposed to be about running the country, but these days it's just a bullshit ideological battleground.
Having laypeople for politicians might have worked in the days when government was small, but it doesn't work now.
Going back to the above, a supranational supergovernment can never be representative either. The entire concept is undemocratic, and serves no purpose other than to consolidate the powerbase of those who pull the strings.
I do somewhat agree with you here, but what's the solution? Entrance exams before standing as an MP? That wouldn't be entirely democratic either.


No government elected by our system is truly representative - but none are worse than New Labour. As I'm sure you know, the power is much more centralised within the cabinet under Blair's "reforms", and MPs from opposing parties have much less opportunity to derail Labour's plans.
The government has been becoming more and more centralised since the start of the 20th century, you can't exactly blame it on Labour alone.

My point still stands that the EU government is at least as democratic as what the British public have been ruled by several centuries. The fact that it's basically becoming an expanded version (to X degree) including other countries doesn't mean we're going to be under the rule of a dictatorship.

What's melodramatic about it? Where's the scare-mongering?

The music? The emotive language? The narrow focus and misleading statements? The visual cues such as the robot?
 
I do somewhat agree with you here, but what's the solution? Entrance exams before standing as an MP? That wouldn't be entirely democratic either.

As I suggested above, there should be a requirement for any potential MP to have a certain amount of relevant life experience and success within a commercial or managerial function in order to be able to stand for office.
This is no less democratic than requiring candidates to be 21 years old, and makes a whole lot of sense. As far as I know, the concept of the "career politician" is a relatively new one, they used to be successful members of the community who also took time to represent that community.
These days people leave uni and go straight into a political career. As a result they know very little about the world the rest of the population lives in, and they have no experience in holding any real responsibilities.
IMO, modern politicians are basically middle-aged clueless, idealistic university students who never grew up. They never got a chance to have their idealistic bullshit challenged by exposure to real life, and having never experienced that life, their interest is primarily in enforcing their ideology on the world instead of providing a service for the community which they can't identify with or understand as they have never been a part of it.
This, I think, is the crux of the problem.

The government has been becoming more and more centralised since the start of the 20th century, you can't exactly blame it on Labour alone.

No, but it's never been this bad.

My point still stands that the EU government is at least as democratic as what the British public have been ruled by several centuries. The fact that it's basically becoming an expanded version (to X degree) including other countries doesn't mean we're going to be under the rule of a dictatorship.

The wider the scope of a government, the less representative it is. The ancient city-state governments were far more representative than any modern nation-state, as are small town councils and the like. Obviously government on such a small scale is economically unviable in the modern world, but delegation of decision-making should be what we aspire to, not mass centralisation of it. I see absolutely no purpose behind a federal EU.

The music? The emotive language? The narrow focus and misleading statements? The visual cues such as the robot?

And what about the many pertinent facts?
 
As I suggested above, there should be a requirement for any potential MP to have a certain amount of relevant life experience and success within a commercial or managerial function in order to be able to stand for office.
And yet by making that a requirement you would restrict candidates more to the middle classes. How would you get the traditional (OLD) Labour type candidates elected?

And what about the many pertinent facts?

I was objecting to the presentation (some were very misleading) and selection, most of the facts are accurate.
Like how they says the UK pays 14 billion and gets 4 billion back directly, not counting rebates - says they'll discuss rebates later and then only mention rebates in respect to France. Britain get another 3bn per year in rebates, but ofc that wouldn't be dramatic enough for that video.


As for the purpose of the EU? I'm not the biggest fan of it ever (though I do object to you and others calling it undemocratic or dictatorial, which I disagree with). However I see it as helping other nations (such as former Soviet states) develop, improve the living conditions of their people, and eventually improve the worlds economy.
Direct tangible benefits to the UK? Low. Long-term benefits to the UK? Medium. Long-term benefits to humanity in general? High.

What's more important, being British and having the people of your nation have a slightly better standard of living now by pulling out of the EU and having that money spent elsewhere, or having people of many nations have a far better standard of living in the long term?

I know which I consider more important, I'm also fairly sure I know which you'd consider to be more important - and there lies our main difference I suspect.
Vote whatever way you want, believe what you want but please don't spread biased rabid 'documentaries' like that pretending that the EU is the souce of all ills.
 
And yet by making that a requirement you would restrict candidates more to the middle classes. How would you get the traditional (OLD) Labour type candidates elected?

I don't think the concept of class has any relevance in today's society. Primarily it signifies the distinction between people who follow a skills-based career and people who follow a knowledge-based career, but our entire economy is now based upon knowledge work. Indeed, there are a great many office jobs that are lesser paid and more boring than working on a production line, and plumbers and the like make a hell of a lot of money.
There is nothing to define someone as "working class" and prevent them from doing something that's "middle class", or vice versa. Hell, I went from being a civil servant, to being a recruitment consultant, to being a motorcycle despatch rider to working in IT sales.
In any case, the job of a politician is increasingly to lead, to manage, to make decisions - the same kind of responsibilities successful "middle-class" people have, as you put it. I don't see what on earth could ever qualify a miner, a cleaner or a carpenter to balance the demanding and academic workload of politics. The world just doesn't work like that anymore.

I was objecting to the presentation (some were very misleading) and selection, most of the facts are accurate.
Like how they says the UK pays 14 billion and gets 4 billion back directly, not counting rebates - says they'll discuss rebates later and then only mention rebates in respect to France. Britain get another 3bn per year in rebates, but ofc that wouldn't be dramatic enough for that video.


As for the purpose of the EU? I'm not the biggest fan of it ever (though I do object to you and others calling it undemocratic or dictatorial, which I disagree with). However I see it as helping other nations (such as former Soviet states) develop, improve the living conditions of their people, and eventually improve the worlds economy.
Direct tangible benefits to the UK? Low. Long-term benefits to the UK? Medium. Long-term benefits to humanity in general? High.

What's more important, being British and having the people of your nation have a slightly better standard of living now by pulling out of the EU and having that money spent elsewhere, or having people of many nations have a far better standard of living in the long term?

I know which I consider more important, I'm also fairly sure I know which you'd consider to be more important - and there lies our main difference I suspect.

Well, yes, Britain exists to serve British citizens, not foreign citizens. That's the entire point of the concept of nationhood. I really have no interest in handing over our own hard-won freedoms, democratic oversight and wealth to an organisation in order to redistribute them in some kind of bizarre communist exercise.

Vote whatever way you want, believe what you want but don't spread biased rabid 'documentaries' like that pretending that the EU is the souce of all ills.

Far more biased shit comes out of the government propaganda machine on a daily basis. There's nothing majorly wrong with the video.
 
I don't think the concept of class has any relevance in today's society. Primarily it signifies the distinction between people who follow a skills-based career and people who follow a knowledge-based career, but our entire economy is now based upon knowledge work. Indeed, there are a great many office jobs that are lesser paid and more boring than working on a production line, and plumbers and the like make a hell of a lot of money.
There is nothing to define someone as "working class" and prevent them from doing something that's "middle class", or vice versa. Hell, I went from being a civil servant, to being a recruitment consultant, to being a motorcycle despatch rider to working in IT sales.
In any case, the job of a politician is increasingly to lead, to manage, to make decisions - the same kind of responsibilities successful "middle-class" people have, as you put it. I don't see what on earth could ever qualify a miner, a cleaner or a carpenter to balance the demanding and academic workload of politics. The world just doesn't work like that anymore.
You mentioned "middle class" before I did. (nyah nyah etc)



Well, yes, Britain exists to serve British citizens, not foreign citizens. That's the entire point of the concept of nationhood. I really have no interest in handing over our own hard-won freedoms, democratic oversight and wealth to an organisation in order to redistribute them in some kind of bizarre communist exercise.
Like I said, that's where we differ. But please don't try to assert that because it's wrong in your opinion that it's "empirically" bad - it is intended to help people, just not ones you feel you should.


Far more biased shit comes out of the government propaganda machine on a daily basis. There's nothing majorly wrong with the video.
Hey, I'd have complained if you'd linked us that kind biased shit instead. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
You mentioned "middle class" before I did. (nyah nyah etc)

I did?

Like I said, that's where we differ. But please don't try to assert that because it's wrong in your opinion that it's "empirically" bad - it is intended to help people, just not ones you feel you should.

I don't even agree that it's intended to help people. One-world government can never work, the only people who benefit are the rich and powerful. A federal EU is the same thing but on a smaller scale.
Under a federal EU, ordinary people will have no voice. The people you think it should be helping will actually be the ones who get shafted.
It's not like any of the member states even need the EU on the basis of their economies, Eastern Europe is only poor because of the legacy of communism and the USSR. Give it 50 years and Poland will be no worse off than any Western European country.
Not to mention that open borders are harming the poorer economies as they are losing millions of workers to richer countries. And we in turn suffer because we have no space for them. Our infrastructure really is at breaking point, and I'm not just saying that because the video says so. The south-east is so overcrowded that every aspect of existence suffers.
Nor is it so simple to say that extra workers helps our economy, because much of that money will be sent back to the country of origin instead of being recirculated around our own economy. A net loss to us.
In any case, don't forget that any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take away everything you have. Ultimately, it's normal people who get shafted by big government.

Hey, I'd have complained if you'd linked us that kind biased shit instead. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Fair enough. The video, nonetheless, makes a point that needs to be made. Most people are completely unaware of just how much power the EU has over our daily lives, and how much more it will have if this constitution in disguise goes ahead. Hell, even I wasn't aware just how extensive the Brussels stranglehold over UK legislation was until now.
 
I don't have time to watch the video or read the quote wars (yet), but I did note this on a skim-through:

What kind of response is this? Why is it relevant to us that you had the chance to vote in EU elections, but couldn't be bothered?

If they weren't well publicised enough, that's the fault of the British government and not the EU itself.
 
Sorry, but I must spoil the next 15 pages of quotewars for you by already providing you the inevitable conclusion of this thread: democracy is an imperfect system and a more technocratic form of government would be desirable.
 
I don't. In any case, having the right to vote does not make a system democratic, and in no way, shape or form does our current government represent the people but funnily enough I remember voting in the general election.
I just realised why.

The European Parliament election, 2004 was the UK part of the European Parliament election, 2004. It was held on 10 June.

The latest election to the post of Mayor of London took place on June 10, 2004.
 
I just realised why.

Interesting...

In the same vein that the government regularly makes unpopular or controversial announcements on the same day of a major event in order to keep the public ignorant, I'm guessing it's not a coincidence.
 
Interesting...

In the same vein that the government regularly makes unpopular or controversial announcements on the same day of a major event in order to keep the public ignorant, I'm guessing it's not a coincidence.

Possibly.
I'm not sure though, I mean I'd think that it would have a much lesser effect outside of London.
London voter turnout was still about the same as the national average. Would it have been higher otherwise maybe?
Perhaps it didn't have a huge effect on turnout, but it's easier for Londoners to forget if overshadowed by the Mayoral election?

Who knows. I'm just happy I solved the mystery.
 
So if anything, Labour's conspiring to keep you out of EU elections rather than the EU trying to be undemocratic. Gasp!
Maybe.
 
Possibly.
I'm not sure though, I mean I'd think that it would have a much lesser effect outside of London.
London voter turnout was still about the same as the national average. Would it have been higher otherwise maybe?
Perhaps it didn't have a huge effect on turnout, but it's easier for Londoners to forget if overshadowed by the Mayoral election?

Who knows. I'm just happy I solved the mystery.

Maybe it was a late April fools joke. Two scams in one day. Red Ken has done a great job of making London a much worse place to live.
His most recent scandal made me so incredibly angry. Transport for London has been running a three year trial on three of the major trunk routes that go through London trialling allowing motorcycles in bus lanes. This was initially an 18 month trial, but when they didn't get the results they wanted, they extended the trial for another 18 months.
Recently, the Mayor's office tried to cover up the report - which, even taking into account the increased motorcycle traffic along these routes resulting from the policy, showed a massive 46% reduction in motorcycle accidents along the trial routes, 44% reduction in motorcycle-cyclist collisions and a 33% reduction in motorcycle-pedestrian collisions.
Of course, this just confirms what's bloody obvious to every biker in the city - it's much safer for bikes to be in the bus lane than between lanes of traffic.
They have no intention of opening up the bus lane network to motorcycles, because they don't want to anger cyclists. Why cyclists opinions are so damned important I have no idea, they pay no tax, are uninsured and generally are a dangerous liability on the road.
In any case, when it comes down to it, this is simple corruption that knowingly and intentionally results in many completely avoidable deaths and serious injuries. Something like 30% of all fatalities on London roads are motorcyclists, compared to 3% of the traffic, and I can say from personal experience that commuting through London by motorbike is unbelievably dangerous. Anything to make it safer is more than welcome.
I'm sure the new corporate manslaughter legislation should be applicable here in some format. And all this in spite of the government's unceasing obsession with "road safety". It's all just a complete crock of shite designed to appease the green lobby and get money out of drivers. Allowing bikes in bus lanes over a three year period would save far more lives than a decade's worth of nationwide speed cameras ever could.
 
So if anything, Labour's conspiring to keep you out of EU elections rather than the EU trying to be undemocratic. Gasp!
Maybe.

The EU is undemocratic, vote or no vote. I've yet to hear anyone cite a single benefit to us from EU membership.
 
It's undemocratic although you can vote? Clearly I need to read the rest of the thread.

Not wanting to be a backseat moderator, but what's with all the red ken stuff up there? I thought we were talking about the EU.
 
The EU is undemocratic, vote or no vote. I've yet to hear anyone cite a single benefit to us from EU membership.

Are those two sentences supposed to be related or simply tangental, like the biking story?

As I said, I believe the EU is at least as democratic as Britain - not perfect but actually kinda average for our times.
 
It's undemocratic although you can vote? Clearly I need to read the rest of the thread.

If voting is the only criteria for democracy, then Saddam Hussein's Iraq was democratic.

Not wanting to be a backseat moderator, but what's with all the red ken stuff up there? I thought we were talking about the EU.

I was given the opportunity to have a rant about Red Ken. One of those opportunities you just don't overlook...

Are those two sentences supposed to be related or simply tangental, like the biking story?

Not related, no, but you're all grilling me about this and yet noone has given even a single example of something we have to gain from being part of the EU. Indeed, noone has made anything more than a minor disagreement with the content of the video and I consider the mere facts within to be nothing short of alarming and proof enough that we should have no further part in the EU.
Evidently people are just going to have to learn the hard way that transnational government is an obscenely bad idea.

As I said, I believe the EU is at least as democratic as Britain - not perfect but actually kinda average for our times.

And I've already outlined why it isn't. In any case, our involvement with it can not in any way be considered democratic when the will of the vast majority of the population about the fundamental right to choose how we wish to be ruled is being not only ignored, but sabotaged. How can a federal EU possibly be democratic when 90% of people in this country don't want to be part of a federal EU in the first place? The democratic answer is quite simply, no central European government for us.
 
Not related, no, but you're all grilling me about this and yet noone has given even a single example of something we have to gain from being part of the EU. Indeed, noone has made anything more than a minor disagreement with the content of the video and I consider the mere facts within to be nothing short of alarming and proof enough that we should have no further part in the EU.

I don't find it alarming. Nothing I didn't already know beyond a few minor details.
 
I don't find it alarming. Nothing I didn't already know beyond a few minor details.

It didn't tell me anything new about the "constitution", but I didn't realise the sheer extent to which EU legislation affects us on a day to day basis.
To start with, the simple and unavoidable fact is that the more people there are to govern, and the wider the spread of cultures and opinions that are being governed, the less representative and therefore less democratic a government is. See separatist movements in China and India for example, or the extremes of opinion in the USA, and the civil war. Arguably the US would be better off if it had remained two separate nations.
Beyond this, we have no say or influence on what the EU gets up to. None whatsoever. Electing individual MEPs is little more than a token gesture, the fact of the matter is that whereas our government is (theoretically, at least) accountable to us, the EU government is not.
British public opinion and interests is at best a minor consideration when the EU comes up with its next broad sweeping directive, frankly I can't see how the EU is anything but a partially elected dictatorship.
How anyone could think that a European government could make good decisions for the UK is absolutely beyond me.
 
*points to the thread title*
You're right, democracy is dead. The cyclist lobbyists killed it.

No, actually it was a rant about our communist mayor...
And sacrificing lives for political acceptance seems like a really stupid thing to be flippant about. I thought people were supposed to give a shit about government corruption?
 
Clearly. Because the EU Parliament has a big sign on the door saying 'No Brits Allowed'...

Do you think Westminster would make better decisions for Ireland than the Irish government does?
 
The EU is a pan-national conglomerate that tries to ensure equal representation among nationstates and does not claim ultimate sovereignty except to the extent that they all participate. Britain is one nationstate among others, nominally equal.
Parliament is a national government institution that claims ultimate sovereignty over the entire country. Ireland is a seperate nation.

The EU lets all the citizens of all its memberstates vote for their nations' representatives.
Parliament does not let Irish citizens be represented in the UK parliament.
 
The EU is a pan-national conglomerate that tries to ensure equal representation among nationstates and does not claim ultimate sovereignty except to the extent that they all participate. Britain is one nationstate among others, nominally equal.
Parliament is a national government institution of one country and Ireland is another country entirely. Parliament claims ultimate sovereignty over all local governments in the UK.

The EU lets all the citizens of all its memberstates vote for their nations' representatives.
Parliament does not let Irish citizens be represented in the UK parliament.

I meant in terms of whether Irish interests would be better represented if it were part of the UK. I think the answer to that would logically have to be a resounding "no", and exactly the same applies to a British government being able to make better decisions for Britain than a European government could.
We have a different culture and a different way of doing things than other European countries, this cannot possibly work. The EU doesn't discriminate in this way; they pass a law and it must be applied across all member states, no matter how inane it may be.
We certainly wouldn't have the economy we do now if the EU decided we have to adopt the French way of doing things and have a maximum working week of 35 hours. Irrespective of whether that is a better lifestyle or not, that's not the way we as a powerhouse economy do things, it's not the way we work, and we should not have to conform to the way other countries do things purely on the basis of...well, ****, I have absolutely no idea of the logic behind "EU harmonisation".
 
The difference is the UK retains its sovereignty - it controls its tax income and defends/polices its territories. The day the UK loses those rights you can complain - today, you don't have a leg to stand .... not even taking into account 1) the UK democratically elects EU reps and national reps that make decisions in Europe and 2) there is nothing binding about EU decisions - the UK signed up to the laws and regulations, and is free to walk away from them as well although it is not in their interest to do so.

Of course they're binding, the EU passes directives and we have to comply with them. "We the people" have absolutely no say in the bullshit laws they pass, and they generally make no sense.
In any case, this is quite obviously a steady progression towards a full-blown European superstate and you can argue that point if you wish, but you'll see. 10 years ago, we were sold the EU as a "common trading market". Now it's a full blown government that interferes with our lives.
Government power is self-perpetuating. Massive national sovreignty is sacrified through the EU constitution, and don't think for one minute it will end there.

You are aware that the EU constitution will make European laws overrule national laws? So that any law the EU passes supercedes a national law, and you say the EU is not infringing upon sovreignty?

And finally the big picture - # European wars in 50 years before EEC = 2 world wars and multiple minor conflicts. # European wars after EC founded = Zero.

Must I quote Benjamin Franklin and his opinion on sacrificing liberty for security?
 
I meant in terms of whether Irish interests would be better represented if it were part of the UK. I think the answer to that would logically have to be a resounding "no", and exactly the same applies to a British government being able to make better decisions for Britain than a European government could.
We have a different culture and a different way of doing things than other European countries, this cannot possibly work. The EU doesn't discriminate in this way; they pass a law and it must be applied across all member states, no matter how inane it may be.
We certainly wouldn't have the economy we do now if the EU decided we have to adopt the French way of doing things and have a maximum working week of 35 hours. Irrespective of whether that is a better lifestyle or not, that's not the way we as a powerhouse economy do things, it's not the way we work, and we should not have to conform to the way other countries do things purely on the basis of...well, ****, I have absolutely no idea of the logic behind "EU harmonisation".
But it's still not a valid comparison at all. Parliament has ultimate sovereignty, and the UK is 'united' under the banner of England and her Queen...for the comparison with the EU to stand scrutiny, the UK would have to be an entirely collaborative organisation sitting above and regarding as equal the sub-nations of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales.

Your claim that EU law is some impersonal blanket standard stamped across the face of all the poor member states ignores that not only do are those laws decided by the individual member states, but that the representatives who do the deciding are all democratically elected - our elected leaders, and our elected MEPs. For the 35-hour week to be implemented across the Union, the member states would have to go for it, and even if they did, and we didn't, we could still pull out.

And if that democracy is imperfect, how is it? And why? And shouldn't you be criticising that particularly, rather than the EU as an organisation?
Similarly, if the EU seems to be going over our heads because nobody knows what is happening, and people in general are too apathetic or too unknowledgeable to properly think on and vote on the issues, whose fault is that?

I don't necessarily support the thing and I keep meaning to look into the video properly but from where I'm standing right now your criticisms are kind of ignoring some important facts.

This is not America in Franklin's time. We did not get colonised and shafted into signing up to a foreign institution in which we have no say. And if did, or if we don't, it does not seem like the problem rests with the EU itself, but with our own government.
 
Regardless of whether it's a bad thing, is there any point to an EU parliament. What can it do that a nations own government can't and how much does it cost.
 
But it's still not a valid comparison at all. Parliament has ultimate sovereignty, and the UK is 'united' under the banner of England and her Queen...for the comparison with the EU to stand scrutiny, the UK would have to be an entirely collaborative organisation sitting above and regarding as equal the sub-nations of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales.

I'm not seeing any real difference which transcends the theoretical here. The point is that surrendering domestic decision-making power to a transnational entity is never a democratic option.

Your claim that EU law is some impersonal blanket standard stamped across the face of all the poor member states ignores that not only do are those laws decided by the individual member states, but that the representatives who do the deciding are all democratically elected - our elected leaders, and our elected MEPs. For the 35-hour week to be implemented across the Union, the member states would have to go for it, and even if they did, and we didn't, we could still pull out.

If this was the case, we wouldn't be adopting the EU's motorcycle licensing directive which makes absolutely NO sense for us as a nation. I apologise for the way I make frequent references to biking which of course is of no interest to you, but it's a major part of my life and constantly under siege, so naturally it gives me a lot of things to draw on. But bear with me, as I can in this case outline in great detail just how inappropriate and irrelevant EU directives are to the UK, and how we suffer as a result of the unrepresentative bureaucracy.
Anyway, as of October 2008, the motorcycle test will include an off-road maneuvers section, which will examine competence in low speed machine control.
This is ridiculous because:

1) We don't have anywhere near enough test centres with the space to accomodate this. A lot of biking schools are run out of a garage, a lot of these new off-road centres are having to be purpose-built. Many training schools will go out of business, the cost of getting a bike license will go up enormously, and people in some parts of the country will have to travel over 50 miles to have access to these facilities. The lack of supply will mean 6 month waits for a test date.
2) This isn't tackling the causes behind real bike accidents. The reality is, politically uncomfortable or not, that motorcycle accidents largely fall into two broad categories: traffic accidents caused by other drivers failing to see the motorcyclist and causing a collision, and single vehicle accidents caused by riders losing control on a bend on a rural road, or misjudging an overtake and meeting their end in a head-on collision.
Now, to tackle each category individually. An off-road test will not do anything to address urban accidents. Two things can be done to tackle that:

a) greatly improving the driving standards of car users and reducing the inattention and laziness often inherent to that mode of transport, increasing awareness of motorcycles as frankly most drivers don't have the slightest clue about bikes
b) training riders to ride defensively in traffic. To see hazards far in advance of meeting them and dealing with them before they become dangerous, how to make yourself conspicuous to other drivers and what to do when the situation does become dangerous. New riders receive rudimentary instruction on this at best, otherwise they're left to learn from experience and that can be fatal. You can never be too alert on a bike.

Now, as for rural accidents, they happen at speeds far in excess of the poxy 30mph range they test in the off-road section. The current test includes an emergency stop at 30mph, which the instructors teach you to do at 25mph because it looks the same to the examiner and it's easier.
The reality - and, this is where the politically uncomfortable part comes in - is that, generally speaking, riders who crash on rural roads ride high performance machines and they ride them fast. The bike test does not prepare you for handling the performance of a high-spec machine at all. Modern sportsbikes have so much power they will lift the front wheel just from opening the throttle and lift the rear wheel just from applying the brakes a bit too quickly. Any modern 600cc sportsbike can break the national speed limit in first gear.
If you want to address these kinds of bike accidents, you have to teach riders the skills required to perform an emergency stop, take a corner, overtake and stay safe at three figure speeds - because whether they have the skills or not, they're going to ride at these speeds.
Advanced training organisations, including the police-run BikeSafe recognise these realities, and teach you how to ride safely at these speeds without reprimand.

So, the EU licensing directive will do nothing to reduce bike accidents.

3) The maneuvers have to be completed at a certain speed, which is measured by special equipment on the course. These speeds are measured in km/h, leaving us with nonsensical requirements like the brake-and-swerve maneuver to be performed at 32mph (and it has to be pretty much exact). What's the point in this? It's not necessarily a big deal, but it couldn't be clearer that the law is not taking the fact that we measure things in mph into account.

This, combined with the third EU licensing directive, due to become law in 2011, which will make it much harder to obtain an unrestricted license (and you'll have to be 24(!) to do so, despite no such restriction being in place for cars), will lead to a massive downturn in the motorcycle industry. There are few enough young people taking up motorcycling as it is - almost all my biking friends are at least 10 years older than me - they are predicting that there will be a 60% fall in people taking up motorcycling.

The point being, while this law may make more sense in some other country, it doesn't make any sense here for any reason. It will not cut accidents, it will inconvinience a lot of people and take away the livelihoods of others. The cynic in me says that it's designed to discourage people from riding motorbikes...

And, if you dissect other EU directives in a similar fashion, I'm certain you will find they are equally inapplicable to the UK as this one is.

Again, I apologise for making such a lengthy post on something which really doesn't interest you, but that was really the best way for me to illustrate in detail just how unrepresentative EU law is.

And if that democracy is imperfect, how, and why, and shouldn't you be criticising that particularly, rather than the EU as an organisation?

As far as I'm concerned, any transnational government is undemocratic by its very nature. You must recognise that bigger government always comes with tradeoffs in terms of correct decision-making and democracy. The only reason for expanding government's sphere of influence is to gain a greater voice on the world stage, or economic stability. We don't need either of those things, and so there is no benefit (certainly not enough benefit) to us in being part of a European superstate which justifies sacrificing our democracy and our sovreignty.
And at the end of the day, when the United States of Europe becomes a superpower and inevitably starts interfering in world affairs, won't you just be complaining about it? An ideal world would have no superpowers.

Similarly, if nobody knows what is happening in the EU, and people are too apathetic or too unknowledgeable to properly think on and vote on the issues, whose fault is that?

Hard to say. As a society we have gradually become dependent on what the media feeds us for information. I would argue that ultimately it's the mass media that decides who gets into power, or whether a verdict of guilty is rendered in a big celebrity trial, and it's a sad state of affairs.
But ultimately, this comes back around to big government again. Our society is so large and so impersonal now that nobody feels empowered, which in turn creates apathy towards politics, and reliance on the mass media as a source of information. That's just the way in a nation of millions, but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the problem further.

This is not America in Franklin's time. We did not get colonised and shafted into signing up to a foreign institution in which we have no say. And if did, or if we don't, it does not seem like the problem rests with the EU itself, but with our own government.

That's exactly what's happening. The vast majority of people in the UK do NOT want us to be party to the EU constitution, yet we are being inexorably led towards that course of action regardless. The EU constitution WILL make us part of a foreign institution in which we have no say.
 
Back
Top