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

I've heard a couple of reports about the UK considering whether it should remain in the EU, and that there may be a referendum on the issue.

I'm curious about views of Europeans on these issues. The US seems to be get reluctant to surrender sovereignty, whereas Europeans seem to be more amiable to cooperation.

I'm especially interested as I'm taking classes on international criminal law right now. Last night in classI was a bit surprised by some the differences between here and Europe.

Yes we should.

Prime Ministers should not play (internal) party politics with matters like this at this time.

Cameron has spotted the threat that UKIP pose to his party. He is pandering to the euro-sceptics in his party and euro-sceptic Tory supporters and is seeking to head them off at the pass.

Cameron doesn't believe that we should be out. None of the other traditional party leaders think we should be out.

This will appeal to Mail and Experss readers in the main. They forget that we are a small island off the coast of Europe sometimes.

PP.

Express. So far as I am aware there is no newspaper called The daily Experss.

Express. So far as I am aware there is no newspaper called The daily Experss.

PP.

!

PP.

.. Maybe when the daily express get bought by the Guardian, there will be?


What I, being a French person who likes to travel to the UK, would like to see, is the UK entering the Eurozone. Would be sooooo much more convenient.
... But I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am not from the UK, but I live in the EU. In my experience the EU is a very popular target for right wing parties. They want to tell us that before the EU everything was better, that everything is just the fault of the EU and we're better off without it. That the EU is only stealing our money, that we don't get anything back from them. The EU is a very popular target, and there are enough people who easily fall for speeches like that because of course in the past everything was better and in the past we didn't have a EU.

And then there are these poor lost souls who stand somewhere on town squares or railway stations and such, holding signs saying 'let us leave the EU', collecting signatures from people, which they intend to send to some politician, or parliament as a whole or whatever.

This debate has been going on here ever since we first applied for membership and De Gaulle said Non. The main problem is that there are two conflicting ideas (in this country anyway) of what the European Union is supposed to be: a very large free-market area or a political federation which keeps the debate neatly and irreconcilibly divided between left and right wings. There has always been a perception that we, for some reason, lose out in various ways by being open to the EU (and that this will get even worse when Romania joins). National sovereignty is a bit like religious faith; very powerful until you examine it closely when it tends to evaporate. Regionalism (and not just Scottish nationalism) may well prove stronger.

I think the answer is probably yes. But I honestly don't know a huge amount about it, and I do think some EU institutions are in serious need of change and reform. But if there were a vote tomorrow I don't feel qualified to express anything other than a provisional opinion.

I'm worried about a referendum, because I think the percentage of people who actually understand the issues is really very small and because I don't expect a referendum will come with any serious attempt to enlighten people on the facts of the matter. When we have a large chunk of the media with a track record of just making stuff up, or distorting things out of all proportion, I place little faith in the chances of a sensible debate.

I also don't think it makes sense to ask people to vote for or against the status quo without setting out what the alternatives will be. If the UK leaves the EU, will it remain in the free trade area? Will it still be involved in EU-level research initiatives? What will this mean for freedom of movement and to work abroad? What will it mean for EU students coming to the UK to study? Can BBC4 still show Scandinavian drama?

on a personal level if the UK leaves the EU and it causes me problems with employment and generally living here it will be the final push for me to get a German passport (which is easier to get and cheaper... actually I should consider it anyway)

On a larger level, I think Otto is right in that there are several European Union institutions that are in desperate need of reform, starting with the requirement to have parts of it in Strassbourg for part of the time.

I also wonder if there will be any accurate information out there for people to make their decision. Or if, in the end, it will come down to the Sun and the Mail giving people their opinion.

sorry, I forgot to say: getting back to Two Bit's OP, what are the differences that really surprised you?

Isn't it strange that after all these years, very few people in the UK seem to understand what being in the EU means and even less give a damn -

"Cameron made the assertion ... “Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high,”

Ipsos MORI has been asking British adults to name the most important issues facing the country since 1974. The peak for naming European issues was in April 1997, when it was cited by 43 percent of voters, second behind education. This month it was named by 2 percent." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/cameron-statement-on-u-k-attitudes-to-eu-questioned-by-polls.html

Cameron's lying and people just don't really care

I think the EU has a very real problem with democratic accountability and I feel Europeans have very different expectations of their politicians. Mind you, given the European fondness for extremism, totalitarianism and dictators, that's maybe unsurprising.

Personally, I don't think it's a case of "In or Out". Norway is out but mirrors EU policies on so many levels just because it makes sense to do so. I would expect Britain out of the EU to do the same. All the threats of economic disaster is imo scaremongering - the EU is run to make a profit and the UK has 60-odd million consumers eager to buy Audis and bacon and whatever it is the French make. No jobs will be lost, no deals will falter, the wheels will keep on turning.

However, the point is moot. The Tories won't win the next election.

What's surprising? Some civil law notions.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. I've been studying at work while a tech was fixing my computer. The portion I was reading involved the conspiracy charge that was promulgated for Nuremberg. Under US law, if you enter into a criminal conspiracy, you're liable for any crime committed by that conspiracy. That's like the bread and butter of dope work, especially at the federal level. In the text I'm reading, it states the following:

During much of the discussion, the Russians and French seemed unable to grasp all the implications of the concept; when they finally did grasp it, they were genuinely shocked. The French viewed it entirely as a barbarous legal mechanism unworthy modern law, while the Soviets seemed to have shaken their head in wonderment -- a reaction, some cynics may believe, prompted by envy.

I have a visiting professor from Turkey who assigned reading from the Turkish criminal procedure code. As I was surprised to see a legislated code dealing with undercover operations. In the US, the states have affirmative defenses against entrapment that could limit how undercover officers act, but I've never seen a statute governing the use of undercover officers or confidential informants. The main control comes from agency policy (that I wrote).

The whole notion of the ECHR seems odd to me, since sovereign nations are allowing an entity outside of themselves to govern their rights. I instictually don't like that, but I'll learn more as I read some of their cases.

Our Turkish professor spoke of crimes that have to be punished. I've never thought of a crime that must be punished. The US system of justice seems like it's geared towards screening out cases to keep them from being punished.

Another concept that he mentioned was the notion of two types of interrogation, one to investigate crimes and one to prevent crimes. He used an example of a kidnapper in Germany who was supposedly tortured by the police to determine where the victim had been concealed. I'd considered cases like that from TV, and I've done threat amusements that included interviews, but I never thought of it as an interrogation. Maybe it's just a difference in language.

I'm still processing some of what I've been reading. It may take me a while to really think everything through.

I'm all in favour of this referendum.

That way we can have the vote, get to stay in Europe and the UKIP and John Redwoods of this world can STFU. For the latter thing alone it's worth the entry fee.

<>

Not forgetting the Arthur Scargills, Scottish Socialists, Respect Party and the Socialist Workers Party

"Under US law, if you enter into a criminal conspiracy, you're liable for any crime committed by that conspiracy."

In the UK, there's controversy over a law known as "joint enterprise" which seems to be largely used against criminal gangs. Roughly, if you and I were to go as part of a group to some kind of fight and I fatally stab someone, you're as much to blame as I am. I think there have been cases in which the killer has been under 18 and therefore served a shorter sentence than someone over 18 who was there but played no part in the violence. Oddly, I'm not sure if 'joint enterprise' extends to white collar crimes like fraud.

"The whole notion of the ECHR seems odd to me, since sovereign nations are allowing an entity outside of themselves to govern their rights. I instictually don't like that, but I'll learn more as I read some of their cases. "

ECHR needs to be understood in context to make any sense. A lot of the moves towards closer European ties were motivated by a desire to make future wars impossible - or at least much harder. I believe that Churchill was considering formal union between the UK and France at one point in the early years of the war. Europe regarded itself as the cradle of civilisation, learning and enlightenment... yet had triggered two world wars and mass devastation. What went on in Germany under the Nazis - one of the world's most advanced countries industrially, scientifically, and culturally - must absolutely not be allowed to happen again.

I guess one way of looking at it was as a kind of insurance - you give up a bit of sovereignty over your own affairs to get a bit more oversight over other people's. In any case, if you're the open, fair, 'majority rule, minority rights' liberal democracy that you claim to be, there's very little to worry about.

European Human Rights Law seems to be widely disliked in the UK, but that's because people don't understand it and it has been (deliberately) misreported. So... some lunatic case is brought, headlines of outrage are generated, often misleadingly giving the impression that it will succeed/has succeeded. But when the case gets nowhere, it gets not a mention. I've regularly challenged people to point out to me which of the Human Rights they disagree with, and usually answer comes there none....

It's also (wrongly) seen as something external imposed upon us.... actually the UK was one of the prime movers behind it...

I may have been overly frivoulous there (although I would like to see the eurosceptics STFU for sure).

I more or less agree with what Otto said. I don't know all the issues either but there certainly is a level of problems with various institutions in the EC that need sorting out. But isn't that true in any governmental system also?
I'm largely not in favour of the single currency though I have to say. As a scientist I do experiments and if they work -all well and good - if they don't we try something else. Just about every time they try the single currency thing or an equivalent (ERM, the EURO) - it goes absolutely pear shaped and yet they keep on banging on with it. As far as I can tell *that* is a political federal panacea and not a good economic reality. Nice and convenient it may be at customs but I don't think the greeks and spaniards are necessarily better off for having been in it.

Is Arthur Scargill still going?

After a fashion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/arthur-scargill-ordered-to-pay-rent-as-he-loses-fight-to-have-union-pay-for-london-flat-for-life-8428774.html

"Nice and convenient it may be at customs but I don't think the greeks and spaniards are necessarily better off for having been in it."

It is not the Euro to blame for their problems but the things they did on their own in their own country. What is rather true - in my opinion - is that there has to be a power above the single countries that monitors things like that more closely. And some countries are just not really ready for something like the Euro, like for instance Spain and Greece it seems.
I don't see the Euro as a failed experiment at all