Wintermute said:
i'll vote yes - if I get the chance, as well as getting the UK into the Euro as soon as humanly possibly.
This may sound a little big-headed, but it's my understanding of the economics of the situation - the Euro without the UK economy being part of it is much weaker than it should be. If you think the Euro in underperforming (although, tbh, it sure doesn't look like it), blame the Brits.
It's the ultimate screw-job. Britian has sat on it's hands waiting to see if the Euro suceeds before joining... whilst Britain not being there is preventing it from being a massive sucess. The economies of Britain and Germany combined are larger than the entire rest of the EU added together - if we threw our weight behind the Euro, it would dominate the planet. Until the UK joins... the Euro will stuggle. Sorry folks, but you have the idiot Sun-readers in Britain to thank for that
Thing is - local political control is good and well... but if you want to be anything other than a plaything of the United States, Europe needs to become a major force - a third superpower.
It's worth remembering that there are two parts to European Governance - the parliament (which is a pathetic joke, as all parliaments are...) and the Comission, which really gets the job done of making Europe a better place to be. When you look at what the comission has achieved in the last fifteen years, it's pretty amazing... and if the assholes in local parliaments hadn't been desperately trying to protect their own little empires, they would have done much, much more.
Taking your paragraphs one at a time:
1. OK, fair enough. Your choice.
2. Amusingly enough, I agree with you 100% here, but probably for all the wrong reasons. At present, (though probably for not much longer), the "European Economy" would benefit massively from the UK joining - mainly by propping up the ailing state pension schemes of France & Germany through enforced "contributions". As it is, and despite all the Franco-German ranting about the "British Rebate", the UK is still one of the biggest net contributors to the EU. France meanwhile stubbornly insists on preservation of the CAP - Common Agricultural Policy - which currently chews up almost half of the total EU budget and the biggest beneficiary of which is, you guessed it, France. Improving the European economy is not contingent on the UK joining - it is contingent on implementing long term, far-reaching structural reforms to improve the flow of capital and labour force mobility - supposedly the building blocks of the EU. 35 hour working weeks and government spending accounting for 40+ % of GDP do not a good ecomomy make. Of course, the current UK government is going hell-for-leather trying to "dumb down" our economy to European standards. It is currently being kept artificially healthy-looking by high property prices and consumer spending, but the latter has already ended and the former is looking ropier by the day, so just watch the shit hit the fan when it does ...
3. Oh please, do shut up. Britain not joining the Euro is preventing France & Europe from implementing measures to improve their
own economies? What tortuous process of (un)reasoning led you to that conclusion? They already have the necessary population mass to make a real go of it, they have supposedly highly educated workers, so how can little Britain not joining their playground gang prevent them from becoming a success? Pull the other one. Remember when Britain
wanted to join (what is now) the EU way back when? And how a certain Monsieur De Gaulle said "Non!" ? They didn't want us then, but now they do? Can you blame us for being reticent about the whole business?
4. Local control is good and well indeed. If other countries are America's playthings, why not have a look at why America is able to exert such influence.
5. Ahh, now we come to it, and your thinking here really flows on from 4 above. You realise of course that the Commission is composed entirely of unelected persons? Excellent. Can anyone here say "democratic deficit"? America has a federal goverment, but the States comprising the Federation have the kind of powers that member nations of the EU could only dream about if the European Constitution has its way. Essentally Winty, what you're saying is you want a massive, monolithic, regional power block comprised of unelected officials to provide a counterweight to US hegemony? We've been down that road before. It was called the USSR, and resulted in more human suffering and environmental degradation than anything which went before. More of the same? No fucking thanks.
I for one, when (if) offered the chance, will be voting against the EU constitution as currently proposed. I've taken the trouble to read the draft constitution in its entirity, and have noticed two things:
1. Clauses reserving or granting power to the organs of the EU state are defined in clear, unambiguous terms - "will get", "will obtain" "will be granted" etc etc.
2. Clauses dealing with protecting the rights of citizens against oppression by, or preserving the sovreignty of member nations from the EU state are drafted in rather more nebulous terms - "will endeavour to", "will attempt to" and so on.
Not very fucking reassuring, is it.
The EU was supposed to be about free trade, increasing democratic accountability and safeguarding basic human rights. Amazing how far it seems to have drifted from those noble ideas in so short a time, eh?
Frankly, the treatment of the new accession countries by France & German is disgraceful. Is it because they want to ensure the lion's share of EU aid (upon which they are now hopelessly dependant) goes to them rather than towards more deserving countries?
Last I saw, countries like Poland were introducing a flat rate tax - you can almost hear the coronaries from the fat old Franco-German politicians who realise the writing is on the wall for them...