The UK and the EU: in or out of the Union? | euronews, the network
The UK and the EU: in or out of the Union? | euronews, the network
The problem with the EU is that it is changing what it wants to be and that change irritates those countries that have differing agendas across areas where EU agreement in participation is not guraranteed such as defence. The UK is not alone to some extent with this viewpoint, the Nordic members are in a similar position regarding the mission that the EU has. So what is the purpose of the EU and where is it going. Well it was a European Economic Community, based on breaking down trade barriers and valuing the ability to buy and sell on a cross-border basis, without excessive red tape. What it is becoming is a supra-national state encompassing all the remits of a normal national parliament of economics, internal relations, foreign relations, defence, education etc. Put together with a situation where there are multiple currencies in a free market global economy and you increase the tensions, as valuations are dependent upon what the exchange rate states at any particular moment. Then take the relative net contributions for the EU budget and the supposed lack of an efficiency saving protocol or process within the bureaucracy and you have more problems. Even with the rebate, the United Kingdom is one of the highest contributors, more so than other similarly sized economies such as France and Italy. Then there is the difference in the interpretation of EU Directives and their national legalisation. You can see this as a tourist even. I would contend that the UK has been more strict in applying such Directives, and I would even go as far as the size and shape of bananas as a case in point, in comparison to the other nation states, especially France. Then there is the issue of the British foreign and defence interests that the EU would have no interest in. The best example would surely be the Falklands, where there is explicitly a duty on the UK to protect the citizens living there. Now Spain might have changed their opinion of Argentina, but it would have been inconceivable twenty years ago in the early 80's that Spain would have supported the UK in the conflict that took place at that time.
Therefore, the EU needs to define itself. As has been stated elsewhere, the Norwegian solution is in fact no solution. The practice would still have to be made without the representation. The EU is a very large marketplace and to be able to trade within it and with it is imperative to all multi-national operating companies, whether Statoil from Norway, or Swatch from Switzerland. For the UK to have any influence on the EU political process, there is no option but to remain within. I believe that even with the significant cultural differences between the states, the inherent need is for a more efficient process throughout the EU political network, together with equitable contributions and a consistency of legal application. Naturally consideration would have to be given to the foreign interests of each state that would not be supported by any EU defence force that could arise, but then perhaps a reflection needs to be made as to how far the EU is going in terms of its struture and policy. For the Euro, the crisis continues and it can only be right that countries such as the UK can only consider entry if and when there is consistency. If you were to compare the US, the rich and poor states have significant differences, and as theories of economic redistribution do not work, then positive change cannot happen. The EU could be moving in the same direction if it is not look out.
The problem with the EU is that it is changing what it wants to be and that change irritates those countries that have differing agendas across areas where EU agreement in participation is not guraranteed such as defence. The UK is not alone to some extent with this viewpoint, the Nordic members are in a similar position regarding the mission that the EU has. So what is the purpose of the EU and where is it going. Well it was a European Economic Community, based on breaking down trade barriers and valuing the ability to buy and sell on a cross-border basis, without excessive red tape. What it is becoming is a supra-national state encompassing all the remits of a normal national parliament of economics, internal relations, foreign relations, defence, education etc. Put together with a situation where there are multiple currencies in a free market global economy and you increase the tensions, as valuations are dependent upon what the exchange rate states at any particular moment. Then take the relative net contributions for the EU budget and the supposed lack of an efficiency saving protocol or process within the bureaucracy and you have more problems. Even with the rebate, the United Kingdom is one of the highest contributors, more so than other similarly sized economies such as France and Italy. Then there is the difference in the interpretation of EU Directives and their national legalisation. You can see this as a tourist even. I would contend that the UK has been more strict in applying such Directives, and I would even go as far as the size and shape of bananas as a case in point, in comparison to the other nation states, especially France. Then there is the issue of the British foreign and defence interests that the EU would have no interest in. The best example would surely be the Falklands, where there is explicitly a duty on the UK to protect the citizens living there. Now Spain might have changed their opinion of Argentina, but it would have been inconceivable twenty years ago in the early 80's that Spain would have supported the UK in the conflict that took place at that time.
Therefore, the EU needs to define itself. As has been stated elsewhere, the Norwegian solution is in fact no solution. The practice would still have to be made without the representation. The EU is a very large marketplace and to be able to trade within it and with it is imperative to all multi-national operating companies, whether Statoil from Norway, or Swatch from Switzerland. For the UK to have any influence on the EU political process, there is no option but to remain within. I believe that even with the significant cultural differences between the states, the inherent need is for a more efficient process throughout the EU political network, together with equitable contributions and a consistency of legal application. Naturally consideration would have to be given to the foreign interests of each state that would not be supported by any EU defence force that could arise, but then perhaps a reflection needs to be made as to how far the EU is going in terms of its struture and policy. For the Euro, the crisis continues and it can only be right that countries such as the UK can only consider entry if and when there is consistency. If you were to compare the US, the rich and poor states have significant differences, and as theories of economic redistribution do not work, then positive change cannot happen. The EU could be moving in the same direction if it is not look out.
Comments
Post a Comment