The EU: Even scarier than Kilroy

[T_i_B]

Interesting article by George Monbiot, who is actually pro-EU. make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1432586,00.html

There is a group of men and women seeking to make life as difficult as possible for the progressives who support the EU. They are members not of the UK Independence party or the French National Front, but of the European commission. Whenever we try to persuade our compatriots that the EU helps to defend human rights, protect the environment and ward off the market fundamentalism of the US, they find some means of proving us wrong.

No one has wrongfooted us as deftly as a Dutchman called Frits Bolkestein, who was, until November, the internal market commissioner. In January last year, he produced a directive that claimed to be harmonising the rules governing Europe's service industries. It was promoted, as all such measures are, as a means of creating "millions" of jobs, and it could indeed help to stimulate the European economy. But it also appears to impose on member states a compulsory commercialisation of public services, while destroying their ability to defend us from corporate exploitation. It is - or was - due for approval by the end of this year.

The gremlin inhabits a clause called "the country of origin principle". Companies, it says, "are subject only to the national provisions of their member state of origin". What this means is that if a construction firm based in Lithuania is working in the UK, it need abide only by Lithuanian laws. Every enterprising corporation will want to relocate its HQ to the state with the weakest regulations.

The directive has caused a massive rumpus in almost every member nation, but not in the capital of Europhobia. Here in the UK, while entertaining our customary panics about the banning of church bells, corgis and curved bananas, we remain ignorant of the real threats to our sovereignty. That's the trouble with Eurosceptics - they're never around when you need them.

[neweurope]

1. This really is very grave. While a private citizen has to wait a

number of years before he can work in another EU country COMPANIES can bring hundreds of workers in (and they're doing it already; German butchers/workers at meat companies are already out of work). They get paid as little as they do in their homelands, protection of the workers etc. is just as bad as in their homelands - and our professionals are out of jobs. When you have to pay for an apartment in France or Germany you CANNOT work for 3 Euros/hour. This is all very convenient for big business - if only in the short run; in a couple of years nobody here will be able to afford their produce because everybody will be out of work.

Chirac and Schröder are trying to change this. But I have little hope. Europe still is much better than the US. But we're just some years behind. Things are changing rapidly and the international unions seem to be sound asleep.

----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[izzie]

2. Greed and raise to the bottom seems to be all over.

In my life time I saw the great Mills leave NE and go to SC and from there to Mex. and now I understand that they are in even cheaper places. Course look at what has happened to the govt. around the world in the same time.And that is just two items to think about. I do believe we are in the middle a revolution.

[Briar]

3. They're being changed

not just changing. Just as Thatcherism deformed the UK, so those with thatcherite interests and ambitions are setting out to deform the EU. And the UK is a major centre for these people. With US-aligned "New Europeans" getting more power in the Union, this can only become worse.

[neweurope]

5. That's what I fear - " With US-aligned "New Europeans" getting

more power in the Union, this can only become worse". I was against taking these countries aboard; I'm afraid it will hurt us greatly in soon. And yes, things are BEING changed. And the Unions sleep more or less. Why is it only international corporations see much sense in coopertaing but unions don't?

---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Selatius]

4. Corporatism is a threat to all nations and all freedoms

This should be taken as a stern warning to all representative democracies that it can happen anywhere. As a result, very strong internal checks and balances should be in place to prevent abuse, but how long would they last if all the components have been infected?

[T_i_B]

7. Checks and balances?

That is one area that I'm afraid the EU is well behind on. The EU executive is unelected and the reputation of Eurocrats for being not very unaccountable and a tad too fond of the expenses account is well known I'm afraid.

The EU needs reform, but that seems to be a long way off at present.

[aneerkoinos]

8. Wrong

The European Commission, as it is called, and which is suggested by the elected governements of the member states and then voted on by European Parliament, is accountable to the Parliament, and the sacking of the Santer's Commission and renovation of the new Commission by Parliaments incistance shows that the checks and balances do work. The system has greatly improved from days of Cresson, and new Constitutional agreement would improve it further (e.g. citizen initiative with million signatories). But what to when Governements propose candidates like Cresson and Mandelson? Sure, do as allways, blame the Brussels. But most Commissars have been doing their jobs quite well and personally I don't see much to complain with executive body with quite limited powers (initiative) in legislation, shering legislative power with two other bodies (Parliament and Counsil).

What kind of reform do the Eurosceptic Englanders suggest? An European superstate where the Governement of Europe is nominated only by the European Parliament, with no involvement of Member states? How very Eurosceptic of them... ;) Or even better, let's choose a President who appoints businessmen, generals etc. with no democratic mandate what so ever in his executive body!?

BTW, it is allways refreshing to hear whining about EU being behind in democracy from a person who lives in a country where a party with one third of the votes gets most seats and forms a strong majority governement... ;)

[T_i_B]

9. MWAHAHA!

it is allways refreshing to hear whining about EU being behind in democracy from a person who lives in a country where a party with one third of the votes gets most seats and forms a strong majority governement

Sorry, but with the UK's system I vote for a human being and not a party list. PR is a lousy system for choosing MEP's. Mind you it's thabnks to PR that Kilroy is an MEP so I guess you are getting what you deserve there.

And we haven't even mentioned postal voting scams at the last EU elections yet, and can you find the register of MEP's interests for me?

[aneerkoinos]

10. Democracy

Here in Finland we have PR where I vote human being, not party list (D'Hondt system). Also for EP-elections.

You vote from the persons nominated by the party organs, one person per party, I can choose between several persons from each party (or outside parties).

If UK cannot organize democratic elections without scams and legislate so that there is register of MEP's interests (I could find them for the Finnish MEP's), why blame EU? Fact is, yous system and your country just suck, and so does the hypocricy of trying to blame EU for the fact that it's your country that sucks. And as for policies, most of the blame for EU's strong neoliberal agenda and weak social agenda lies with UK, country practically owned by Murdoch's fascist media empire. Thanks a bunch.

And as for Kilroy, no problem, the blame lies with the stupid suckers who voted the UKIP frauds, who collect the pay and benefits, but (gladly) don't do they job by actually being present at Parliament sessions. :D

[T_i_B]

11. aneerkoinos, you are making the UKIP case here...

...better then I would ever wish to!

For one thing, I was comparing the EU elections to the UK elections and the EU elections are party lists. The proponents of PR in the UK think this is all wonderful but not everyone agrees shall we say.

And belive it or the register of MEP's interests for both UK and finland is in the same place. Now where is that aneerkoinos? And why haven't you been able to post it.

And this bit is the funniest bit of all

Fact is, yous system and your country just suck, and so does the hypocricy of trying to blame EU for the fact that it's your country that sucks.

So now rather than argue the case you are just hurling xenophobic abuse at me! How wonderful. :eyes: Why comment on the UK all the time if you think we are all a bunch of scumbags? I'm sure the folks over at Sterling Times will be hooting with laughter at your post as it proves everything they are trying to claim about the EU. And it's not like you are even trying to look at the article either!

And as for policies, most of the blame for EU's strong neoliberal agenda and weak social agenda lies with UK

Remind me again, what is the nationality of the commissioner introducing this law that the article talks about? And remind me of who spearheaded that nasty neoliberal thing called the EU single market? (which is actually be main benefit of EU membership, complete free trade is very much a neoliberal objective.). Answer, not the Brits.

[aneerkoinos]

12. Pay attention

The EU elections are nationally organized, under certain common guidelines and requirements, such as PR. There are several ways for member states to carry out the PR requirement, by voting for party lists (as in UK) or for a person (as in Finland). Your only criticism towards PR has so far been that you prefer to vote for a person instead of a fixed list, and the Finnish system allows that while producing the positive sides of PR, which are many. Your point of criticism has nothing to do with EU guidelines and all to do with your national choise, so it would seem only reasonable to expect that you target the criticism where the responsibility lies, the national legislation regarding the EU elections, in this case the UK law.

http://www3.europarl.eu.int/election/law/en/maps_en.htm

And belive it or the register of MEP's interests for both UK and finland is in the same place. Now where is that aneerkoinos? And why haven't you been able to post it.

Why should I believe anything just because you say so, after you've shown your ignorance and lack of understanding about EU? My understanding is that the registers about MEP's interests belong to the competence of national legislation, and it is your task to prove me wrong.

I don't think you are scumbags, however the politics in your country IMO suck, and even more so your media which is very much to be blamed for your ignorance about EU. I did read the article, and the good news is that the system works and the stupid suggestion was shot down. UK is not the only proponent of neoliberalism, but the most ideological and influential one, as shown by Mandelson's strong rhetorics in support of the suggestion.

Single market per se is not neoliberalism, but "free" trade without strong common social, enviromental etc regulation is. UK has been the most effective obstacle against increasing European level social regulation and higher common standards.

[glitch]

6. Thanks for posting. Monbiot is always a must-read, IMO. nt