Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

The EU is not on the side of protecting the little guys, you can be sure of that. You don't even need the example of Greece, look at France. Look at Italy. At Portugal. And Spain. "Labour reform" means the cessation of any rights and power on the side of workers. The "solution" to economic problems is always lower wages, which can only be achieved through "more flexibility": neutering any legal protections that grant bargaining power to workers.

Clearly the EU has ruined your life and the life of everyone you've talked to, but EU regulations have been a net positive in the UK, especially if you're a basic worker in the labour pool. If the EU's secret goal is actually to blight the lives of everything it touches, then it's going about it very peculiarly in my experience.

 

[really]

Look at what is going on in France right now.

The EU is not on the side of protecting the little guys, you can be sure of that. You don't even need the example of Greece, look at France. Look at Italy. At Portugal. And Spain. "Labour reform" means the cessation of any rights and power on the side of workers. The "solution" to economic problems is always lower wages, which can only be achieved through "more flexibility": neutering any legal protections that grant bargaining power to workers..

8% of the French workforce is unionised.
A minority of those don't agree to the reforms that local agreements between workers and employers should trump national agreements.

You talk of democracy but here are an elite representing 3-4% of the workforce holding the rest to ransom.

The only paper published yesterday was the communist one - the unions told all the papers to publish a letter they had prepared or else.

 

[Tahuti]

The EU, under cover of "necessary austerity", forces this on the smaller countries, where the population is too demoralized to muster the will to fight it (they fear the threat of economic blockade easily deployed by the ECB, made plain in Greece last year). Then once "competitive devaluation" of labour is achieved in these countries the Brussels bureaucrats point out that under the single market other countries now have "excessively rigid labour laws" which allegedly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Thus the french, who need not fear the ECB (France is powerful enough to order it around if its government wants to, there can be no EU without France) are told that they must fear instead "the competition", the pressure created in the smaller EU countries by "labour reforms" forced there under the cover of the EU.

It's true that Greece at competitive disadvantage. The problem isn't in this case Greece, the EU or Germany - although all of these are a problem in many other areas - but the "competition." Greece has been made the slaves of the financial industry. The EU unwittingly bails Greece out from the hands of the financial industry. Ending the EU won't be the solution, nor does the EU hold the key to its solution either. It has to be seen as something separate from the EU entirely. The EU's handling of the crises of course has consequences for its future (or lack of it) yet the EU's involvement only goes that far.

The EU is neither accountable nor reformable by democratic means. Representative democracy at the EU level cannot work for a number of reasons, foremost of which is that there are no EU citizens, nor parties, nor national feeling or indeed national community. Just as Brazil cannot avoid a dysfunctional political system with 25 parties in its parliament, working only through bribery and personal favors, so is the EU doomed to be as long as it exists. And without democratic accountability governments and bureaucrats will abuse their power. If a government can pass actions off "because EU", you can either reply to them "screw the EU" and take a position of leaving rather than submitting... or allow that government to do anything it can excuse with the "because EU" argument - and then you'll notice you have given up on democracy. There is no democracy without sovereignty.

This is kept that way, so that Eurocrats will avoid the same scrutiny national-level politicians face. In practice, there have already been many EU style projects which have "succeeded", such Indonesia, India, Switzerland, Germany and the USA, the latter of which at one point had large German, Chinese, Russian and Italian-speaking communities and somehow all got assimilated into "Americans".

National identity is something psychological; Not all attempts of nation-building succeed (i.e. Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia), yet so many have (USA, France, Switzerland). I don't see how EU could not achieve this. Having said that, I do not view this as a plus. The French state has destroyed or permanently disabled many linguistic communities since the reign of Louis XIV as it centralised. Yet, it all started out as a feudal state, not at all disimilar to the EU in terms of centralisation.

 

[Akka]

Yeah, not so ironic given almost 90% people here were pro-EU before some crazy freaks in the eu ruined us, amirite

I love how Greeks ruining themselves suddendly becomes "because of the EU" due to the EU "only" providing limited help and not a blind blank check.
That's the bizarro world for you.

 

[Kyriakos]

I love how Greeks ruining themselves suddendly becomes "because of the EU" due to the EU "only" providing limited help and not a blind blank check.
That's the bizarro world for you.

You certainly aren't the one to accuse others of bizarro sentiments. Let alone your country, of the uber-racism. For your age you are a tad too confrontational.

 

[Oruc]

8% of the French workforce is unionised.
A minority of those don't agree to the reforms that local agreements between workers and employers should trump national agreements.

You talk of democracy but here are an elite representing 3-4% of the workforce holding the rest to ransom.

If that's why they are striking that's a good thing, local agreements shouldn't trump national ones. You end up with local union reps in the pocket of the bosses, reps feathering their own nest at other workers expense.

 

[really]

If that's why they are striking that's a good thing, local agreements shouldn't trump national ones. You end up with local union reps in the pocket of the bosses, reps feathering their own nest at other workers expense.

Well there are a variety of reforms. making redundancies easier, working hours. that sort of stuff.

France is a big country. Not all national agreements are relevant. Not all national agreements are good.

 

[Akka]

You certainly aren't the one to accuse others of bizarro sentiments. Let alone your country, of the uber-racism. For your age you are a tad too confrontational.

Considering you're older than me and you're still constantly crying about the evil EU constantly despite the facts flying in your face, I'd say you should be the last person trying to make such attempt at sniping.

 

[Oruc]

Well there are a variety of reforms. making redundancies easier, working hours. that sort of stuff.

France is a big country. Not all national agreements are relevant. Not all national agreements are good.

Local agreements are always worse then the national agreement, that is the entire purpose of local agreement.

 

[innonimatu]

8% of the French workforce is unionised.
A minority of those don't agree to the reforms that local agreements between workers and employers should trump national agreements.

What national agreement? A lame duck president with a 2% popularity decided to bypass parliament because he knew he would not have the votes there and make changes to the law by decree.

Is this what you call "national agreement"? You have your "elites" switched around.

Oh, and the EU is fine by this. In fact he argues it is necessary in order to meet EU goals, and the eurocrats applaud him.

 

[Arakhor]

"Eurocrats". Another nebulous term which only means what its user wants it to mean.

 

[innonimatu]

Clearly the EU has ruined your life and the life of everyone you've talked to, but EU regulations have been a net positive in the UK, especially if you're a basic worker in the labour pool. If the EU's secret goal is actually to blight the lives of everything it touches, then it's going about it very peculiarly in my experience.

The EU has changed its rules a number of times in the past. The trend is clear: the greater the "union", the lesser democratic accountability remains. Governments in the eurozone are more worried about pleasing the eurocrats that about their citizens: even the state budgets must be "approved" by Brussels.

You may not have noticed it yet because the UK remained out of the euro and therefore able to leave the EU at any time it pleases. Things are far more complicated for those countries with governments foolish enough to abdicate their financial sovereignty. Without an independent payments system (and it takes many months to set up a new one, at great expense) governments and nations are hostage to the whims of the ECB. The greeks didn't capitulate because they wanted to, they capitulated because their foreign trade ground to a halt even to those companies or individuals who had the funds to make payments when the payments system was effectively frozen. Not they keep pretending that a (already demonstrated) destructive plan will work, because it is politically inconvenient to their european partners to allow a real solution: Merkel would lose the next election. So the greeks must suffer through the fantasy that austerity will produce surpluses to pay their foreign debt.

It is crazy for any nation to put itself into such a position.

As for workers' rights, ever since Gerhard Schroeder decided that they way to "competitiveness" was to gradually reduce workers rights, The EU has been enforcing it across the continent based on the idea of a run towards the bottom. The UK may have done it on its own decades ago, but I don't think it is now much different from the continent. Your country will be caught in this spiral of "improving competition by screwing workers" if it remains in the single market.


There is another reason I'm so angry at the EU, and that has to do with tremendous misallocation of resources because of EU subsidies. But that's an whole other story, it would deserve a thread of its own, especially because it is relevant to many countries that joined relatively recently - they're repeating the mistakes of others. It's not relevant for the UK, except on a side note: in the UK's case the EU subsidies to research, agriculture, etc, could easily come out of the state budget with plenty money to spare. I don't know how it is there, but here even today I overheard a conversation about how a university created useless departments (this came from the people who managed it) just so it met some EU criteria to receive funding. This is stupidity (people who could be doing useful real things instead are used to meet bureaucratic goals) bred by subsidies controlled from afar.

"Eurocrats". Another nebulous term which only means what its user wants it to mean.

European career bureaucrats. Those guys with diplomatic immunity and tax-free wages who spend their days discussing about how the average worker in the EU has too many "privileges" and figuring out how to cut them. I happen to know one.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Maybe this would be a better reason

Thank you.

That is an interesting article. However I think that the French desire for the Euro to constrain Germany was only part of the story.
I suspect that there was also a view that there should be a common currency because that is a characteristic of other large federations
such as the USA, India and arguably also China. And there are also some practical advantages for businesses trading and people moving about within Europe.

While there are technical problems inherent in having a common currency used by many non convergent economies,
I rather think that the problem is partly cultural with the bankers deciding that they are the masters and not the servants.

 

[Arakhor]

The UK may have done it on its own decades ago, but I don't think it is now much different from the continent. Your country will be caught in this spiral of "improving competition by screwing workers" if it remains in the single market.

So, even if you're right (and that's a very big if), are you even aware of the reputation of the Tories as the Nasty Party? Why should I vote to leave the EU based on a prediction that they will soon start savaging workers' rights from on high, when the alternative is that the Tories will be able to do that so much more quickly? (This goes double for Cameron being a fan of TTIP.)

 

[REDY]

After all whats happening with workers in other parts of EU you are still afraid of some neothatcher bogeyman? Really?

 

[innonimatu]

So, even if you're right (and that's a very big if), are you even aware of the reputation of the Tories as the Nasty Party? Why should I vote to leave the EU based on a prediction that they will soon start savaging workers' rights from on high, when the alternative is that the Tories will be able to do that so much more quickly? (This goes double for Cameron being a fan of TTIP.)

The Tories you (you as in the population of the UK) can control. The Tories do not threaten democracy in that they do not undermine the basic principle that a new government in a sovereign UK will be free to set new policies. They will govern so long as they win elections, and have toi cede power and see their policies changed afterwards. It is your country and you can work to shape it according to your preferences in the future.

The EU has sought (so far successfully) to put an end to that in several countries already. The only way to change policies in Greece, Italy, Spain, etc is to leave the EU. And because of the "ever-deepening union" (with talk of a common army to come next) the political institutions of these countries are so married to the EU now that they will resist any option to leave. Only the "anti-estabelisment" parties, usually marginal, are willing to leave. So you get a choice between left or right" that are the same when it comes to policies enacted while governing. When confronted with broken promises they cynically answer that they must act so in order to comply with EU rules and requirements. And its voters should accept it because the alternative is the risk (and people are very risk-averse) of big economic dislocation caused by any confrontation with the EU.

A few years ago you had blairite labour (which, not accidentally, was pro-EU and pro-euro) and the tories - there were too close on policies. But now after a "rebellion" by labour voters you have a (if you believe the media) supposedly "radical" labour that is at last offering an alternative to the tories, and will in time replace them (politics in the UK were always cyclical). If the UK was in the eurozone, labour would have no change of carrying on any relevant changes, no matter what it promises on campaign - unless it took the UK out of the Euro.

You remained out of that trap, that is why you miss its impact. But the EU is quite inventive in arranging new traps. Trade treaties are such a convenient way of gutting state regulations and social services... just wait and see. Cameron may sight the TTIP, but a future UK sovereign government can end it. Not so if the UK is inside the EU - trade treaties will be outside the ability of a UK government to renegotiate or repel. For each constriction it places on the nations of Europe the EU only needs to win once. Then to repell them it's all-or-nothing - end the EU or live with what was done. NEVER has the EU backtracked on anything it got approved.

Give up sovereignty and your vote for your national government will be worth little more than your vote for town mayor. You'll be electing managers, not policy makers. It may look good now that the prime-minister is someone you dislike, but trust me it will be awful when you see a majority voting for a different government, for policy changes, and cannot get them done.

 

[Agent327]

The Tories you (you as in the population of the UK) can control. The Tories do not threaten democracy in that they do not undermine the basic principle that a new government in a sovereign UK will be free to set new policies.

Which has nothing to do with democracy.

The EU has sought (so far successfully) to put an end to that in several countries already.

No, they haven't.

The only way to change policies in Greece, Italy, Spain, etc is to leave the EU.

Not at all.

And because of the "ever-deepening union" (with talk of a common army to come next)

Has been shelved indefinitely. In fact, NATO has now promised to assist the EU in border patrol. and you seem to have missed the somewhat obvious fact there is little enthusiasm for an 'ever closer union'.

A few years ago you had blairite labour (which, not accidentally, was pro-EU and pro-euro) and the tories - there were too close on policies. But now after a "rebellion" by labour voters you have a (if you believe the media) supposedly "radical" labour that is at last offering an alternative to the tories, and will in time replace them (politics in the UK were always cyclical). If the UK was in the eurozone, labour would have no change of carrying on any relevant changes, no matter what it promises on campaign - unless it took the UK out of the Euro.

False premise. France has tried an alternative (non-neoliberal) policy. It failed. Not because of the euro, nor of the EU, but simply because it didn't solve anything in France. The real problem is that socialist parties have no viable economic alternative, nor do they seem to be thinking about one anymore. (Not to mention that Blair's Labour has taken no steps to adopt the euro.)

Trade treaties are such a convenient way of gutting state regulations and social services...

No, they're not. They have in fact, no relation with one another whatsoever.

just wait and see. Cameron may sight the TTIP, but a future UK sovereign government can end it. Not so if the UK is inside the EU - trade treaties will be outside the ability of a UK government to renegotiate or repel.

Not at all. But this is a What if? argument that basically can't be proved or disproved. If the UK didn't want TTIP they should have not taken part in it. So it's a weird argument to begin with. anyway, since TTIP is - like all trade agreements - temporary, it can be suspended or not prolonged. I have no clue what you are trying to argue here.

Give up sovereignty and your vote for your national government will be worth little more than your vote for town mayor.

A good thing then that no EU nation has given up national government then - let alone sovereignty. Have you even remotely followed this year's refugee crisis?

The EU has changed its rules a number of times in the past. The trend is clear: the greater the "union", the lesser democratic accountability remains. Governments in the eurozone are more worried about pleasing the eurocrats that about their citizens: even the state budgets must be "approved" by Brussels.

Let's be mild and call this two unfounded claims in a row. Opinion does not equal fact.

You may not have noticed it yet because the UK remained out of the euro and therefore able to leave the EU at any time it pleases.

Any EU country can leave the union if it so pleases. I have no clue why you would think that the euro would somehow prevent that.

Things are far more complicated for those countries with governments foolish enough to abdicate their financial sovereignty. Without an independent payments system (and it takes many months to set up a new one, at great expense) governments and nations are hostage to the whims of the ECB.

I don't think you quite know what the ECB does or what its powers actually are. But 'financial sovereignty' has nothing to do with it.

As for workers' rights, ever since Gerhard Schroeder decided that they way to "competitiveness" was to gradually reduce workers rights, The EU has been enforcing it across the continent

No, it hasn't. Nor can it.

European career bureaucrats. Those guys with diplomatic immunity and tax-free wages who spend their days discussing about how the average worker in the EU has too many "privileges" and figuring out how to cut them. I happen to know one.

Bureaucrats (officials) don't have diplomatic immunity. Nor do they have 'tax-free wages'(?). Seriously, how do you make such stuff up?

 

[Kyriakos]

Considering you're older than me and you're still constantly crying about the evil EU constantly despite the facts flying in your face, I'd say you should be the last person trying to make such attempt at sniping.

Hm, ok, this is a bit sad, but given you are >35, and i am 37, it is way too funny to read the above sentence even if you are 36 It gets to Borges quote about the Malvinas conflict level of bizarre.
And don't worry, it is quite sane to be dismissive of something ruining one's life. Maybe try to see a context without a snarky attitude to go with it.

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[EnglishEdward]

Has been shelved indefinitely.

It is just a temporary hold to help David Cameron obtain a Remain vote.

The story in the UK press is that they restart planning on common
defence with a meeting the day after the UK referendum.

 

[AdrienIer]

What national agreement? A lame duck president with a 2% popularity

a 2% popularity

You know, sometimes I wonder if I'm wrong, and if your arguments are more than incoherent ramblings, but then you come up with something that's just plain false like that and I just fall back on thinking that you make no sense.

FYI his current popularity is around 17%. 8 to 9 times what you said. It's dreadfully low but you're clearly altering facts to fit your own ideas. Reminds me of Fox News.