Brussels too big and too bossy, Cameron tells EU leaders

[Chippiewill]

David Cameron has arrived for an EU summit, saying his message to other leaders was that "Brussels has got too big, too bossy, too interfering".

After the rise in votes for Eurosceptic parties, he said: "The European Union cannot just shrug off these results and carry on as before. We need change."

The summit comes as UK and EU political leaders react to the Euro elections.

Lib Dem Nick Clegg pledged to keep putting the pro-EU case. Tony Blair urged Labour to "stand-up" to UKIP.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has set out his approach to rebuilding trust in politics in a speech in Essex.

Mr Miliband said UKIP had won votes by touting simple solutions to serious problems that had built up over generations.

"But there isn't a simple answer," he said.

But speaking in Brussels, UKIP leader Nigel Farage said it felt like "business as usual".

"We've just had a quite dramatic European election, with new sceptical parties, some new extreme nationalist parties, a massive spectrum, from the left to the centre to the right," he said.

"You know, there is a big dissident voice now in this parliament, and yet, I've just sat in a meeting where you wouldn't have thought anything had happened at all."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27583545

Crisis management begins.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doru Frantescu, predicts that the EU will interpret the election outcome as meaning it must refocus its efforts to stimulate Europe's sluggish economy and reduce joblessness.

"The signal sent by the electorate is that clearly it wants the European Union to be more effective, it wants it to deliver more results to the citizens, it wants it to solve economic issues and unemployment," Frantescu says. "These are the reasons for which people have turned toward the far left, toward the far right, toward Eurosceptics in general".

Frantescu is policy director and co-founder of VoteWatch Europe, a supposedly independent Brussels-based organization that tracked opinion polls in the run-up to the euro-elections.

The departing commission president, José Manuel Barroso, appears to agree with Frantescu. "This is the moment to come together and to define the union's way forward", he says, completely untouched by the drama of recent events.

"The concerns of those who voted in protest or did not vote are best addressed through decisive political action for growth and jobs, and through a truly democratic debate", he adds, having first thanked all those who voted. "Citizens across the European Union have exercised their democratic right and made their voice count in the European Parliament elections", the soon-to-be departed president says.

His statement, in the round is nothing if not a verbose way of saying "more Europe", the standard response of the Apparat to any and every perceived setback.

In other words the voters can go to hell and we're carrying on as we have for the past 50 years.

There are only two honest positions in the EU debate: either you want a federal Europe or independence. That's the choice before us.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah extremists only please

[The Don]

Yeah extremists only please

lmao, isn't it a fallacy to act as if there are only two options to sway people to your side?

Edit: Yep, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[-:Undertaker:-]

lmao, isn't it a fallacy to act as if there are only two options to sway people to your side?

Edit: Yep, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Do I have to post all those quotes by senior European officials and EU officials stating what the intention of the EU is again?

Do you understand what "ever closer union" actually means? Think about it and get back to me.

[The Don]

Do I have to post all those quotes by senior European officials and EU officials stating what the intention of the EU is again?

Do you understand what "ever closer union" actually means? Think about it and get back to me.

Yeh because the EU's intentions are exactly the same as what some of its official want to happen. Going by that logic Ukip thinks all blacks should return back to 'black countries', gays are the cause of floods and we should hang anyone who votes for a pro europe party as traitors.

[Chippiewill]

The EU's intentions are made pretty damn clear in the second line of the EEC treaty from 1957:

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

[The Don]

The EU's intentions are made pretty damn clear in the second line of the EEC treaty from 1957:

Ever closer union is rather vague and doesn't automatically mean Federal Europe, which is what Dan's arguing.

[GommeInc]

Ever closer union is rather vague and doesn't automatically mean Federal Europe, which is what Dan's arguing.
That's when you take into account key political figures within the EU. Barroso said in 2013 that there should be intensified political union of the member states. I also have a feeling the Lisbon Treaty re-iterated further integration. It's unlikely anyone will say "we need a federal Europe" or a treaty will ever actually say it until the last steps are made to do so. It requires time and progress, to be done in stages rather than an instant change.

[The Don]

That's when you take into account key political figures within the EU. Barroso said in 2013 that there should be intensified political union of the member states. I also have a feeling the Lisbon Treaty re-iterated further integration. It's unlikely anyone will say "we need a federal Europe" or a treaty will ever actually say it until the last steps are made to do so. It requires time and progress, to be done in stages rather than an instant change.

He also said in that same speech "If we don't like how Europe is, change it" which means reform, another choice Dan missed out from his original post. It isn't either a Federal Europe or out of the EU, so i'm not sure what you're really arguing. You can hypothesise all you want about the EU's intentions, but again, ever closer union is extremely vague and could mean many different things, to pretend it means to federalise europe is nothing more than conjecture.

[GommeInc]

He also said in that same speech "If we don't like how Europe is, change it" which means reform, another choice Dan missed out from his original post. It isn't either a Federal Europe or out of the EU, so i'm not sure what you're really arguing. You can hypothesise all you want about the EU's intentions, but again, ever closer union is extremely vague and could mean many different things, to pretend it means to federalise europe is nothing more than conjecture.
Reform technically isn't allowed within the EU, or at least any system that will allow it - change can only come from those who think it should happen and so far the ones in charge of the operation, the ones actually not elected, are more interested in further integration e.g. an EU army, one single currency, a single intelligence agency etc. I think the Lisbon Treaty mentions something about how strict the institution is with change - seeing as the goal is "further integration" and analysts have stated that people do not want further integration going from the recent results. Further integration could also be read as "until total integration has been accomplished" seeing as the wording doesn't say when further integration stops.

Completely valid point though, it's so vague that constitutionally the EU doesn't strictly express a federal Europe, but the people in charge seem all for it - although they seem to keep changing their minds...

[-:Undertaker:-]

He also said in that same speech "If we don't like how Europe is, change it" which means reform, another choice Dan missed out from his original post. It isn't either a Federal Europe or out of the EU, so i'm not sure what you're really arguing. You can hypothesise all you want about the EU's intentions, but again, ever closer union is extremely vague and could mean many different things, to pretend it means to federalise europe is nothing more than conjecture.

But Barroso isn't talking about less Europe, he's talking about more Europe as the treaties and the whole project is based upon. There is a debate within the top circles of the European Union of whether to go for a United States of Europe model (a federal model) or a unitary model. There is not and isn't intended to be a debate on whether nation states should reclaim powers, or whether closer integration should actually go ahead as seen with the results of the French, Dutch and Irish referendums which were simply ignored just as these election results are being ignored.

Ever closer union means exactly what it says, ever closer union aka more powers keep going to the centre. Period, end of story. The European Union doesn't have a clutch to stall the project, or a reversal button: from it's inception it has been very clear in what the end goal is.


but again, ever closer union is extremely vague

The EU from the beginning is intended to be vague and boring, it's based on the 'Monnet method' (named after the founder of the project). I'm off out to get a haircut right now, but i'll post some quotes from Monnet & other founders if you would like which express this intention as clearly as day.

[The Don]

Reform technically isn't allowed within the EU, or at least any system that will allow it - change can only come from those who think it should happen and so far the ones in charge of the operation, the ones actually not elected, are more interested in further integration e.g. an EU army, one single currency, a single intelligence agency etc. I think the Lisbon Treaty mentions something about how strict the institution is with change - seeing as the goal is "further integration" and analysts have stated that people do not want further integration going from the recent results. Further integration could also be read as "until total integration has been accomplished" seeing as the wording doesn't say when further integration stops.

Completely valid point though, it's so vague that constitutionally the EU doesn't strictly express a federal Europe, but the people in charge seem all for it - although they seem to keep changing their minds...

The European Commission can reform EU policy, so reform is possible. Are there more options than federal europe or a withdrawal from the EU? If the answer is yes (which it is...) then there's nothing more here to discuss.

[GommeInc]

The European Commission can reform EU policy, so reform is possible. Are there more options than federal europe or a withdrawal from the EU? If the answer is yes (which it is...) then there's nothing more here to discuss.
Well no it's not that clean cut. They can, but will they? The Commission have in the past reiterated the importance of a greater integrated Europe.