Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Mega Tsunami]

Right, but of course. We should ignore the works of Rousseau, Voltaire and all the other philosophers from the continent because there's a bunch of murderous bastards out there.

Of course, Britain has no history of oppressing other nations and robbing them of their wealth and squashing anyone who resists.

You have a point, of course. But that does not mean that Britain shouldn't follow our own human rights instead of being dictated to by ‘Europe’ on the matter.

 

[Flying Pig]

It really does. The whole point of having human rights (or any law) enforced by a central body is to split up the people who make and enforce the rules from the people who have an interest in breaking them. It's exactly the same logic that means we don't let restaurants do their own kitchen inspections.

 

[Verbose]

Not many, I am sure (if any). I just think it should be up to us to decide.

Being in the EU means a country HAS decided. Tear that up... Well, could mean a bunch of things...

 

[Lillefix]

But you know full well they all go (virtually) hand in hand anyway.

No they don't. they are completely separate organizations.

Is America signed up to the European Convention etc.?

Yes. At least some of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cybercrime

 

[Oerdin]

That really is a farcical idea. The European regulations (including human rights) are one of the best things to come out of the EU.

My butt!

 

[Arakhor]

Thanks for that useful contribution, Oerdin.

 

[Oerdin]

That is all I have to say to someone naive and ignorant enough to believe the massive and undemocratic regulatory dictates of Brussels are a good thing. The claim that the UK needs them or else it would some how fall into dictatorship is farcical and ignores 800 years of British history. 800 years where virtually every place on the continent was run by either absolute monarchs or dictators.

 

[gay_Aleks]

The fact that the mysterious spooky scary Brussels dictatives allow you to say that means that either you're hyperbolising, or the Brussels is playing the long game.

 

[Flying Pig]

That is all I have to say to someone naive and ignorant enough to believe the massive and undemocratic regulatory dictates of Brussels are a good thing. The claim that the UK needs them or else it would some how fall into dictatorship is farcical and ignores 800 years of British history. 800 years where virtually every place on the continent was run by either absolute monarchs or dictators.

800 years where that was also true of Britain - until the 20th century, we were almost certainly leading the 'most repressive dictator' board, and still have a fair shot at it if you ask the Irish.

 

[innonimatu]

Classic stuff - The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are a product of the Council of Europe, not the EU.

Belarus is is the only non signatory in Europe.

Which human rights exactly do you have a problem with?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Convention_articles

The british "opt-out" is about the "Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union", incorporated into the Treaty of Lisbon.

You can read the whole treaty in question here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:FULL&from=EN
I will ony point out one thing, which in my opinion is enough to call it a typical product of EU bureaucracy.

Article 52, 1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

Any "fundamental right" listed there by the imperial government of Brussels can be "limited" (euphemist for revoked, and so much for those rights being fundamental...) for the sake of "genuinely" (weasel words make me feel so much better... no) meeting the "general interest" (more weasels) of the "Union".
Who is the arbiter of the general interests of the Union? Why, the bureaucrats of the European Empire, or course. Pardon me, it's the "Union".

And if you keep reading you'll find a particularly revealing clarification on that article: "restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest [...]"

The rundamental rights recognized by the European Union are subordinate to the "general interest" of the markets. Why didn't old King John think of that when he was forced to sign the Margna Carta? You can have habeas corpus, but only if that doesn't disrupt the markets! Those islanders in the UK and their backwards ways...

 

[Arakhor]

... the massive and undemocratic regulatory dictates of Brussels are a good thing.

Why do people keep saying these things? The European parliament is just as democratic as any FPTP system and the European Council is made up from those various democratically-elected heads of state and government in Europe. Unless you happen to live in one specific area of Oxfordshire, you certainly didn't get to vote for David Cameron, yet he's the British prime minster, so in that respect, the European Council is just as democratic as any part of representative government is.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Undemocratic, of course, in this case, meaning "they did something I didn't like".

 

[Lillefix]

Undemocratic, of course, in this case, meaning "they did something I didn't like".

I suspect it's closer to "I assume they do things I don't like."

 

[Leoreth]

Why do people keep saying these things? The European parliament is just as democratic as any FPTP system and the European Council is made up from those various democratically-elected heads of state and government in Europe.

It's not, generally FPTP systems make sure that every representative represents roughly the same number of people. The EP is deliberately designed for that not to be the case.

Also, not all decisions made by the EU require involvement or consent of the EP. Decisions only involving the European Council often more closely resemble multilateral diplomacy, and are also often not transparent to the European public.

Of course, especially the latter is the case mostly because national governments trying to muscle through national interests. Not to mention that we hear little substantial about what EU regulation actually entails and why it would be bad, other than anecdotal stories from Daily Mail articles. Also not to mention that especially if you're in Britain, quite a significant part of that regulation has probably been put into place by British interest groups.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Europe has rejected long wanting to be desired girlfriend Britain for how long now? I mean, there has to be a reason one is bunched together and another is an island?

 

[innonimatu]

Why do people keep saying these things? The European parliament is just as democratic as any FPTP system and the European Council is made up from those various democratically-elected heads of state and government in Europe. Unless you happen to live in one specific area of Oxfordshire, you certainly didn't get to vote for David Cameron, yet he's the British prime minster, so in that respect, the European Council is just as democratic as any part of representative government is.

The EU is structured in such a way that the european parliament, its single organ made up of elected representatives, wields no real power.
The European Council is supposed to represent the (elected) governments, but he have had ample evidence that the governments (which is to say the interests) of a few countries completely dominate it. Add the Eurozone and the ECB to the mixture and the whole thing is so toxic that citizens in every state are voting on people otherwise seen as "radicals" just because they oppose the EU. Political parties are prospering on a message of dissolving the EU. Its rulers (the bureaucrats and the bankers in alliance have been calling the shots since the 90s) had to screw up pretty badly to achieve that.

Democracy, as we know, can "fail" if it becomes an issue of two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. This is what the EU seems like to the majosity of citizens in several "weaker" and smaller EU states presently. But the brand of "EU democracy" fails on many other issues. There's the agency problem: its bucraucracy is not elected, and the commissioners are appointed by goverments and afterwards accountable to no one. The ECB, which wields incommensurate power (enough to overthrow governments througn disruption of their finances) is also accoutable to no one by design. And all that affects not just the "weak" but also the "strong" countries and their citizens, by creating "technical facts" that are used to support "there is no alternative" policies at home even in those states.

But in short, I could say: there is no european democracy because there are no european citizens. Each country has and will continue to have its own rules, there are no shared interests capable of creating a political community where democracy is possible[/]. You can have an European empire, but you cannot have an european democracy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The EU is structured in such a way that the european parliament, its single organ made up of elected representatives, wields no real power.
The European Council is supposed to represent the (elected) governments, but he have had ample evidence that the governments (which is to say the interests) of a few countries completely dominate it. Add the Eurozone and the ECB to the mixture and the whole thing is so toxic that citizens in every state are voting on people otherwise seen as "radicals" just because they oppose the EU. Political parties are prospering on a message of dissolving the EU. Its rulers (the bureaucrats and the bankers in alliance have been calling the shots since the 90s) had to screw up pretty badly to achieve that.

Democracy, as we know, can "fail" if it becomes an issue of two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. This is what the EU seems like to the majosity of citizens in several "weaker" and smaller EU states presently. But the brand of "EU democracy" fails on many other issues. There's the agency problem: its bucraucracy is not elected, and the commissioners are appointed by goverments and afterwards accountable to no one. The ECB, which wields incommensurate power (enough to overthrow governments througn disruption of their finances) is also accoutable to no one by design. And all that affects not just the "weak" but also the "strong" countries and their citizens, by creating "technical facts" that are used to support "there is no alternative" policies at home even in those states.

But in short, I could say: there is no european democracy because there are no european citizens. Each country has and will continue to have its own rules, there are no shared interests capable of creating a political community where democracy is possible[/]. You can have an European empire, but you cannot have an european democracy.

Giving all the strategic decisions in the hands of the governments is precisely what people defending national sovereignty wants. And getting rid of the EU certainly won't make bigger countries like Germany less dominating.

The refugees crisis is precisely an example of the shared European interests. No one in the EU has any interests in the current situation, yet each time we talk about centralizing border control at the EU level, countries are saying they don't want of it. So nothing is managed... and we continue this way because national sovereignty is what matters the most. And as a result, the borders continue to be managed like crap, and refugees remain out of control.

If you want to drop the EU, let's drop the EU. This would solve none of our issues. But maybe that would be the opportunity to have a different look on our shared problems, and the reason why thinking about them collectively can actually be in the national interests of our countries.

 

[Oerdin]

The fact that the mysterious spooky scary Brussels dictatives allow you to say that means that either you're hyperbolising, or the Brussels is playing the long game.

Or maybe that I care about actual democracy.

 

[Silurian]

Or maybe you don’t want the EU to have a successful parliament because you do not like the US federal government.

 

[innonimatu]

Giving all the strategic decisions in the hands of the governments is precisely what people defending national sovereignty wants. And getting rid of the EU certainly won't make bigger countries like Germany less dominating.

But of course it will.

As things stand now a government of a EU country using the Euro cannot even pass its budget without approval from the EC! Budgeting revenues and expenses, choosing what to tax and what to spend on, has historically been a sovereign power, and for good reason: every meaningful act of goverment depends on that! But in the EU economic and social policy now depends on approval from the powers that dictate rules in Brussels and Frankfurt. And we know which powers count.

One size fits all for strategic decisions is bound to ruin a portion of the EU in order to benefit another portion, because policies required for different regions are different. The EU and the Eurozone in particular have been managed disastrously. I don't need to even argue about that: reality speaks for itself. Getting rid of the EU removes the suprestructure that has been forcing uniform policies in what its not, and cannot be, uniform.There will still be international issues of trade balances and balances of payments. But governments will be able to negotiate that bilateralty with whatever countries they choose, instead of being tied to a set of "partners" in the EU. Manage internal financing, shop around for the best deal in international financing, and manage trade dealts according to their economic priorities. And this is just the economic aspect of the EU issue. But everything else ties into it: for a government that cannot choose economy policies cannot choose social policies either. And if a government cannot make policy, can only manage according to directions from an upper level, what is there for the people to vote on? Choosing the prettiest manager?

The refugees crisis is precisely an example of the shared European interests. No one in the EU has any interests in the current situation, yet each time we talk about centralizing border control at the EU level, countries are saying they don't want of it. So nothing is managed... and we continue this way because national sovereignty is what matters the most. And as a result, the borders continue to be managed like crap, and refugees remain out of control.

The borders are managed like crap... says who? How exactly do you propose that the borders be managed? Who wound you improve on the "crap"?
Shall we mine the mediterranen? Shoot the migrants in the boats? Filthy greeks and italians who fail to murder them all on sight! Of perhaps you would be content on picking those migrants up and locking them in some concentration camps until they died or begged to be dumped in some third world countru to be bribed into accepting them?
Lets cut the crap about the borders being mismanaged, shall we? That's talk used by some politicans in countries like France and Germany in order to deflect public anger from themselves. Migrants are coming into Europe because certain countries (hint: France is foremost among the european ones) have been busy destabilizing their countries of origin. And I for one don't see why the greeks should play gaolers (or should it be executioners?) for the countries those migrants are trying to get to. What has been the EU response to the "refugee crisis"? Try to bribe the turks with 3 billion euros for them to close their border (but it's not working, the sultan wants more) and not a dime to the greeks who, having been pushed to ruinous debt by the ECB's mismanagement (that is a case where the word is appropriate) of interest rates during the first years of the euro, are mired in such a depression that no migrants want to stay there.

You reap what you sowed.