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

Why hasn't europe and european issues been a part of the campaigns surely that is an important part!

I think the politicians are afraid to make it an issue.
Labour knows how unpopular the Euro and the European Constitution are.
And the Tories know that they get called racists and reactionaries when they bring it up.
We've been talking about it here though ~ there are a couple of old threads somewhere down the list.

I seem to recall that the opposition campaigned in an 'anti europe' kind of style last time and lost very badly, so that might be why it isn't getting so much attention this time.

It's just not a hot topic this time around. In-fighting in the conservative party over Europe was at the last election. Not europe so much as the in-fighting was the issue.

The labour party have promised a referendum providing they are re-elected but are expecting that the referendum in France will effectively kill off the ratification of the new constitutional arrangements. Although, if the French say 'non' then the Brits will probably change their minds just to annoy the French!

How much do people really understand of EU politics anyway? How many have read the proposed constitution as opposed to adopting a xenophobic mantra in response?

Regards, SGG.

My opposition isn't xenophobic,its practical ~ we need less bureaucracy not more and wanting control of our own laws and policies does not make anyone xenophobic rather its about wanting to decide our own countries destiny.
I'm not saying we'll necessarily do it any better or worse then other countries i just want us to make our own choices.

Fair enough but who is the 'our' you are referring to if not some ideal of nationality? How is the EU not 'ours'?

Regards, SGG

We're a part of the EU ~we don't control it.
What is wrong with the idea of nationality.
As for whats wrong with Europe i saw yesterday that the commiossioners etc will still be able to claim up to 5000 euros a month expenses without providing any proof or receipts.Funding the British politicians/bureaucracy is quite enough why should we have to support a second set in Brussels?

The problem with nationality is that it leads to one group of people to believe that they are better than another.

I quite agree about not funding two sets of parliaments and would much prefer to dispense with Westminster and work through regional governments represented in the EU parliament.

Regards, SGG.

Different does not mean better or worse ~ just that when two different people or countries or cultures look at a thing or event they may see it in radically different ways.

Regional governments are not the answer we need central government to set national and foreign policies.
Sometimes our interests may differ from other countries.

For instance when they began drawing up the detailed copies of the constitution they included the Falkland Islands as a British overseas territory.
Now Argentina has had each of its EU ambassadors lodge official complaints that the Malvinas should not be included.
If we did not have a national government with real power what would prevent us from being ordered to return sovereignty to Argentina.Despite the fact that the people that live there consider themselves British.The decision would not be made in the best interests of those who would be affected most rather it would be in the best interests of Europe as a whole.(the same could apply to Gibraltar)

I know this is an extreme example but it does make my point

Makes a point certainly, but that position could just as well be defended by regional representation within the EU. Why on earth we should hang onto such a distant lump of rock anyway is another argument. How can we have more in common with such a remote territory than with continental Europe?

Regards, SGG.

So you are in favour of just abandoning the British citizens who live there.
In case you didn't notice when John Presscott got his trial votes on regional assemblies last year they were roundly rejected even in safe labour areas.
The majority of people don't want them.

hit post too soon.

It's not a question about having something in common or the geographical differences ~ its about having a duty of care to members of our country no matter where they happen to reside.

I agree with pixel we should not abadone British citizens for as long as they want to remain British we should not just say tough and hand them over to over powers. When they want to go then fair enough.

Perhaps Europe isn't discussed because to do so would be to acknowledge just how much it sways our politics already.

For example, but for Chirac, there'd have been a second UN resolution on Iraq, and a legitimised invasion.
For example, mainland Europe is the conduit for most of the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers we fret about. How they are dealt with there bears directly on their arrival here.
For example, working practices and employment law relative to Europe is a main factor when organisations in the rest of the world consider inward investment to the UK. Any sensible Government will always have to moderate its employment policy and legislation against European trends.

And all three of these examples, and probably many others, don't really depend on the Constitution debate, nor even on whether we're in or out of the EC.

OK, so they are so full of devotion for their country they move to the other side of the world?

I see... this is the nationalism you are so defensive of. Brits can have all the freedoms they like to come and go as they please and should still have all the privileges of being British. Meanwhile anyone who wants to move here has to be dealt with as a dangerous alien who must abandon all ties of ethnicity and culture and sign up to British citizenship. Nice...the empire is not dead then.

Regards, SGG.

No not in favour of abandoning anyone at all. If the nationalism you espouse is so wonderful, let them come and live here if they are so proud of their heritage.

The alleged regional assembly for the North East was a complete farce which I voted against because it was in no way regional government. It was an expensive talking shop with no powers to do anything of substance except beg of Whitehall. The majority, offered real legislative authority in their regions instead of jobs for the boys I believe would produce a different outcome.

Regards, SGG.

I'm glad that the vote was carried against the regional assembly in the North, for the reasons that you give..
However, to return the the question, without sounding like a "Tree Hugging Europhile" to quote my son, and to reply to previous postings..

1) We do control the EU Parliament. We have elections, we have the chance to vote in them..

2) The laws that are discussed in the European Parliament are instigated by the Commision ( the equivalent of our cabinet) These people are selected by our own governments, the ones that we'll vote for this week

3) We have a stark choice in this (still) new millenium. We can either join with the rest of the EU, wholeheartedly, and protecting our own national interests, move forward, bearing in mind that there are many local projects in each our our cities in the UK that only exist because of EU funding (I can name at least 3 huge ones in my home city) or contemplate option 4..

4) We detatch from Europe in all ways save geogaphical accident. This is fine until the realisation hits that much employment in the UK is provided by multinational corporations on the understanding of our membership of the EU. So it's goodbye to Vodaphone.. Nissan..Toyota.. et al.. We then have no economic muscle of our own... no one to trade with at anything approaching favourable rates.. and no political allies to stand with, apart from our Uncle Sam... Now if thats what we want, then fair enough, but it really will be curtains to any economic and political independance that we may have thought we had..

"there are many local projects in each our our cities in the UK that only exist because of EU funding"

The problem is the UK feed more money into the EU that it gets out. Now why shouldn't the money go directly to these local projects instead of going through the EU system, in which it is undoubtedly discreetly skimmed off by various parties?

I see the advantage of the EU (I think everybody has to admit there ARE advantages), but the system isn't perfect. It's no-where near perfect, and has a long way to go.

Why do people always have to take things to extremes ~ the choices are not signing up to bthe constitution or withdrawing completely.
We can mainrtain the status quo.
Lets face it we aren't the only country worried about this or haven't you seen the opinion polls coming out of France lately.
The truth is there is no reason to withdraw from Europe as it is now and suggesting that we would have to is just scaremongering.
The EU was always fundamentally about trade and their is no resaon for it not to remain so.

"The EU was always fundamentally about trade and their is no resaon for it not to remain so."

Hear, hear.