h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

the EU was never solely just a free trade area
political union has been one of its aims since it was formed
that our politicians sold us membership in it on false grounds is the responsibility of Ted Heath and Harold Wilson, and not of the EU

That may be ~ but we as a country signed up to a trade agreement.If they wish to alter that it has to be the decision of the populace not the politicians.
I'm probably repeating myself but a European constitution is such a fundamental shift from our current system no government has the right to take us into it without a substantial mandate from the electorate.

no, we signed up to the Treaty of Rome which is a commitment to political union
Europe has not changed what it is asking of us and never lied to us, although some of our own politicians did

I understand about the treaty of Rome.What i said was that the EU was sold to the British public as solely a trade agreement ~ many who voted yes at that time would not have done so if they had been told the full extent of the long term European goals.
Which is why it has to be settled now by a referendum ~ it is a decision every person in the country deserves to make.

but referendum are not the way things are normally dealt with in this country
you have the option to vote for an anti-EU party if you so wish
anyway its no good claiming you weren't told
people like Barbara Castle and Tony Benn were warning that the Common Market was more than just a common market 30 years ago, only to be derided as alarmist by, amongst others, Margaret Thatcher

The decision to go into the EU was given a referendum because it was such a major change to the country as a whole.
30 years ago i was 2 so was not exactly in a position to have a say in the matter.
We are not the only country to have a referendum on the constitution ~ France is preparing for its vote now.
You cannot change our system of government in such a fundamental manner without a mandate from the populace.

Wasn't the question of that referendum something like "Should Britain stay within the European Common Market?"

Which means, therefore, that the politicians had already put us inside the ECM without our consent, but wanted our consent to stay inside it.

It also means that we have never had a referendum of the EU. Though, admittedly, that is what the ECM has evolved into.


Geggs

The Referendum in 1975 was indeed on the question of staying in the Common Market, posed by the Wilson Government after Heath (who had earlier signed Britain up) was thrown out. Wilson sold the story as a New Deal in the Common Market, secured after tough negotiations by his administration.

On the question of Parliament's loss of power if the UK stayed in, Wilson's government stated that no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament. It further stated that the Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.

People were sold a story, just as the Germans were sold the story that the Stability Pact would prevent excess borrowing which could undermine the euro. It seems all such pledges can only be regarded as good for now, not binding in future.

Back to Wilson's government, it sensibly derided suggestions that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer. I can though find no reference to the Great British sausage!

"The queens head would still be on the back of British Euro coins..."

From what I can see it's more likely to be Charles' head on Euro coins. Nothing's gonna happen too quickly, which is a pity coz I'm Irish & visit english relatives every year. It really is so handy: went travelling last year & all the way through France & Spain knowing exactly how much you're paying for things...yeah.

The system of subsidiarity means that national laws overrule EU regulations. In practice, of course, politicians try to stick to the EU so's not to offend the others or be the odd one out.

No - subsidiarity means that the EU does not act where it would be more efficient to act at national or local level, does not set detailed rules where this can be left to the Member State and so on.

To give you an example - EU law says that all cement kilns must have a permit. It sets reference standards for emissions, processes. National law decides what the permit says, and what happens to you if you don't get a permit for your cement kiln.

Where the EU does act, the Member States must implement - it's the principle of the primacy of EU law, and without it the whole system would be useless.

sprout

The convenience of the single currency is an undoubted advantage, perhaps the only real economic one. The main disadvantage is the lack of independent economic control, particularly over monetary policy.

As I recall, Ireland suffered because its strong growth ran too free when the dominant euro economies were sluggish and needed low interest rates. Also, I think Ireland were castigated for breaching the Stability Pact before the big boys found it convenient to do likewise (and therefore had no knuckles wrapped).

Having said that, I suspect Ireland's best interest's have been served being as close to the EU as possible. I suspect the UK's are not. Horses for courses.

I too find it convenient to use the euro in France, Belgium and Spain; but I'm happy to pay the price to convert Sterling when travelling so we can have our own economic policy.

"Where the EU does act, the Member States must implement - it's the principle of the primacy of EU law, and without it the whole system would be useless."

So, what about the promise of the Wilson government in 1975 that a British Minister can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests? Was it always a limp promise and was it mainly flushed away at Maarstricht so that now the veto is severely limited and seldom used?

Gone for some areas - unanimity still applies for fiscal issues, the important foreign and defense stuff, the big budget discussions.

Qualified majority voting applies for environment, internal market, social issues and a few others.

In other areas still the EU has no competence and does not legislate.

sprout

Thanks for the info on our fading veto, Sprout.

I note your comment that "the EU has no competence and does not legislate." I think it's half right.

"Gone for some areas - unanimity still applies for fiscal issues, the important foreign and defense stuff, the big budget discussions.
Qualified majority voting applies for environment, internal market, social issues and a few others.
In other areas still the EU has no competence and does not legislate."

If the constitution comes in how many of these areas will we still control?

I see an economist, specializing in the eurozone, is warning of an eventual risk that the eurozone crack under the weight of increasing protectionism in Germany, fiscal indiscipline (presumably the widespread dodging the Stability Pact) and potential rejection of the EU Constitution by France and Holland.

I know economists are better at telling us where we've been than where we're going; but these are genuine causes for concern. Good luck to those inside the eurozone but all the more reason for us to stay out.

Seems like a Nostradamus merchant to me - notably in regards to the Constitution - the Euro works without the Constitution, why would not moving to one affect the situation?

At the end of the day, if he was right, we would expect to see a weakening of the Euro against the dollar or yen - no sign of that as far as I can see.

Re the question above - fiscal unanimity doesn't change, there are some new possibilities for qualified majority voting on immigration and the 'softer' foreign policy aspects I believe.

sprout

define ~ softer.
I don't want foreign policy at any level decided by committee.
I'll be convinced about the Euro when it consistantly holds its own against the pound and all the members follow the stability rules for at least 5 years.
So far we just don't have enough data to convince me anyone can judge its long term affect or stability.