Leak! What the official government is saying. [Archive]

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 07:15 PM

I have just come across this document that John Redwood MP has put up on his blog today, and it's a letter between civil servants discussing our membership of the European Union. I think you'll find it very interesting, if not rather sinister.

I've highlighted the parts which I find rather revealing and of interest.

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/12/17/leak-what-the-true-government-is-really-saying/

Leak! What the official government is saying.

John Redwood MP]By johnredwood | Published: December 17, 2012

I have come across this letter from Dr Roy Spendlove to his opposite number in the Foreign Office, Marc Notte

Dear Marc,

In my capacity as Head of Special Projects I find developing and preserving good relations with our partners in the EU is fundamental to the work we do. As you will appreciate, we so often need EU permission to go ahead with projects. We may need consent to suspend state aid rules, we may need a waiver on EU competition rules, we may need understanding over changes to specially designated EU planning zones, we may need access to EU money and we may need to co-operate with other countries and EU companies to bring our task to fruition. The EU does now lay down much of our environmental, industrial , trade and energy policies, as well as of course maintaining its lead role in fishing and farming. We should keep stressing how crucial EU trade is to our wellbeing.

I am finding in recent months that it is more difficult now to gain consent and to preserve the necessary friendly relations with continental colleagues, owing to the new aggressive Eurosceptic tone coming from some parts of the government. We look to the Foriegn Office to do more to stress to Ministers the need to preserve and foster good relations. We do not wish to lose our reputation as a better European, which was much cultivated by the previous government. Their approach of going along with most of the EU plans for new laws and further integration helped a great deal. Their realism over open borders, over the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and their welcome for EU legislation in areas a diverse as the environment and the finance sector got over some of the damage done to our relationships by the rows over the Euro after Maastricht.

Today my opposite numbers in France and Germany express concern that the UK has for the first time refused to join in a new Treaty at all, preventing the rest of the EU from using the EU framework for the Fiscal Treaty they are planning. Whilst they can get round this problem, it is a legal nuisance for them that they have not faced before. They are unhappy about the way the UK government places the concerns of the City of London above the need for better centralised banking controls through the ECB and the European Banking Agency. They are particularly unhappy about the UK’s refusal to assist with the new bail out funds needed by the poorer EU countries. The Germans have some more sympathy with the UK’s refusal to counteance any increase in the EU budget, but this is causing considerable antagonism amongst the majority of member states. There are worries now that the UK is moving away from proper observance of the EU climate and energy policies with its new emphasis on carbon based gas. There is relief that the UK is still accepting the common borders, a crucial part of the whole move towards greater union.

I am writing to make sure you are aware of this rising tide of discontent with the UK in the EU. We look to the FCO to steady the position. Could you perhaps get Foreign Office Ministers to make speeches reaffirming the importance of our EU membership, and mitigating the attacks upon the EU position that some see in recent decisions and positions adopted by the Coalition government? I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary always used to confirm that membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interest. Today the Prime Minister has changed this position to the much more alarming statement that the UK needs a new relationship with the EU. It is most important to make sure the FCO does not seek a major renegotiation before the next General Election. This would be especially destabilising, threatening to destroy the good work we have all put in over the last decade to build new bridges to Europe and to become good Europeans. Whilst we of course remain strictly neutral on political matters, we do need to plan for the possible return of a Labour government as UKIP claims to be able to stop the Conservatives getting a majority. It is important that such a replacement government reverses the policy of seeking a new relationship and abandons ideas of opting out and loosening ties. Current Labour policy is more committed to our European membership.

Yours ever

Roy

Now when we've said that the EU now makes most of our laws and how membership of the European Union means irreversible and continuous transfer of powers to an EU level, do people understand? it's staring us here right in the face. And worse still, here is the civil service actually issuing orders for ministers to go out and makes claims about the EU and what tactics to use in order to achieve this (see the highlighted part mentioning trade claims) - ie, to scare the British people away from the exit door. It's also telling how the mention of UKIP and it's rise confirms one thing - they're now afraid that their project is in danger of being rejected by the public, something they've sought to avoid for decades.

I find this document remarkable, and wonder what you make of it? thoughts?

Lee

17-12-2012, 08:01 PM

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 08:25 PM

Is this going to be all over the news that he has leaked this and hes gunna lose his job or am I misunderstanding leaked? :P

Our media will barely ever report on important revealing things like this, as with anything if you want to get to the bottom of it then you have to look below the surface - that's the beauty and usefulness of the internet. The media simply cover the surface or something thats totally untrue, and it applies to the BBC, ITN, Sky, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Express, the Telegraph and so on and so on. As for Redwood, I don't know how he's got it - but he's probably been passed it so he's safe.

Believe me, if some of the documents and quotes on this subject of European integration over the past 30 years were broadcast on tea time news then we'd be out the following morning. :P When I first came across some of them in reading and the stuff thats gone on, I was literally shaking my head in disbelief.

mrwoooooooo

17-12-2012, 09:28 PM

3mentions of it on twitter, must be really important news

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 09:41 PM

3mentions of it on twitter, must be really important news

Oh grow up, since when was something being splashed all over the news making it important? the likes of One Direction, Justin Bieber trend on Twitter and on the news we have stories running for a whole week about some cabinet minister calling an officer a 'pleb' or the Ozzie PM falling over - meanwhile we have documents such as this being released and ignored, we have the debt climbing millions every day, we have US drone bombings over Pakistan/Yemen/Somalia and Afghanistan...... and all you can do to justify it 'not being important' is that it's hardly mentioned on Twitter.

And we wonder why we're in such a mess (or at least some of us do, thankfully). Astounding ignorance, does something need a BBC logo on it or a certain number of Twitter mentions for you to take any interest or notice regardless of the importance of a story?

mrwoooooooo

17-12-2012, 09:48 PM

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 09:53 PM

obviously not that important if no-one cares about it apart from you

And how have you established this? have you conducted a survey? no, all you've done is taken a look on Twitter (the home of Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaja and One Direction) and stated that nobody cares. Will a small blog have massive coverage? no, it won't will it.

But you obviously don't care where the majority of our laws come from, so turn your mind back to Twitter and go worry about District 3 or something. When I posted this thread I expected intelligent replies from intelligent people as it's aimed at them, not anybody else.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 09:55 PM

And how have you established this? have you conducted a survey? no, all you've done is taken a look on Twitter (the home of Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaja and One Direction) and stated that nobody cares. Will a small blog have massive coverage? no, it won't will it.

But you obviously don't care where the majority of our laws come from, so turn your mind back to Twitter and worry about District 3 or something.

Twitter is not just about Justin Bieber, One Direction and Nicki. For this to get more attention if it's important and considered a "leak" then social media is what sends it out to 1,000's of people and let's more people informed about it.

Social media is what makes people interested in such news and if it isn't on one of those networks or even on one of the big news sites then sure no one is going to have a clue what this is or even come across it.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 09:57 PM

Twitter is not just about Justin Bieber, One Direction and Nicki. For this to get more attention if it's important and considered a "leak" then social media is what sends it out to 1,000's of people and let's more people informed about it.

Twitter is massively geared towards the entertainment industry, it's certainly not geared towards discussion of European integration, the Foreign Office, the blog of John Redwood MP or the civil service now, is it? I thought we had people on this forum who did A Levels or degrees, the kind of people who should surely know that historical facts and data usually don't come from BBC News, Twitter or any other chat room.

Lord give me strength.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 09:59 PM

Twitter is massively geared towards the entertainment industry, it's certainly geared towards discussion of European integration, the Foreign Office, the blog of John Redwood MP or the civil service now, is it? I thought we had people on this forum who did A Levels or degrees, who should surely know that historical facts and data usually don't come from BBC News, Twitter or any other chat room.

Lord give me strength.

Lord give you strength indeed with your AMAZING posts that everyone really cares about on this forum :rolleyes:. You make twitter what you want to make it, it's not just about the bloody entertainment industry. Loads of news has been shared via social media before it has even hit sites such as the BBC. If it's that important than it's probably a good idea for you to share it via social media and get others to share it to make people aware of it. That's all I am saying.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:03 PM

Lord give you strength indeed with your AMAZING posts that everyone really cares about on this forum :rolleyes:. You make twitter what you want to make it, it's not just about the bloody entertainment industry. Loads of news has been shared via social media before it has even hit sites such as the BBC. If it's that important than it's probably a good idea for you to share it via social media and get others to share it to make people aware of it. That's all I am saying.

If it's not on social media or being talked about on any major news site then the interest of it is probably low.

Who said everybody really cares about? a few people like to comment on these stories and as you should know as General Manager, a forum caters to different people. To be frank, if you don't care about it or anything else I post then piss off and don't post in my threads.

I couldn't give a figs leaf about your aeroplane or computer discussions Matthew, thats why I don't post in them.

Loads of news has been shared via social media before it has even hit sites such as the BBC.

And does this justify if a story is important or not? no. I've never seen 'drone strikes' trend on Twitter, yet thats damn important.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:05 PM

Who said everybody really cares about? a few people like to comment on these stories and as you should know as General Manager, a forum caters to different people. To be frank, if you don't care about it or anything else I post then piss off and don't post in my threads.

And does this justify if a story is important or not? no. I've never seen 'drone strikes' trend on Twitter, yet thats damn important.

You always being me being "General Manager" in posts back to me when I post in your threads, that's funny. In terms of drone strikes not trending on twitter - Start trending it then? I only replied because you kept going on about Twitter being full of Justin Bieber. When twitter is more than that - Not that I give a damn about your original post. Hence why I don't post in any of your other threads.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:09 PM

You always being me being "General Manager" in any posts to your threads, that's funny. In terms of drone strikes not trending on twitter - Start trending it then?

No thanks. I started a discussion on this forum - something i'm perfectly entitled to do, which, if you don't like and don't care about about then you can go away and stop posting in my thread. It really is as simple as that, toodles.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:10 PM

No thanks. I started a discussion on this forum, which, if you don't like and don't care about about then you can go away and stop posting in my thread.

I would rather keep replying to annoy you. Like I said, I replied because of your comments about twitter and not your original post. Thanks for reading.

mrwoooooooo

17-12-2012, 10:11 PM

https://twitter.com/search?q=drone%20strike&src=typd

plenty on twitter about drone strikes

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:11 PM

I would rather keep replying to annoy you. Like I said, I replied because of your comments about twitter and not your original post. Thanks for reading.

You sure that's allowed? I know your keen to cut down on pointless posts, maybe you ought to start applying your own rules to yourself.

https://twitter.com/search?q=drone%20strike&src=typd

plenty on twitter about drone strikes

Yeah but i've just decided off the top of my head (rather like you have) that something is now only important if it's trending on Twitter. Anything that isnt just isnt important. Sounds pathetic and stupd, but i'm only taking lead from you dear.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:12 PM

You sure that's allowed? I know your keen to cut down on pointless posts, maybe you ought to start applying your own rules to yourself.

Last time I checked it was the users who complained about pointless posts and not management.

https://twitter.com/search?q=drone%20strike&src=typd

plenty on twitter about drone strikes

Oh snap.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:15 PM

Last time I checked it was the users who complained about pointless posts and not management.

Oh no, some users did but the majority didn't, but you still ignored the poll and went with what you lot wanted though.

Do we really have to get into this? bored, or just having a bad night Matthew?

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:16 PM

Oh no, some users did but the majority didn't, but you still ignored the poll and went with what you lot wanted though.

Do we really have to get into this? bored, or just having a bad night Matthew?

You should really re-read that thread, the poll was flawed. Bad night? Nope, fantastic night.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:18 PM

You should really re-read that thread, the poll was flawed. Bad night? Nope, fantastic night.

Then why didn't you hold a new one? thought so.

But yeah, really shows that the importance of a leaked government memo is now to be judged on whether or not it's trending on Twitter or how many people are talking about it on Twitter. Really intelligent responses.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:19 PM

Then why didn't you hold a new one? thought so.

But yeah, really shows that the importance of a leaked government memo is now to be judged on whether or not it's trending on Twitter or how many people are talking about it on Twitter. Really intelligent responses.

If it's being talked about on social media then it means people are aware of it and would be considered important. At the moment no one is talking about it on social media (at this moment in time) so the interest is quite low and you could say no one gives a ****. If it starts coming up onto twitter and facebook over the next few days then you can say people do actually care about what has been said in the leaked memo.

Drone strikes are talked about a lot on twitter = So there is people in this world who would consider them as important.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:22 PM

If it's being talked about on social media then it means people are aware of it and would be considered important. At the moment no one is talking about it on social media (at this moment in time) so the interest is quite low and you could say no one gives a ****. If it stops coming up onto twitter and facebook over the next few days then you can say people do actually care about what has been said in the leaked memo.

Drone strikes are talked about a lot on twitter = So there is people in this world who would consider them as important.

It's being talked about on John Redwood's blog by guest posts along with the Telegraph dear (which is where I found it from), but if you only have a limited news feed that's confined to the likes of Twitter and Facebook then I can see where you are coming from.

Maybe you both ought to branch out a bit you know? the internet is a big place.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:23 PM

It's being talked about on John Redwood's blog by guest posts along with the Telegraph dear (which is where I found it from), but if you only have a limited news feed that's confined to the likes of Twitter and Facebook then I can see where you are coming from.

All I was saying is that social media is a big part of peoples lives and that is where people often find such stories or stories that you wouldn't find on one of the big news sites if it was being shared quite a lot and trending. It's how these things work these days :P

We never know, it could have a lot of attention over the week. Just have to wait and see.

Maybe you both ought to branch out a bit you know? the internet is a big place.

Indeed but no I don't need to branch out. The chances of normal people reading John Redwood's blog out of the blue is slim. Reading it on a site such as a newspaper site or the BBC, twitter or facebook = There's a bigger chance. Basically, it needs to be shared/talked about on a site where there people will find it. Not saying the blog is a bad place but if people share it ---> The interest goes up.

I never said it wasn't important. I'm just saying twitter is more than Justin Bieber :P

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:26 PM

All I was saying is that social media is a big part of peoples lives and that is where people often find such stories or stories that you wouldn't find on one of the big news sites if it was being shared quite a lot and trending. It's how these things work these days :P

We never know, it could have a lot of attention over the week. Just have to wait and see.

Yes it is, but it doesn't apply to every story.

If you think this story isn't important then post why by using some logic or other historical documents which contradict its importance - which we can then discuss, rather than subjecting me to a pointless argument on the fact that people talk about things on Twitter in varying degrees of interest.

I never claimed this leaked memo was going to be massive news or a hit with Twitter, nor should you suggest I did.

xxMATTGxx

17-12-2012, 10:27 PM

Yes it is, but it doesn't apply to every story.

If you think this story isn't important then post why by using some logic or other historical documents which contradict its importance - which we can then discuss, rather than subjecting me to a pointless argument on the fact that people talk about things on Twitter in varying degrees of interest.

I never claimed this leaked memo was going to be massive news or a hit with Twitter, nor should you suggest I did.

I added this to my post:

Maybe you both ought to branch out a bit you know? the internet is a big place.

Indeed but no I don't need to branch out. The chances of normal people reading John Redwood's blog out of the blue is slim. Reading it on a site such as a newspaper site or the BBC, twitter or facebook = There's a bigger chance. Basically, it needs to be shared/talked about on a site where there people will find it. Not saying the blog is a bad place but if people share it ---> The interest goes up.

I never said it wasn't important. I'm just saying twitter is more than Justin Bieber :P

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:31 PM

Indeed but no I don't need to branch out. The chances of normal people reading John Redwood's blog out of the blue is slim. Reading it on a site such as a newspaper site or the BBC, twitter or facebook = There's a bigger chance. Basically, it needs to be shared/talked about on a site where there people will find it. Not saying the blog is a bad place but if people share it ---> The interest goes up.

I never claimed otherwise, that was mrwoooooo who claimed that something not being talked about on Twitter made it not important or that people didn't care. I claimed the opposite and made the point that Twitter isn't a political hub for talking about matters concerned with European integration or the FCO. It being confined to the Redwood blog doesn't mean it's not important or that people won't care when its brought to their attention.

Something I attempted to do, but which lays in ruins now really. Thanks a lot.

I never said it wasn't important. I'm just saying twitter is more than Justin Bieber

Glad we've come to agreement.

alexxxxx

17-12-2012, 10:42 PM

i don't keep up to date with euro politics much anymore but this type of email barely surprises me.

everybody's fighting for cash in government to keep their projects growing. believe it or not but there is much less cash around for many vanity projects. so as the EU is a project-funding vehicle, it's not surprising they want to keep good relationships eh?

and btw been reading some posts earlier today and it's pretty much a dead cert that if the UK left the EEA, most car-manufacturing will move outside of the UK due to the inevitable increase in import duties. a lot of countries want us in the EU due to our wishes to keep everything relatively laissez-faire.

i imagine the germans will grow to be our best mates in europe a long with the netherlands, sweden, denmark and norway (in a limited capacity). merkel today came out with a statement saying it's the end of european-style socialism.

oh and twitter is an excellent method to spread these kind of stories, don't kid yourself dan.

i haven't posted on here for months but it appears to be the same guys on here that were posting years a go. I'm 20 now! scary stuff eh?

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 10:51 PM

Welcome back, hope all is well & thanks for the intelligent response. :)

and btw been reading some posts earlier today and it's pretty much a dead cert that if the UK left the EEA, most car-manufacturing will move outside of the UK due to the inevitable increase in import duties. a lot of countries want us in the EU due to our wishes to keep everything relatively laissez-faire.

Wrong, completely wrong. A chinese businessman on the Newsnight actually put it best - that business doesn't care (apart from lobbying concerns) whether we're in the EU or not - a business only cares about the tax rates and regulations, whether the business can make money or not. That's it, its as simple as that. We made cars before the EU, we'll make cars afterwards. Continued success will depend on Westminster's economic policy.

As for potential tariffs, wrong again. We can either join the EEA, ETFA or sign a Free-Trade deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements) with the EU after our exit. That's also not to mention that even if one of these deals were not signed (which it will, thanks to the withdrawal clause in the Lisbon Treaty), the EU would be restricted by the WTO in terms of tariffs it could impose.

The future is bright and global for Britain, we just have to hold our heads up high as the world's 6th largest economy and do it.

alexxxxx

17-12-2012, 11:04 PM

Welcome back.

Wrong, completely wrong. A chinese businessman on the Newsnight actually put it best - that business doesn't care (apart from lobbying concerns) whether we're in the EU or not - a business only cares about the tax rates and regulations, whether the business can make money or not. That's it, its as simple as that. We made cars before the EU, we'll make cars afterwards.

As for potential tariffs, wrong again. We can either join the EEA, ETFA or sign a Free-Trade deal with the EU after our exist. That's also not to mention that even if one of these deals were not signed, the EU would be restricted by the WTO in terms of tariffs it could impose.
i doubt i've been missed. feels like your ukip rubbish and loony blog links have infected everyone's mind.

ya, well big business will have the last word in basically everything the government does. they have too much influence in government (levenson has proved that to some extent).

we made cars before the EU, but you realise that the cars that were made back then are no longer made now, forced out by foreign competition. like I said, IF WE LEFT THE EEA (not the EU). Even though Norway is in the EEA, it still has the ability to charge import duty on some goods to protect its own. I honestly think that the car industry will be done-in by import taxes. Car import taxes are very popular in the world, even with WTO rules. I'm not sure a free trade agreement like with Switzerland would be possible (the EU publicly regret it) - though obviously this would be the best option if we fell out. EEA is just a fax-democracy and wouldn't be suitable for a country of our size.

i'm not sure i care anymore about politics, it's all rubbish. i can't even support any of the parties.

labour - unrealistic
tories - ridiculous
lib-dems - who are they?
ukip - looneys
greens - some good policies but way too left wing
bnp - im not a chav

boring boring boring.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 11:12 PM

i doubt i've been missed. feels like your ukip rubbish and loony blog links have infected everyone's mind.

Where did that come from? :S that was a genuine welcome back from me there.

ya, well big business will have the last word in basically everything the government does. they have too much influence in government (levenson has proved that to some extent).

we made cars before the EU, but you realise that the cars that were made back then are no longer made now, forced out by foreign competition. like I said, IF WE LEFT THE EEA (not the EU). Even though Norway is in the EEA, it still has the ability to charge import duty on some goods to protect its own. I honestly think that the car industry will be done-in by import taxes. Car import taxes are very popular in the world, even with WTO rules. I'm not sure a free trade agreement like with Switzerland would be possible (the EU publicly regret it) - though obviously this would be the best option if we fell out. EEA is just a fax-democracy and wouldn't be suitable for a country of our size.

Cameron made this fax-democracy claim the other day and it's completely false (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83420) (The Booker article itself), Norway has a veto on EU legislation (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83417) and apparently since it joined the EEC has only implemented 5,000 directives compared to our 3,000 a year. The process we have now is legislation by fax. In terms of the Swiss deal, which I prefer or even a free trade deal - it's true the EU would rather have Switzerland within it's belly (all that money) but it doesn't have a choice. If tiny Switzerland can secure such a deal, Britain can secure a much better deal than they can.

As for the cars point, why does it always come back to this? again, business will operate depending on where it can make a good profit. If we simply pulled out of every agreement willy nilly then yes you'd have a point, but thats not going to happen - article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will guide negotiations when the time comes and we'll be able to sort out an amicable deal with our EU friends.

i'm not sure i care anymore about politics, it's all rubbish. i can't even support any of the parties.

labour - unrealistic
tories - ridiculous
lib-dems - who are they?
ukip - looneys
greens - some good policies but way too left wing
bnp - im not a chav

boring boring boring.

Contructive, but then it's much better not to vote if you feel they're all as bad as eachother. If UKIP weren't about then I wouldn't either.

alexxxxx

17-12-2012, 11:31 PM

Where did that come from? :S that was a genuine welcome back from me there.

was in jest.

Cameron made this fax-democracy claim the other day and it's completely false, Norway has a veto on any piece of EU legislation it wants and apparently since it joined the EEC has only implemented 5,000 directives compared to our 3,000 a year. The process we have now is legislation by fax. In terms of the Swiss deal, which I prefer or even a free trade deal - it's true the EU would rather have Switzerland within it's belly (all that money) but it doesn't have a choice. If tiny Switzerland can secure such a deal, Britain can secure a much better deal than they can.

As for the cars point, why does it always come back to this? again, business will operate depending on where it can make a good profit. If we simply pulled out of every agreement willy nilly then yes you'd have a point, but thats not going to happen - article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will guide negotiations when the time comes and we'll be able to sort out an amicable deal with our EU friends.

i'm unaware of a norwegan veto, but even with the veto, they still have no power in how they are made - so those 5k directives are literally faxed in with almost zero say in their construction. according to this blog post (of which i don't know it's credibility) http://the-europath.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/eea-reservation-right-is-history-after.html - the veto was never used at least until 2009. what is interesting is that Norway have the highest rate of passing EU directives that they are required to pass. I don't know what directives they get out of having to pass, or their relative importance but i'll go out and say that they are likely to be unimportant (apart from CAP and CFP) The Norwegian mission to the EU has a good section here - http://www.eu-norway.org/ARKIV/newsarchives/EEA_agreement_facts/

i don't think a swiss deal is going to be possible in our situation. they are a relatively small country in comparison to the UK and the EU already regret their treaty due to their cherrypicking. though in my view if we did leave we would have to follow this route as the EEA isn't acceptable.

Contructive, but then it's much better not to vote if you feel they're all as bad as eachother. If UKIP weren't about then I wouldn't either.

i voted in the GE for the lib-dems and feel very betrayed. i would have expected more disobedience to the conservatives. i think their supporters are lost.

-:Undertaker:-

17-12-2012, 11:48 PM

was in jest.

i'm unaware of a norwegan veto, but even with the veto, they still have no power in how they are made - so those 5k directives are literally faxed in with almost zero say in their construction. according to this blog post (of which i don't know it's credibility) http://the-europath.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/eea-reservation-right-is-history-after.html - the veto was never used at least until 2009. what is interesting is that Norway have the highest rate of passing EU directives that they are required to pass. I don't know what directives they get out of having to pass, or their relative importance but i'll go out and say that they are likely to be unimportant (apart from CAP and CFP) The Norwegian mission to the EU has a good section here - http://www.eu-norway.org/ARKIV/newsarchives/EEA_agreement_facts/

From what I have heard, the Norwegians actually have working groups with an EU delegation and sit down and draft directives, rather than it being a one way street. As Dr. North linked to in this article (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83417), even the Norwegians themselves appear to own up to this fact whilst also pointing out that as Norway has its own legal system still - it has no obligation to pass directives even if they were to be compulsory.

But even if Norway did have to pass every directive they were passed (which I don't think is the case, otherwise they'd have gone for a Swiss type deal by now) i'd still rather their position as they have a lot less legislation heaped upon them, no interference in social or foreign policy and without the costs we have to bear. As it happens, I think the size and power Britain can project on the world stage will provide us with the weight to carve out a much better deal for ourselves when we leave.

Whether thats within the EEA, EFTA or a free trade agreement I don't know.

i don't think a swiss deal is going to be possible in our situation. they are a relatively small country in comparison to the UK and the EU already regret their treaty due to their cherrypicking. though in my view if we did leave we would have to follow this route as the EEA isn't acceptable.

If we take the departure process properly and not rashly then I think we can have an amicable divorce on these grounds, infact as we'd still be members of the Union (although leaving via article 50 of Lisbon) we'd be able to exercise a trade off - agree to our smooth admittance into EFTA and we shall not hinder ever closer union within the Eurozone. I actually think that the EFTA organisation is the future for most of Europe in the coming decade as I can see the integration needed to save the Eurozone failing and northern European countries following Britain to the door marked 'exit' - especially the Dutch, Finns and Swedes.

Either way, both sides hold cards - and it'd be best for both sides if we didn't stand in the way of one another.

i voted in the GE for the lib-dems and feel very betrayed. i would have expected more disobedience to the conservatives. i think their supporters are lost.

I'd argue it's the other way around, the Unconservative Party loves being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats as it allows it to pass all sorts of legislation that it's own members hate but which it can blame on the Liberal Democrats.

Still, they both lied on all sorts of issues so there's not much to say really. :P

alexxxxx

18-12-2012, 12:08 AM

From what I have heard, the Norwegians actually have working groups with an EU delegation and sit down and draft directives, rather than it being a one way street. As Dr. North linked to in this article (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83417), even the Norwegians themselves appear to own up to this fact whilst also pointing out that as Norway has its own legal system still - it has no obligation to pass directives even if they were to be compulsory.

But even if Norway did have to pass every directive they were passed (which I don't think is the case, otherwise they'd have gone for a Swiss type deal by now) i'd still rather their position as they have a lot less legislation heaped upon them, no interference in social or foreign policy and without the costs we have to bear. As it happens, I think the size and power Britain can project on the world stage will provide us with the weight to carve out a much better deal for ourselves when we leave.

Whether thats within the EEA, EFTA or a free trade agreement I don't know.

i agree with you on some points however, although norway can help draft stuff they have no voting rights. The UK has its own legal system (parliament is still sovereign really, it can pull out of the EU whenever it likes) - it has no obligation to pass EU directives although it is in its best interests to do so as it has agreed to pass them.

If we take the departure process properly and not rashly then I think we can have an amicable divorce on these grounds, infact as we'd still be members of the Union (although leaving via article 50 of Lisbon) we'd be able to exercise a trade off - agree to our smooth admittance into EFTA and we shall not hinder ever closer union within the Eurozone. I actually think that the EFTA organisation is the future for most of Europe in the coming decade as I can see the integration needed to save the Eurozone failing and northern European countries following Britain to the door marked 'exit' - especially the Dutch, Finns and Swedes.

Either way, both sides hold cards - and it'd be best for both sides if we didn't stand in the way of one another.

you have changed your tune since i last spoke to you - last time it sounded like you were advocating an all-guns blazing (not literally) exit. Being in the EEA might be a better option, from your perspective, but i think that the populist press would go to town on the fax-democracy. if the EU 'fails' as you say it won't be a catastrophic collapse but a major restructuring.

i really am not bothered what happens anymore. I think being in the EU is a much better option than being out of it. the idea of all powerful nation states has finished. improvements in communications, travel and immigration is destroying the idea of distinct countries. whether you think that's a good or bad thing is up to you. the reason why UKIP are out of touch is not because of their economic/fiscal policy - which i imagine is probably a bit more popular than their percentage of voters. their social policy is too out of touch with modern britain/europe/western culture. what they win in social policy they lose far more in economics. they only speak in social policy to keep themselves in the paper/media, they appear to have very little consensus on issues.

do you really agree with their gay marriage views? or are you like the rest of the country?

-:Undertaker:-

18-12-2012, 12:28 AM

i agree with you on some points however, although norway can help draft stuff they have no voting rights. The UK has its own legal system (parliament is still sovereign really, it can pull out of the EU whenever it likes) - it has no obligation to pass EU directives although it is in its best interests to do so as it has agreed to pass them.

I don't think voting rights matter anymore in the slightest, we've always been marginalised (even even British governments have beeen avidly pro-integrationalist, they've still had different outlooks than the rest of the continent) and we'll become more and more marginalised as closer union takes place within the Eurozone (or is attempted) and as new member states join.

Especially with QMV being extended in 2014 from Lisbon.

you have changed your tune since i last spoke to you - last time it sounded like you were advocating an all-guns blazing (not literally) exit. Being in the EEA might be a better option, from your perspective, but i think that the populist press would go to town on the fax-democracy. if the EU 'fails' as you say it won't be a catastrophic collapse but a major restructuring.

I was completely wrong on that, but hey young passions. :P I'm sure we could simply just leave all guns blazing, but it wouldn't be diplomatic of us and probably would hit us economically certainly - the process of withdrawal ought to be measured and considerate. I think both Owen Patterson MP and Dr. North have also made the point that due to the extent of EU competence in certain areas, pulling out and simply scrapping EU directives would be foolhardy as we'd literally take a wrecking ball to certain state competences without any control - a disaster in the making.

In terms of the Euro, I really dread what's happening with it - it is pretty much certain that once the Euro currency and monetary union wither away, then the original intent of 'the project' dies with it. So the name may remain, but it'll revert back to a EFTA or even merge with it.

i really am not bothered what happens anymore. I think being in the EU is a much better option than being out of it. the idea of all powerful nation states has finished. improvements in communications, travel and immigration is destroying the idea of distinct countries. whether you think that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

I actually think the opposite, and indeed the opposite has been happening throughout the last century. In the last few decades or years we've seen the rise of smaller nation states as opposed to larger ones - in many cases, stronger national identities but not jackboot style nationalism and patriotism (thanks heavens). I mean look at Catalonia, Scotland, Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq, the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the partition of the Sudan, the lingering divide in Germany in terms of culture and so on.

I think and hope that the next century will be a trend of smaller nation states which will encourage competition in a globalised world. Of course, nothing is for certain and it could go completely the other way.

the reason why UKIP are out of touch is not because of their economic/fiscal policy - which i imagine is probably a bit more popular than their percentage of voters. their social policy is too out of touch with modern britain/europe/western culture. what they win in social policy they lose far more in economics. they only speak in social policy to keep themselves in the paper/media, they appear to have very little consensus on issues.

do you really agree with their gay marriage views? or are you like the rest of the country?

What parts of social policy though? but i'll pick up the gay marriage point. I happen to agree with them and their main reason is that legally it is likely to result in very complicated court cases which threaten freedom of religion and speech what with Equality and Discrimination Laws. As a libertarian i'd like to see it legalised with the state removed even if I personally am against it, and I know I have heard that Farage himself supports gay marriage in principle (unlike me) but won't back it due to legal concerns. Here's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJOdfU1FPM&NR=1&feature=endscreen) of him explaining the policy.

There's a big divide over issues like this though in UKIP between the younger members and older members, indeed I haven't seen one younger member disagree with gay marriage. The good thing about UKIP is that it's policy can be influenced by the membership. Unlike the other three nowadays which are closed shops.

alexxxxx

18-12-2012, 01:06 AM

I don't think voting rights matter anymore in the slightest, we've always been marginalised (even even British governments have beeen avidly pro-integrationalist, they've still had different outlooks than the rest of the continent) and we'll become more and more marginalised as closer union takes place within the Eurozone (or is attempted) and as new member states join.

Especially with QMV being extended in 2014 from Lisbon.

Zero voting rights is symbolically important.

I was completely wrong on that, but hey young passions. :P I'm sure we could simply just leave all guns blazing, but it wouldn't be diplomatic of us and probably would hit us economically certainly - the process of withdrawal ought to be measured and considerate. I think both Owen Patterson MP and Dr. North have also made the point that due to the extent of EU competence in certain areas, pulling out and simply scrapping EU directives would be foolhardy as we'd literally take a wrecking ball to certain state competences without any control - a disaster in the making.

In terms of the Euro, I really dread what's happening with it - it is pretty much certain that once the Euro currency and monetary union wither away, then the original intent of 'the project' dies with it. So the name may remain, but it'll revert back to a EFTA or even merge with it.

Im glad you've changed on that. it was an incredibly dangerous view! IF the euro collapses (i don't think it will be allowed to happen, but it might be taken apart piece by piece). The EU might restructure if this happened, but it will exist in some capacity.

I actually think the opposite, and indeed the opposite has been happening throughout the last century. In the last few decades or years we've seen the rise of smaller nation states as opposed to larger ones - in many cases, stronger national identities but not jackboot style nationalism and patriotism (thanks heavens). I mean look at Catalonia, Scotland, Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq, the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the partition of the Sudan, the lingering divide in Germany in terms of culture and so on.

I think and hope that the next century will be a trend of smaller nation states which will encourage competition in a globalised world. Of course, nothing is for certain and it could go completely the other way.

Oh that is what i mean. I think the UK will break up. All developed nations will have less and less influence in the world. Countries like China/Russia/Brazil want to keep together. dissidents are oppressed. developed nations will need to loosely band together to prevent being taken over.

What parts of social policy though? but i'll pick up the gay marriage point. I happen to agree with them and their main reason is that legally it is likely to result in very complicated court cases which threaten freedom of religion and speech what with Equality and Discrimination Laws. As a libertarian i'd like to see it legalised with the state removed even if I personally am against it, and I know I have heard that Farage himself supports gay marriage in principle (unlike me) but won't back it due to legal concerns. Here's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJOdfU1FPM&NR=1&feature=endscreen) of him explaining the policy.

There's a big divide over issues like this though in UKIP between the younger members and older members, indeed I haven't seen one younger member disagree with gay marriage. The good thing about UKIP is that it's policy can be influenced by the membership. Unlike the other three nowadays which are closed shops.

not even necessarily social policy. there is very little of it in the manifesto - so all you hear is the conflicting words from the leaders and members. gay marriage is the latest one. i'm unsure of the legal implications, yet i believe that anything that needs to be changed in order to allow gay marriage without making people needing to do anything they don't want to (if churches dont want to marry them, then fair enough - although i doubt gay people would want to marry in an unwelcoming church). Some examples in their manifesto are so out of touch, like state schools being run by for-profit organisations... not something I imagine the majority are in favor of. the language is really outdated 'the three 'r's' for example... 'britishness register'??? 'commonwealth day' 'britdiscs' (increasing taxes on business is a weird one for UKIP).

UKIP are unelectable as they are at the moment. their manifesto has a feeling of a grandparents ramblings in parts.

-:Undertaker:-

18-12-2012, 01:25 AM

Zero voting rights is symbolically important.

Indeed it is, but if zero voting rights means we get to negotiate and draw up legislation together and retain a veto - along with having to apply much less of it than any EU country, then it's a deal worth having. But again, I think we can achieve a much better deal and come to a better understand with the EU in our negotiations given the influence of the United Kingdom.

Im glad you've changed on that. it was an incredibly dangerous view! IF the euro collapses (i don't think it will be allowed to happen, but it might be taken apart piece by piece). The EU might restructure if this happened, but it will exist in some capacity.

Oh indeed, there will always be governmental organisations of course. But with the end of monetary union, the dreams of what the project came into being will die with the Euro. I'd actually like an intergovernmental type organisation, it would be a useful tool for Europe's government to come together and make decisions provided all parties support it.

I oppose the supranational approach and thats my problem with the EU, as well as it's final aims.

Oh that is what i mean. I think the UK will break up. All developed nations will have less and less influence in the world. Countries like China/Russia/Brazil want to keep together. dissidents are oppressed. developed nations will need to loosely band together to prevent being taken over.

The power argument, I was reading Valclav Klaus' book the other day on the bus and he made a good point in regards to this - that nations such as the Czech Republic are told that without the EU they will not have any 'power' - and as he stated, the Czech Republic has never been a world power and has no aspirations or illusions of being a world power on the scale of the US, UK, China, Brazil etc.

I support alliances, sure such as NATO if they're needed (which I don't think NATO is for the time being). But the idea that we should dissolve our nations and create a political union? no, i'd rather be a medium or small power and relatively powerless than a province of a big interfering superpower. As it happens, I don't think Britain has to make a choice, we're still a major economic and military power and we're projected to remain so beyond 2050 - sure in relative terms we'll be less influential, but thats going to apply to everybody including Russia and the US of A.

I'm under no illusions that the British Empire will rise again, but i'm also not under the illusion that we're simply finished.

not even necessarily social policy. there is very little of it in the manifesto - so all you hear is the conflicting words from the leaders and members. gay marriage is the latest one. i'm unsure of the legal implications, yet i believe that anything that needs to be changed in order to allow gay marriage without making people needing to do anything they don't want to (if churches dont want to marry them, then fair enough - although i doubt gay people would want to marry in an unwelcoming church). Some examples in their manifesto are so out of touch, like state schools being run by for-profit organisations... not something I imagine the majority are in favor of. the language is really outdated 'the three 'r's' for example... 'britishness register'??? 'commonwealth day' 'britdiscs' (increasing taxes on business is a weird one for UKIP).

UKIP are unelectable as they are at the moment. their manifesto has a feeling of a grandparents ramblings in parts.

Well in terms of the gay marriage debate, we had one on the forum a week or so ago in this very forum and GommeInc; who does Law backed me up on the legal side, it's a dangerous legal area especially for religious groups. Look, if UKIP were to say that we'll abolish Equality and Discrimination laws, withdraw from the ECHR and introduce gay marriage then i'd vote for that - even though i'm personally against it. Indeed, I think under a UKIP government that would be the likely outcome.

As for the rest, you have some points - but they're definetely moving in a Swiss-style referendum policy on social policy, which is a much better policy I find than having Westminster decide social policy when they're often out of touch. In a referendum style system i'd hazard a guess that we'd have gay marriage legalised, the death penalty brought back and abortion kept legal. Now only one of those I personally agree with, but I think Swiss style democracy on these issues is the way to go.

UKIP was a few years ago a grandparents party, let's be honest. A party that was mainly a coalition between Thatcherites and old social conservatives from both left and right. Today it's much more libertarian/liberal with the younger generations and the party leadership included. Heck, the Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall even went to a gay bar after conference with Young Independence, or so I read on Twitter. :P

Kardan

18-12-2012, 02:10 AM

I wondered how a thread on the EU could get so many replies, and then I just realised it was people arguing with Undertaker...

The usual then... :P

As for the actual topic at hand, it's not really news... And I don't think leaking people's private letters are the best thing to be doing at the moment with the state the media is in at the moment...

GommeInc

18-12-2012, 03:01 PM

I wondered how a thread on the EU could get so many replies, and then I just realised it was people arguing with Undertaker...
Alex and Undertaker can argue for ages with one another :P At least it's keeping the forum active, something that seems frowned upon these days :P

Kardan

18-12-2012, 05:04 PM

Alex and Undertaker can argue for ages with one another :P At least it's keeping the forum active, something that seems frowned upon these days :P

Threads like these with actual discussion are brilliant :P

alexxxxx

18-12-2012, 06:40 PM

i cant actually be arsed to reply to your comment dan cause i have other things to do but i understand where you come from on many of your points.

here's a summary of what i think:
-not sure we will move towards a swiss style referendum system.
-being in the EEA still requires you to allow free movement of people across europe (something UKIP opposes)
-i don't think militarily we will be very powerful in 20 years time, unless something changes that.
-if the euro is dismantled, I think that the EU will actually improve in its goals in other areas. The USoE 'dream' will probably disappear but haromonisation will continue. I study an Engineering degree and did you know that all building regulations are harmonised now?
-UKIP have continued to make themselves seem like loons today: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4704117/Ukip-candidate-takes-controversial-stance-on-abortion.html

DamienMarj

18-12-2012, 08:31 PM

Oh grow up, since when was something being splashed all over the news making it important? the likes of One Direction, Justin Bieber trend on Twitter and on the news we have stories running for a whole week about some cabinet minister calling an officer a 'pleb' or the Ozzie PM falling over - meanwhile we have documents such as this being released and ignored, we have the debt climbing millions every day, we have US drone bombings over Pakistan/Yemen/Somalia and Afghanistan...... and all you can do to justify it 'not being important' is that it's hardly mentioned on Twitter.

And we wonder why we're in such a mess (or at least some of us do, thankfully). Astounding ignorance, does something need a BBC logo on it or a certain number of Twitter mentions for you to take any interest or notice regardless of the importance of a story?

You do understand you're trying to come and share this with a majority of kids by age or mentality. Forget these idiots, these selfish little people who do not believe in anybodys opinion and there only attack is a -rep or putting people down and not actually debating it out.

I for one am very shocked, totally believe in your opinion about the media too, all their there to do is to influence us and brainwash us, have you read thesun? there was a story on Dean gaffney or something like that an actor from eastenders, they dug up a year old application for MI5 and made a front page on it, then made an entire video podcast of him dressed as ''James Bond'' telling us how he enjoys a lifestyle like bond, doing little posses and tha.. well what I'm trying to say is, there is a point for media, to brainwash us, try and influence our opinions, and I cannot believe the respond of that guy regarding ''two tweets'' thats the kind of guy who is bringing this country down so badly.