For starters, why are you on here cheering on big government?
For second, Europe is a continent; the EU is an empire. You cannot be out of a continent that you are basically part of, unless a colossal earthquake occurs and your island is set adrift in the Atlantic (basically). And it's beyond tiresome to continue to read when people conflate the empire with the continent and vice-versa.
For third, the EU is not about "the cooperation of others"; it is about one country browbeating and/or bribing 26 others into following its agenda.
So does the extremely costly CAP suit (I assume) German interests? You know Germany opposed Greece joining the Euro back in the day but the UK and France were in favour. Germany has opposed every energy security directive proposed despite the Energy commissioner being German and yet we have seen the EU move towards solidarity in energy security matters. These and plenty other times that Germany hasn't got its way. I see the virtue of compromise and the limitations of formal institutions politics is lost on many people on p.ie.
If its all about German interest then why do we vote with them about 90% of the time in the council, more than we vote in line with the UK. There is also a national alliance in the Parliament between FG and CDU politicians and other European conservatives that they bring down the whip on their MEPs when they agree on a policy. You know politics actually occurs at an EU level as well.
Which is more dangerous, large nations tied into a formal transparent structure that limits what they can do or an anarchistic Europe order where the rights of small nations are immaterial to the interest of larger nations, such as existed for most of Europe's history.
Originally Posted by Al.
For fourth, learn the history of the EU. As far as the budget is concerned, its auditors have never once signed off on a single one. If that does not make you question why, then I do have to wonder just how deeply you understand politics. Cutting this incredibly-bloated EU budget is anything but impossible—especially since it is one of the few things in the EU that continues to grow unabated.
For fifth, the EU's web sites are a biased resource. Trying to cite them for truth is like citing the devil for truth about Hell, if you like.
As I explained in another post on this thread, the financial mismanagement doesn't occur with the EU, it occurs when the money is transferred to recipient member states. The EU in operations like CAP and structural funds doesn't give the money directly, it is managed through national and local authorities of the member states this is where the problems occur, the Commission hasn't been given the power to follow the money and account for all the funds. This situation isn't going to change any time soon as the situation suits the political interests of member states, what do politicians care if a couple thousand disappears for some pork barrel project in their constituency.
If you want to tackle this use support more power for the Parliament and Commission to pursue financial irregularities in member states.
So many of peoples issues with the EU are the fault of the member states taking advantage of the lack of understanding and critical engagement with the EU.
On the bias of the source, please give a substantive breakdown of what has been doctored by the Commission in that link.
Originally Posted by Al.
And finally, a veto that goes against the wishes of the country that runs the EU gets ignored and steamrolled over. We saw that already with the veto of the changes to the Lisbon Treaty. It is supposed to be the right of a member state (in words) to obstruct (or if you like, reshape) a certain agenda; it's called protecting the interests of the people, and to go with the flow is to acquiesce to letting the rule of law be replaced with the rule of man. The Irish government should have as much backbone as Britain's government!
All done in this country, again your letting national politicians get away with it by not critical engaging with the EU. If the UK gets a 20% cut to the EU budget who would pay? the EU only spends 6% on administration (It actually has quite a small civil service in comparison to member states), the rest would be coming from farmers and fisherman in the form of cuts to single farm payments which is still about 40% of EU budget, structural funds which are a form of stimulus and development aid.
There is also a nice break down of the EU budget here
Some of the highlights
94% will go back to EU citizens (if only national governments could come close to that figure)
48% of that will be growth related measures
Only 6% will be allocated to administrative expenditure. Administrative reform, which already started a few years ago, has already saved EU taxpayers €3 billion, and it is expected to generate another €5 billion in savings by 2020.
Spending at the EU level can help Member States achieve economies of scale and reduce spending at the national level. €50 billion will be spend to fund transport, energy, and ICT priority infrastructures of pan-European interest, through the Connecting Europe Facility.
The fact that Ireland isn't calling for cuts to the EU budget when the EU insists on the same here says a lot about the government.
They will say nothing because CAP is 40% of the budget. They are so short sighted they can't see the damage subsidies do to actual production, especially when decoupled. Look at New Zealand with no subsidies yet streets ahead of us. Cut CAP and you have a 40% saving straight away. Ireland would also save a fortune by sacking all the inspectors enforcing anti-production EU agricultural directives.
Britain is one of the big net contributors to the EU budget. It would leave a big hole.
much more important than the EU budget - to everyone else in the EU bar the Commissioners - is that in Economic terms the UK is 1/7th of the EU.
there is no way that the countries in the EU which currently export significant amounts to the UK will allow a situation to develop where their economy's are placed at risk because the EU in Brussels tells the UK that it either accepts the current situation and any future centralisation/harmonisation, or it gets out and loses the free trade element of the EU.
those countries will decide that their self-interest lies in ensuring that the UK remains within the free-trade bloc, while allowing it to withdraw from the political/social/legal elements of the EU.
for Germany, Ireland and many others, their service and industrial base having access to the UK market is, in the final analysis, far more important to them than how many hours British workers work, or what budget the UK runs, or whether the UK takes part in a common defence and security policy.
so, there will be an agreement about the UK's future relationship with the EU, and actually i think that the EU would prefer that - without the UK sat on the sidelines making it clear that it thinks the EU Commisioners are a bunch of clowns, and holding a lot of clout as a big beast of the EU, the EU machinery will, to a much greater extent, be much free-er to bully those smaller countries who may be as cynical as the UK about the EU/Eurozone, but without the power to push against it.
of course, the EU in Brussels may also decide to go for broke, knowing that if the UK gets free trade without all the EU crap that goes with it, others might wish to emulate them...
Last edited by sidney higginbottom; 3rd November 2012 at 01:00 PM.
The eu commission does some communication on where the money goes, a lot of is spent back into the individual member states through various activities such as research, cap, .... other areas 6% goes to admin, 7% on eu foreign policy and 1% on 2% on protection of rights and justice. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/b...port_11_en.pdf
a 20% reduction in budget seems massive, what would the areas to cut be ? or is this a case where the british pm is simply scoring points in british national politics by being seen to be difficult in europe ? by demanding the impossible David Cameron can hold up the eu budgetary process via the british veto and effectively hold europe to ransom, to the applause of the conservative euro skeptics
So is it reasonable to score points in national politics by obstructing european process ? If so then should britain just drop out of the union rather than disrupt the cooperation of others. Or does David Cameron really think a 20% budget reduction is both desirable and feasible ? How could such cuts be achieved, what would have to be sacrificed ?
there's a lot of posts to the effect that eu is bad, britain is right to obstruct it in whatever way.. for me it's a lot of different things being mixed up
1) is it better for britain to be in or out:
it's their decision, it's better for europe if they stay in
2) is it ok for britain to obstruct european process for national point scoring
I'd say clearly not, if they're in then great, but stop trying to mess things up for the rest of us
3) should ireland be in or out
to me this is kind of a no brainer, when you look at the 3rd world country we were before eu membership and compare that to the ireland of today. afterwards everything can be improved but globally the evidence is that eu membership has ben good for ireland
Politics.ie is one of Ireland's leading politics and current affairs discussion websites with more than 600,000 visitors a month. Founded in 2003, Politics.ie has one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.