| Topic: | For Guy: "...we did vote to go in..." | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 13/03/08 20:17:00 |
| Guy wrote: "It's perfectly respectable to take the view that UK should be out of the EU. However, we did vote to go in (all right I know, stay in) by a convincing majority and recent polls suggest a convincing majority would vote the same way if asked again." - The UK voted to stay in the EEC, not the EU (which didn't exist until 18 years later). The EEC was a union of trade - a Common Market - whereas the EU became an economic and political union too. To suggest the '75 referendum was an endorsement of the EU then is disengenuous, to say the least. The 1975 referendum on EEC membership wasn't exactly a level playing field either. The 'antis' had a treasure chest of £8,000, the 'pros' £1,000,000-5,000,000 - with even the lower estimate suggesting a cash imbalance of 120:1. By an astonishing coincidence, 1975 was also the only year the UK ever got more money back from the EEC/EU than it paid in (the deficit's currently running at about £10 billion a year, with the January 2008 debate on the next £100 billion being guillotined by the government). In 1975, the 'pros' pitched their argument as one of trade - a Common Market - and denied there would be any "essential loss of sovereignty". Of course, they lied. The EU came into being in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty (strictly speaking, a treaty "On European Union" - a blueprint for the next stage in ever closer union, of which Lisbon is the latest addition). As a result, Germany finds itself in a position where 84% of its laws are now decided by Brussels, not Berlin (according to an official answer in the German parliament). This is a considerable loss of sovereignty(!) and belies the denials on this in the 1970s. It also hints at why claims that Lisbon is less far reaching than Maastricht are largely disingenuous - national governments have already lost most of their sovereignty over making laws! And what of the UK? Although Westminster won’t give an answer, the UK’s probably not far short of the German 84% figure. Research from Nottingham University in 2007 recognised that Cameron’s Opposition challenged only 21% of government bills – the lowest figure ever. One can assume the majority of these unopposed bills are also EU legislation cascaded down to Westminster. In effect, the official Opposition can’t oppose something that’s an EU 'competency' - and neither can the government. And this hints at the real issue at hand – the fact that, to all intents and purposes, our central government now sits in Brussels, not Berlin, Paris, London or Rome. The general ignorance surrounding this is astonishing. The level to which national governments collude in the appearance of being in charge even more so, considering the extent to which they take the credit (or the blame) for decisions they're obliged to make under EU law: - Gordon Brown, for example, was praised for granting Bank of England independence. If people had read the Maastricht Treaty, however, they’d have known Brown was obliged to do this, as independent central banks were necessary preconditions for the creation of the European Central Bank and Euro (the gold sell-off at rcok bottom prices was also part of the same story arc). - On rail privatisation, EU Directive 91/440 obliged the Tories to separate the management of rail infrastructure from the operation of trains. Although unpopular, this is why Labour haven’t reversed the decision – it would be illegal under EU law. - The EU directive on Privatisation of Postal Services obliges the Royal Mail to deliver mail in the UK regardless of whether it is profitable. Not only has this destroyed the tradition of delivering all mail across the UK at equal cost but, since the Treaty of Amsterdam, it has been illegal for the British government to subsidise a failing company such as the Royal Mail. The company's destined to fail. - Devolution and national assemblies set up in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London were merely in accordance with the EU’s grand design for a ‘Europe of the regions’, itself based on regulation 2052/88. This divides the EU into 111 ‘Euroregions’, 12 of which are planned for the UK. These regions are envisaged to eventually get their funding directly from the EU (bypassing national governments in the process). National governments are obliged to take these measures under EU law. - Calls across the EU to deport foreign criminals (most recently in Italy) are illegal under EU law, Directive 2004/38/EC. On immigration (a huge issue in the Netherlands, UK and Denmark), EU countries are obliged to grant entry to recent immigrants from third countries who have gained residential status in other EU states. Once given EU residency, an individual’s relatives also get residency (Article 17, paragraph 3 allows children, parents and in-laws to stay too). Regulation 343/2004 grants the EU control over the admission of asylum seekers. These are all big issues where individual Member States have no control, regardless of Gordon Brown’s pledge of ‘British jobs for British workers’ or Romani Prodi's pledge to deport Romanian murderers. - Pay-as-you-throw policies are designed to comply with the EU’s Landfill Directive. The UK looks unlikely to hit its targets on this so, from 2010, faces fines of £180 million a year. - In yesterday’s budget, the British government pledged to cut VAT on green goods such as low energy light bulbs. VAT though is an EU competency, meaning Britain will need unanimous approval from the EU and all other 26 Member States. Tory plans to tax certain types of booze would also need to be referred to the central government in Brussels due to Directive 92/83/EEC. ------- Look at Germany - Schröder and Merkel were fighting an election for the right to frame the remaining 16% of Germany's laws. Brown and Cameron will presumably be fighting for the right to 20-odd% of the UK's laws. If those voting 'yes' in 1975 had known the majority of Parliament's law making functions would be taken by Brussels, how do you think the vote would've gone? With the authority of national governments now so marginalised, the room for manoeuvre so small, is it wonder political parties are so similar, so obsessed with arguing the trivial, so resembling two cheeks of the same arse? |