Unelected Euro-Loon Threatens: Stay in EU or Lose Freedoms

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://order-order.com/2014/02/18/un...lose-freedoms/

Eurocrat-ess Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, has gone all shouty crackers again. Last month the unelected, unaccountable Reding lashed out at Britain’s elected, accountable PM. Now she is making barely veiled threats about the consequences of renegotiation and hectoring the government about its welfare, education and immigration policies:

“The four freedoms enshrined in the EU treaties come as a package. You either enjoy all of them – or none. Those who benefit from the free flow of capital, goods and services must also accept that our citizens are free to move in the EU to travel, study and work. Politicians also need to work on the quality of education and welfare, so that people in this country can find employment and enjoy reasonable social standards.”

Reding also gave her audience at Cambridge University her advice for eurosceptics, not that anyone asked for it:

“The debate in this country about the UK’s place in the EU is distorted. All that talk about opt-outs, renegotiations and referenda distracts from the real issue. Unfortunately, the debate is distracting from the real challenge in the relationship between the UK and the EU. And it is even inflicting wider damage by holding back our Union as a whole. We don’t need this. What we need are great ideas and solid arguments about how we can strengthen the EU and make it more competitive on the world stage.”

It may not be how they do things in Brussels, but Ms Reding should know that here people don’t take so kindly to being told what they do and don’t “need” by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats…

Although her attitude is clearly appalling (what does she care? She's not elected by the British people) she is also right at the same time. You cannot reform or renegotiate with the European Union. It is either you are run by Brussels or are not. You are also required to continue to abide by "ever closer union" as stated in the treaties. It's clear as daylight.

Cameron's 2017 wet cardboard referendum pledge after a renegotiation takes another hit.

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

She seems a tad obsessive that the EU is the only organisation that protects "freedoms". Not only is she wrong, but it also means she has broken the fundamental rule when talking about the EU and ECHR - they're both separate organisations. These are not freedoms that she is talking about per se, they're just a benefit from the organisation.

Actual freedoms are not benefits, but enshrine basic fundamental freedoms that should come as being a human being - different from beneficial freedoms in that one is a moral obligation and the other is some economic benefit. Not that it matters anyway as she's also forgetting it is entirely possible to pick and choose these benefits (or freedoms but she's apparently known as being an imbecile). Norway and Switzerland have picked and chosen these benefits and their countries are doing far better than these EU member states which have been somewhat hindered by the EU as it costs a lot for what really is no economic benefit as the cost to maintain infrastructure comes from the member state and not the EU. The EU only really builds infrastructure that it sees will make the country look nice from a marketing perspective - like stop off points in Slovenia or really tiny sums of money to rebuild or protect infrastructure as is the case in the UK and the floods (although the amount was so pathetic they may as well have not bothered at all).

It's why the immigration debate is a problem as the EU is not aware that these countries have to adapt to sudden or unknown influxes of immigrants/migrants that will need to use their services - that's blatantly obvious. Open borders are a nice idea, but there's uncertainty and the cost to maintain and improve the services of the host state. Furthermore, many who do go to different member states are not in a financial position to support themselves entirely and may need to rely on services which again will have to bare the weight of uncertain numbers. I believe the Danish have the main case for this, with another from Germany supporting it and their social services. Look up Lisbon Agenda 2000 and subsequent Lisbon Review 2005.

[The Don]

Quite right, you can't pick and choose what you want out of those four as the eu would be made redundant as richer countries would stop the free movement of people and the whole thing would collapse.

[GommeInc]

Quite right, you can't pick and choose what you want out of those four as the eu would be made redundant as richer countries would stop the free movement of people and the whole thing would collapse.

Why can't they be picked and chosen? Norway and Switzerland have treaties with the EU of the same effect and didn't bankrupt themselves. The EU allows for it but are afraid of it. So your argument that the rich nations are stopping the free moment of people has fallen at the first hurdle. The second hurdle is: surely these countries can choose to opt out of certain benefits of the EU if they hinder their development? The answer is yes, as they have their own democracies and Switzerland is possibly the most democratic country in Europe seeing as they actually have directly effective voting procedures that make the electorate become a major part of the political and legislative arenas e.g. Switzerland and their proposed immigration referendum. Surely democracy trumps the pseudo-democratic nature of the EU - where it's not democratic on a national level?

The UK could make treaties of the same sense and keep national sovereignty. It would be a win-win. Besides, capitalism dictates that if the UK were to leave the EU anyway the EU would chuck as many deals at us. It's sort of how capitalism works. Besides, people could still move around and come to the UK. Again, there's this false belief that only EU nationals can enter the UK yet last I checked China which I think isn't a European country has loads of people here. The difference is it's controlled so the country(s) can determine how to acclimatise itself to those entering the country and allocate funding to where it needed while total free movement as with the EU makes it difficult to adapt. So EU nationals would still be able to come here for education and work, and always have done before the EU and ECC. You could study at Bern University in Switzerland if you wanted, same for Romanians students who want to study in the UK. Also anyone who's even been to an airport (or port in general) would realise free movement doesn't actually exist. Passports are required and take ages to go through any of these systems - even in European countries that opted for the Schengen Agreement are not actually freely moving around, as it's a gradual movement towards it though in this day and age countries within the agreement still check passports and vehicles as the fear of terrorism, drug smuggling, banned foods and goods are always a concern - which also removes the myth of free movement of goods because goods can be banned on policy, public health and moral grounds.

[Kardan]

It makes sense. Lately many people have been saying Scotland can't pick and choose the things it likes if it becomes independent - the same thing applies to the UK and the EU. We either stay in and follow the rules, or leave and do what we like. As much as I would like there to be the middle ground, it's not really right to pick and choose what we like.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It makes sense. Lately many people have been saying Scotland can't pick and choose the things it likes if it becomes independent - the same thing applies to the UK and the EU. We either stay in and follow the rules, or leave and do what we like. As much as I would like there to be the middle ground, it's not really right to pick and choose what we like.

Well we sort of can, as GommeInc has stated. But when she says to remain an actual member of the European Union then it's true that we cannot pick and choose. That's why - as Ryan has made clear - it's best to leave the EU and simply use the intergovernmental method to sign bilateral treaties/deals between the UK and EU. Whether it be trade, student exchanges, tariffs and so on.

Within the EU there's no room for negotiation & deals, outside of it there is.

[The Don]

Why can't they be picked and chosen? Norway and Switzerland have treaties with the EU of the same effect and didn't bankrupt themselves. The EU allows for it but are afraid of it. So your argument that the rich nations are stopping the free moment of people has fallen at the first hurdle. The second hurdle is: surely these countries can choose to opt out of certain benefits of the EU if they hinder their development? The answer is yes, as they have their own democracies and Switzerland is possibly the most democratic country in Europe seeing as they actually have directly effective voting procedures that make the electorate become a major part of the political and legislative arenas e.g. Switzerland and their proposed immigration referendum. Surely democracy trumps the pseudo-democratic nature of the EU - where it's not democratic on a national level?

The UK could make treaties of the same sense and keep national sovereignty. It would be a win-win. Besides, capitalism dictates that if the UK were to leave the EU anyway the EU would chuck as many deals at us. It's sort of how capitalism works. Besides, people could still move around and come to the UK. Again, there's this false belief that only EU nationals can enter the UK yet last I checked China which I think isn't a European country has loads of people here. The difference is it's controlled so the country(s) can determine how to acclimatise itself to those entering the country and allocate funding to where it needed while total free movement as with the EU makes it difficult to adapt. So EU nationals would still be able to come here for education and work, and always have done before the EU and ECC. You could study at Bern University in Switzerland if you wanted, same for Romanians students who want to study in the UK. Also anyone who's even been to an airport (or port in general) would realise free movement doesn't actually exist. Passports are required and take ages to go through any of these systems - even in European countries that opted for the Schengen Agreement are not actually freely moving around, as it's a gradual movement towards it though in this day and age countries within the agreement still check passports and vehicles as the fear of terrorism, drug smuggling, banned foods and goods are always a concern - which also removes the myth of free movement of goods because goods can be banned on policy, public health and moral grounds.

If you're in the EU you accept those four elements. I'm not talking about outside of the EU. Kardan made my point much more eloquently.

[GommeInc]

It makes sense. Lately many people have been saying Scotland can't pick and choose the things it likes if it becomes independent - the same thing applies to the UK and the EU. We either stay in and follow the rules, or leave and do what we like. As much as I would like there to be the middle ground, it's not really right to pick and choose what we like.

Difference is that we could control our borders and create trade deals with the EU as other countries outside of it already do - so your point doesn't quite make sense. The difference between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU is that we're not in a monetary union with the EU while Scotland is asking for a monetary union - which requires a great deal of politics that only works with a political union. So there's not really much comparison. So the UK can choose which parts of the EU that work e.g. trade and people, except the UK has absolute control of their borders and the doesn't pay millions for what is essentially a bottomless pit.

Again, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Croatia (used to) all chose or have chosen certain parts and it was right to do so - their was "mutual benefit" for both the EU and the country trading - giving the organisation supremacy over certain domestic issues isn't and never is right, and costs far too much for what is unorganised chaos, which sums up the EU nicely.

[Kardan]

Difference is that we could control our borders and create trade deals with the EU as other countries outside of it already do - so your point doesn't quite make sense. The difference between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU is that we're not in a monetary union with the EU while Scotland is asking for a monetary union - which requires a great deal of politics that only works with a political union. So there's not really much comparison. So the UK can choose which parts of the EU that work e.g. trade and people, except the UK has absolute control of their borders and the doesn't pay millions for what is essentially a bottomless pit.

Again, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Croatia (used to) all chose or have chosen certain parts and it was right to do so - their was "mutual benefit" for both the EU and the country trading - giving the organisation supremacy over certain domestic issues isn't and never is right, and costs far too much for what is unorganised chaos, which sums up the EU nicely.

But Norway etc. aren't in the EU, so for us to get the benefits they are gaining, we must leave the EU? Which is my point? My point is, if we want to not following some of the laws the EU is putting out, our only option is to leave the EU.

[GommeInc]

But Norway etc. aren't in the EU, so for us to get the benefits they are gaining, we must leave the EU? Which is my point? My point is, if we want to not following some of the laws the EU is putting out, our only option is to leave the EU.

You suggested we cannot pick and choose as we like - yet we can and other countries already do the same. It's not right nor wrong, either.