UK referrendum on the EU? Highly risky...but highly necessary

I personally applaud the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg on his bold campaign to hold a UK referrendum on our country's membership of the EU. This of course would be a highly decisive referrendum - with potenially critical consequences - but as Mr Clegg has aptly pointed out - debates on the EU have 'poisoned' British politics for too long and it is time for Britain to take a firm stance on whether or not its future lies with the EU. In a land rife with euroscepticism (largely fuelled by the all-powerful media), it could be argued that the pro-European Lib Dems are hoisting themselves by their own batard in to proposing such a major referrendum. The chances of a resounding 'no' are clear for all to see. So is it wishful thinking on the Lib Dems' part that when the nitty gritty of treaties and consolidated power are moved aside and the British people are asked to say 'yes' or 'no' to the EU per se, the 'yes' vote will win? Not necessarily... There are of course many arguments in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, and the vast majority of them can be effectively communicated to people in a clear, non-technical manner. Many of these arguments will be economic however and the great danger the Lib Dems face is a counter-campaign that advocates a withdrawal from the EU while remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA) - in other words - ditch the political aspects, but keep the economic benefits. It's easy to see how such an idea could be sold to the British people (indeed it already is), but it conceals a major flaw which must be flagged up by the Lib Dem campaign: in order to remain within the EEA, we would necessarily be subject to a whole host of EU laws (as are current EEA members like Norway and Iceland) - only we would no longer have our all important (and influential) voice in Brussels. Britain would have walked out with its tail between its legs, scraping at a closed door, confined to its island and marginalised in an ever-more globalised world where groupings matter.

A referrendum on the EU would therefore be a bold and risky move, but in stripping the EU debate to its fundamentals, there is chance that the Lib Dems and other EU supporters can reason with and win over the British public. All hands on deck!

For an EU based on subsidiarity

I was somewhat confused and alarmed by Arthur’s Grove’s letter in the WMN from 6 February (see below), which suggests that the vast majority of our MPs in Westminster should be made redundant. For a UKIP member to come out with such a statement strikes me as odd to say the least. Furthermore, the case he builds up against the EU is fundamentally flawed. Subsidiarity is one of the EU’s core principles. While Brussels has undoubtedly gained in influence and power in recent decades as the process of integration has evolved, the Commission has always supported the belief that matters should ideally be handled at the national or local level – hence why many EU laws are implemented as best seen by each individual country. In the world’s largest – and most successful – single market, a degree of standardization and centralization is of course necessary in order to protect our rights as individuals, consumers and businesses across the EU, but to suggest that our own national MPs are superfluous is a point any true believer in democracy will find ludicrous. As for Mr Grove's reference to “surrendering more of British self-government”, let me ask him this – would a withdrawal from the EU make us more free? Certainly not. Many Eurosceptics will doubtless point to Norway, Switzerland and other EFTA countries, who enjoy open trade with Europe, while remaining outside of the political project. Firstly, these countries have to succumb to a whole range of EU laws – the only difference being that they don’t have any real say on EU policy-making! Secondly, these countries may one day join the EU, and Brussels is eager to keep the door open and listen to them. If Britain were to decide to leave, I think the door would be slammed in our face, and we would be surrendering the most important tool of all – our voice in Europe – an asset which any sane economist will tell you we cannot afford to lose. ************* EU REMOVES NEED FOR SO MANY MPS Date : 06.02.08 With regard to Eric Sheppard's letter of January 22 about redundant MPs, I have noticed recently that increasing numbers of people are questioning the need to keep so many MPs at Westminster while at least 70 per cent of laws and directives controlling our lives come from decisions made in Brussels.On reading the excellent book by Richard North and Christopher Booker entitled The Great Deception - not matters of opinion, but historical facts researched in great depth and detail - I was both appalled and furious to learn of the devious methods and complete indifference to the masses shown by the architects of the European Union project. For example the people must be taken in by gradual stages so that they do not realise what is happening to them, and for some years National Parliaments would be left in being in order to lull the populace into thinking they are being governed by those elected to national Parliaments. The corrupt, wasteful system created is therefore in parallel with the devious methods of its creators. It is logical, therefore, to demand a larger reduction in the number of MPs; only a small number are now required to implement EU decisions, As Eric Sheppard states, "make the remainder redundant as they are now surplus to requirements". It is a situation of their own making, brought about by pursuing EU involvement and surrendering our once self-governing democracy, something which belongs to all of us, and is not for the politicians to give away. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and this is shown to be correct. Our political class have undermined our identity and national pride by signing with the pen that which Hitler and other dictators could not achieve with the sword. I have just read Anthony Steen's comments about inadequate allowances for MPs. I suggest therefore that, as a representative of the Tory Party that has been responsible for surrendering more of British self-government to the EU than any other, from Heath to John Major, if he is not satisfied he should place himself among those who have made themselves redundant through EU involvement. Arthur GroveUKIP Newton Abbot

Why does Russia go for Britain's cultural jugular?

The UK and Russia have not been the best of diplomatic buddies of late - that's for sure. Today's announcement however that the British Council's licence would be revoked in Russia's regions (i.e outside Moscow) as of January 2008 is both puzzling and, upon reflection, chilling...

In an interview with the BBC, Russia's Foreign Minsiter Sergei Lavrov said that following the explusion of four Russian diplomats from London earlier this year - some form of retaliation from Moscow was to be expected. But why not just send some British diplomats back to London then? Why instead have a go at the UK's leading cultural and English language institution - the British Council? What has British cultural and linguistic heritage ever done to the Russians that would warrant such a move? Are we really to believe claims that a violation of tax regulations is behind this move? Mr Lavrov has himself revealed that the diplomatic dispute is the underlying cause.

Could it possibly be that the Kremlin would not be satisfied with merely ruffling feathers in Whitehall and Westminster, but is rather seeking to send a potent and chilling message that Britain, its culture and what it stands for are less and less welcome in today's Russia?

I only hope this turns out to be a manifestation of my overactive imagination...

The Balkan situation will make or break the European project

European Integration as the "guardian of peace" may at first glance appear a dated concept (and one which I and many Western Europeans under the age of sixty will respect rather than fully appreciate). Many of us are fortunate to have known nothing other than peace, and the EU has needed to find other raisons d'etre as the decades have gone by.

That's Western Europe though. Go to the Balkans and it's quite a different story. With the disputes over Kosovo and ever-growing instablity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the region is on the verge of plummeting into chaos.

This region will be the ulitmate test for the EU's common foreign and security policy. If it fails to safeguard stability on its own doorstep, then what hope does it have of ever being taken seriously as a world player? Whatsmore, failure to ensure stability in the Balkans and prevent the atrocities of the previous decade would seriously compromise the founding principle of the European project - that of ensuring and exporting peace and stability.

"Hungary....what's that??"

I'm the last person you'll find indulging in a rant against the Americans. I take those generalist claims that Americans are ignorant about everything that lies beyond their borders with the smallest pinch of salt.

That said, you've got to check out the video at the below link - it's a right shocker!

http://comment.blog.hu/2007/11/27/magyarorszag_az_meg_mi

Turkey's New President

The appointment of the Islamist Abdullah Gul as Turkey’s new President on 28 August marked a significant step in a country which has a proud recent history of adhering to secular principles. The road to the most senior post in the land has not been a smooth one for Mr. Gul – his candidature was confronted with vehement and widespread protest from the country’s military and pro-secular movements in April this year. Yet the forced early elections which ensued saw Mr Gul’s party, the AKP, take an even larger share of the vote, making his re-nomination and subsequent appointment as President near impossible to reject.

While his appointment as President may still prove a somewhat divisive issue in Turkey, what are the implications for the country’s relations with the EU?

The question of Turkey’s EU accession has been (and doubtless will remain) a major subject of debate, yet the fact remains that Turkey has now been an official EU candidate for nearly 3 years, after nearly 50 years of “privileged partnership” and numerous prospects of membership talks which never came to fruition. A major proponent of Turkey’s EU membership in his former role as Foreign Minister, President Gul has reaffirmed Turkey’s commitment to pursuing the accession agenda with Brussels, which will see the country continue to align its legislation, institutions and practices with the acquis communautaire – the EU’s legislative package which must be adopted by all States wishing to join the Union.

While Mr. Gul’s appointment has been welcomed by Commission President José Manuel Barroso as an opportunity for Turkey’s leadership to provide “fresh, immediate and positive impetus to the accession process”, other leaders in Europe will doubtless be using the appointment to reaffirm their objections to allowing the relatively poor Muslim nation of some 70 million to join a bloc which they (and many others) already see as becoming increasingly unmanageable.

Economic ties and foreign direct investment have never been stronger however, while European tourists have been and continue to choose Turkey as an accessible and welcoming holiday destination. These factors, coupled with Turkey’s continued commitment to align its legislation and practices with EU standards, will make it increasingly difficult for those who oppose the country’s accession plans to justify their stance – let alone go back on a promise already made.

Bravo, Commission! Time to put the tabloids in their place

I was delighted to enter the European Commission's homepage today and find the below article which I think is an excellent retort to populist, irresponsible and frankly erroneous tabloid journalism out to have yet another dig at its favourite victim - the EU. Well done!!

***************

Euromyths – time to set the record straight

The truth behind that tabloid standard – ‘the latest crazy idea from Brussels'.
The popular press often runs scare stories about plans by "mad eurocrats" – for example to standardise the sizes of condoms or women's clothes, or ban bendy bananas.
Remember this from the Daily Express? "The latest EU ruling will see British women expand beyond recognition." And the story behind it? A mooted standardisation of clothes sizes, based on centimetres not inches. However, there is no such EU ruling – European standards are developed by voluntary agreement between national bodies, with no input from Brussels.
This is just one example of a so-called Euromyth – untrue or distorted information on the EU spread by the media. While some stories are based on facts which are misinterpreted or exaggerated, others are simply made up – like the story published in "The Sun" on alleged EU plans to change the name of the Indian snack "Bombay mix" to "Mumbai mix", for the sake of political correctness. It was dreamt up by the editor of a news agency who said it was "meant to be funny for the tabloids".
Euromyths originate most frequently in the British tabloid press. Other tall tales include the harmonisation of condom sizes – as with clothes sizes, the EU has nothing to do with setting these standards – and a ban on "excessively curved" bananas. This story at least contains a grain of truth: bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature" if they are to be sold under the "extra class" category - but the EU has never attempted to ban them. And it is important to remember that it is industry and consumers who want standards for goods, not a bunch of "mad Eurocrats" sitting in Brussels!
British journalists are not the only ones with a fertile imagination. When the Danish weekly Søndagsavisen reported on subsidised Viagra pills for eurocrats, another Euromyth was born. What the paper forgot to mention: expenses for Viagra are only covered by EU staff's health insurance for impotence caused by serious illnesses like cancer. And of the EU's thousands of staff members, medical reimbursements for the drug are currently granted to around ten.
Although these stories are a funny read, they hold a dangerous potential – spreading rapidly on the internet and in other media, they live on as accepted truths in public opinion and shape the public's idea of the EU as a meddlesome controller.