Leak! What the official government is saying.

[alexxxxx]

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/2...ory-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/newsa...reement_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:-]

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/2...ory-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/newsa...reement_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, 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.

[alexxxxx]

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, 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:-]

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. 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 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]

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. 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 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:-]

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.

[Kardan]

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...

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]

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 At least it's keeping the forum active, something that seems frowned upon these days

[Kardan]

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

Threads like these with actual discussion are brilliant

[alexxxxx]

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...-abortion.html