Apparently the Treasury thinks you can. The BBC reports that the UK's net contribution to the EU is going to increase by 60% to £6.4 billion next year. That's up from £4.1 billion in 2009/10, and averages out at about £260 per UK household. According to the Beeb: The Treasury said it was right for the UK "to share the burden of membership with new accession countries".
Why should it be a burden at all? We joined the EEC (as it used to be known) for the supposed economic advantages. We've ended up as part of a power block which has all the faults of our national government on a bigger scale - bureaucratic, addicted to over-regulation, protectionist, illiberal and expensive to run. We really need to get out.
Withdrawal from the EU is not some kind of isolationist, "anti-European" policy. We will continue to trade with our friends and neighbours on the Continent, just as we've always done. They need our business and we need theirs, so we'll trade.
We need free trade - we absolutely don't need the EU.
OLAF’s power to hear witnesses
1 hour ago
26 comments:
The costs of our EU membership has to be offset against the benefits of membership. For example we get access to the Single Market, the benefits of which were estimated at £300 per person in 2002 (This figure comes from an economic study of the effect of the single market: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/
10years/docs/workingdoc/workingdoc_en.pdf). Also membership costs go into social and structural funds that help bring ascension countries up to speed economically and help cement common values such as democracy, economic freedom and respect for human rights – money well worth spending. When most of eastern Europe was liberated from the shackles of the USSR we had no qualms about providing financial support then so what is different now? As a libertarian I have no problem with arguing against big government spending but I see no problem with structural fund investment in improving transnational transport as it is a common good. There is already an anti EU party in the UK and we should leave UKIP to pursue this flawed policy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
chubbycheggers.
I will repost the response I gave to you on the LPUK forum, which outlines the LPUK view on the EU.
chubbycheggers wrote: There are many different visions of the way the EU could develop - current LPUK policy is blind to the fact that withdrawal is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Firstly, the baby and the bathwater are both bad. I have not yet seen a single EU policy which is without fear or corporate favour absolutely for the benefit of the people of the UK.
Secondly, I would have no problem with the EU developing at all - providing that every voter had the opportunity to approve it. Without that approval of the people, it is in my view illegitimate, and those who have forced this upon us, at the cost of our own sovereignty are traitors.
Lastly, the wide ranging manifesto of the Libertarian Party would not in any way be possible to implement within the EU (I just checked the entire manifesto and there is not one that the EU would allow us to do). The only way that we would be able to fulfil our manifesto promises to the voters is outside of the EU as a political structure. We would therefore work towards membership of EFTA and work alongside the EU in the same manner as Switzerland and Norway, whilst retaining our own sovereignty and be our own destinal masters.
chubbycheggers wrote: The 2009 EU of 27 nation states is not the cosy EEC club of 6 pro federalists set up in 1957.
I would suggest that if that were the case, then we would have seen 27 national referendums to let the people decide!
chubbycheggers wrote: LPUK's anti EU rhetoric makes us seem as europhobic as UKIP - a party rejected by the majority of the voters at the Euro Elections for more pro-EU parties.
I cannot remember seeing a single EU debate during the EU elections. The entire subject appears to be off limits for public consumption. Politicians will not speak of it and the media will rarely mention it.
It is not that voters rejected the anti EU argument, it is that they are generally ignorant of it, being led to believe that everything that comes out of Westminster is made in Westminster. However we know better, and it is part of our role to educate in EU matters where possible.
If we had known back in 1972 where joingthe Common Market would lead I am sure that we would never have joined.
If the Treaty of Lisbon goes through the UK along with other members of the EU will lose their national sovereignty and the EU will become a soverign state.
The struture of the EU is very similar to that found in the old Soviet Union and it looks to me as if the EU will become a very stifling place to live.
IanPJ is quite correct in saying that there has been no discussion re the Lisbon Treaty, in fact it has been stifled and one gets a feeling that we are being totally misled.
I care about the UK, the country of my birth. The French, Italians, Germans etc equally care about their countries too and I am sure that if the deception could come to light there would be much anger among the member states.
The whole EU project seems to me to be the product of Fabian's making very small changes over a long period of time to avoid those changes being noticed.
Time is now very short but something must be done to stop this large contolling state being formed. I for one wish to reclaim my liberties not give up even more to Brussels.
Tony B
Nearly 70% of the People this country are opposed to the EU as currently constituted.
It is bad enough that we have an unelected PM, who obtained his position by a Palace Coup, signing is up to this Imperial Project.
I have not been either consulted or voted for the EU, until I have it is an illegitimate organisation in my eyes.
We live in a representative democracy and it is our elected executive who negotiates treaties on our behalf which are then approved by our elected legislature. We don’t have referenda every five minutes because of our relationships with the UN, the World Bank, NATO etc – we let the government govern and if we feel they have “forced this upon us” then we are free to boot them out at the next General Election and renegotiate any treaties they have made – membership of the EU is not always and forever or why else do UKIP carry on campaigning for withdrawal. To hype up our existing politicians as traitors for following the traditional, UK constitutional way of doing things is just dishonourable.
Having said that, as a libertarian I do believe in limited government and in having a constitution that enumerates and limits government powers. If politicians want to extend the remit of the EU then, like the Irish, they need a mandate from the people first. Enshrining the right to vote on EU treaties is currently Tory party policy and they do not feel the need to advocate a withdrawal policy. In fact the majority of Irish No campaigners do not advocate withdrawal. That is because they do not want to lose the EU’s biggest benefit - the Single Market. They are prepared to stay in the club and put forward their vision of what the EU should be.
The notion that the EU could prevent LPUK from implementing its manifesto is nonsense. For example, the policy on armed neutrality and membership of NATO is not an EU competency. It is obvious that some pro EU supporters are collectivists and authoritarians but that does not mean that that vision of the EU will be the one embraced by the peoples of Europe. The policy of EU withdrawal is flawed and not in the UK’s interest and we should drop it forthwith.
chubbycheggers said: If politicians want to extend the remit of the EU then, like the Irish, they need a mandate from the people first.
And that is exactly what we have been refused. We are not the conservative party who might, er, um, possibly, maybe, but probably not have a referendum.
We have made our decision to withdraw from the EU based upon our manifesto and policy positions and their unsuitability to be enacted within the EU.
During the Lisbon Treaty debate (EU Amendment Bill) on 9th June 2008 in the House of Lords an amendment was laid, it read:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Position of the Monarch
(1) Within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament on the constitutional position of the Monarch in relation to Her people, Parliament and Ministers—
(a) prior to ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, and(b) following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.
(2) Within one month of the laying of the report, a Minister of the Crown shall move a motion in each House of Parliament that the House approves the report.
(3) In subsection (2), the reference to “one month” does not include any period of time in which the House in question is dissolved, prorogued or in recess for a period of more than four days.”
You may read the amendment and the subsequent debate here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80609-0006.htm
Not an unreasonable amendment, and one that would allay many of the present fears of the public. The amendment was rejected.
Why are the people not allowed to be told of the constitutional position of the Monarch in relation to Her people, Parliament and Ministers.
I suggest that as Lisbon comes into force on 1st Jan 2010 and the EU acquires statehood, the Queen (and by that I mean our collective sovereignty) will not have a constitutional position.
That Ireland is being forced to vote again as their original answer was unacceptable to Brussels should tell you much about how democratic this unelected body is.
I state again that in my view unless the people of the 27 states all have a vote, and that vote is binding, then the EU is illegitimate.
The EU as a political body does not carry the will of the people, it is not trusted and it is not wanted.
The difference with this treaty as opposed to the numerous commercial and defence treaties we have with the UN, the World Bank, NATO etc is that they are not seeking our sovereignty and supreme competence over our parliament and law, whereas Brussels does.
That sovereignty and the competencies of office are on loan to our parliamentarians, to be returned to the voters at least every five years - intact.
It is not within their favour to grant those competencies to others. Our leaders know this, which is why one of the first acts of Tony Blair's first parliament was to amend the Treason Act. The law may have been changed, but the intent has not.
The EU is fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism and Minarchism.
While LPUK shouldn't focus nearly 100% on it, as UKIP do, it certainly should have a strong withdrawal policy.
If it didn't, then I wouldn't accept the party was serious about freedom and limited government at all.
Well done on the tone set so far. Anyone suggesting the EU has done anything for the people of Britain, that we couldn't do ourself is either deluded, a liar or both.
Neat of CC to focus on "armed neutrality" in the EU, for even that is bogus, as we would have to pay for a pan-european military. It is like saying Lambeth was "Nuclear Free".
Further:
"We don’t have referenda every five minutes"
You are trivialising a fundamental change to, no, the ending of our Nationhood. If you do not think that the UK has lost sovereignty, you are free to kid yourself, but do not expect adults to swallow your fairy-tales.
But...
"because of our relationships with the UN, the World Bank, NATO etc"
These arrangements with said supra-national entities will be inspected. No binding agreements will be tolerated.
"To hype up our existing politicians as traitors for following the traditional, UK constitutional way of doing things is just dishonourable."
Treason is as treason does. NO MP or member of government is empowered to hand over sovereignty in whole or in part. To do so IS treasonous and traitorous. To bring in the term "dishonourable" is, I am afraid, taken by myself as an attempt to discredit any voice against the Fabian progression of the EU. If anything is "dishonourable" it is supporting a foreign entity that has a voracious appetite for National Sovereignty.
To try and suggest that the EU would "permit" our manifesto is laughable in the extreme. In fact a Libertarian government would expose their true intent, not proactively, but just by their opposition to our policies.
p.s. "democracy" is meaningless. "Rule of Law" is the key. The EU and "Rule of Law"? They would not understand it.
Roger, the EU has a completely different understanding of Rule of Law, which its parliamentarians are always banging on about. We take it to mean a fairly enforced structure of law. They take it to mean the regulation of as much as possible. Our tradition points to 'caveat emptor', they favour the 'precautionary principle'. These differences are the sources of all our current misery.
The crux of the issue is in this sentence – “We have made our decision to withdraw from the EU based upon our manifesto and policy positions and their unsuitability to be enacted within the EU.”
This is the argument that Foot and Benn took into the 1983 General Election and nobody believed it then (there worst ever result I believe) and no one will believe LPUK now. I would expect every elected UK government to pursue its manifesto commitments and press for the EU to accommodate them without fear or favour. Mrs T is the leading example of this policy. Certain member states of the EU are notorious for pushing for certain EU rules, breaking them, and then rewriting them to suit national interest – a good example is Germany and France and the Stability and Growth Pact. Why should we be any different? We only leave the club if the other members force us out. Contrast the LPUK stance with the Green Party which has an ideology and policy platform that is totally at odds to the “freedom of goods services and people” envisaged by the EU and the majority of its member states but it stays in and effectively works with others to advance its own agenda.
Matt Davies states that “The EU is fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism and Minarchism” yet gives no justification for this. I would say the EU member states commitment to creating an area of common security and law with a single free market is something Libertarians can endorse. Just as the 13 American colonies joined together to form a federal Congress to advance and protect their interests I don’t see why LPUK is so against European member states joining together to protect theirs. It is true their are many authoritarian, collectivists that promote their own agenda on the back of further EU integration but that is the reason for LPUK engaging in the EU process to promote an alternative federal, minarchist EU built on subsidiarity, the rule of law and individual rights.
chubbycheggers.
It is clear that the policy position of this party is not sinking in.
When and until the people of this country are given a voice, by way of binding referendum on political union with the EU, and the constitutional position of the Monarch, both before and after the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, in relation to Her people, Parliament and Ministers are written in clear English text that all the people can easily understand, then this party will not participate in EU affairs.
Our position will remain that we will leave the EU and work towards membership of EFTA. In other words 'a trading partnership' with other European states, that being the only permission that the people of the UK have ever given to parliament.
You can argue that Foot and Benn failed miserably in 1983 but we have had imposed upon us more than 50,000 new draconian laws since then, and we are not Labour. Further you can argue that Mrs Thatcher was a good negotiator, but we are not Conservatives and we are most certainly not flip flop LibDems.
We are not here as other parties are to garner favour with those in positions of power or to catch the quick soundbyte, we are here to stand for our principles.
One of those principles is that we view the EU as a political body as one which is corrupt, it does not carry the will of the people, it is not trusted and it is not wanted. So long as I lead this party we will not let down those who carry that belief by watering down our party constitution and manifesto.
The position that LPUK will have nothing to do with the EU unless the people are given a binding referendum on political union with the EU is a principled and admirable stance and is in stark contrast with the current political class who would advance their cause by weasel words and broken promises. However the people are not being offered this by LPUK because our manifesto already commits us to withdrawal – not on the grounds that we believe the EU is illiberal but on the grounds that it threatens our national sovereignty. I find this argument to be deeply flawed, isolationist and not in the best interests of the British people; it has nothing to do with libertarianism and more to do with narrow minded nationalism.
In an interdependent world nations have to come together to protect the environment, resist threats to international peace and security, promote free trade and investment and defend human rights, to name but a few. Each time a nation joins an international organisation or signs a Treaty, it restricts its freedom of action and thus gives up a part of its sovereignty or independence, even if only a small part. Nations are prepared to pool sovereignty in particular areas because they recognise the practical benefits of doing so. When the UK voted to stay in the Common Market (a customs union) in 1975 it is quite clear that the British people recognised this fact. Approaching common problems by participating in collective decision making with appropriate partners in reality gives countries more effective control over global events and problems than they could possibly hope to wield were they to continue to act alone.
I believe that LPUK should have a clear policy of engagement with the EU and press for a treaty that defines what limited functions the EU should have to promote peace, security, free trade, freedom of movement and environmental protection. It should advocate a federal model with the limited powers we think the state should exercise on our behalf being devolved to the lowest level possible. All treaties should have the support of the electorate in a referendum. The nationalist claptrap should be left to the little Englanders in UKIP.
chubbycheggers.
I see you speak very eloquently the language of those we oppose in the EU.
The key here is that we will be offering the British public the opportunity to OPT IN to this illegitimate club on terms acceptable to the British public, who own the sovereignty of this nation, rather than the false opportunity to opt out of forced compliance as suggested in the Lisbon Treaty.
Nationalism has nothing to do with this, and it is not a drum which we bang and feel aggrieved that you would suggest otherwise.
That sovereignty belongs to the people is the issue, and that their sovereignty is being given away by those who do not have the right or permission of the people to do so is.
The EU regionalisation programme will ensure that a collective National sovereignty will no longer exist, so to opt out at a later stage will involve doing so region by region, a prospect that is somewhat unworkable.
Which is why there are now calls from pro EU parties for the reduction of the number of MPs as Westminster's influence and power is diminished, the creation several years ago of 'regional ministers', the growing assumed powers of the Regional Development Agencies, the regionalisation of government bodies or the outsourcing to regional Agencies, the restructuring of the BBC into 9 English regions along with ITV and C4, 9 national control centres for Fire Services, Ambulance Services and the ongoing restructuring of the Police forces and the NHS into regional entities.
I know this, and I assume that as a pro-EU proponent you also know this. It is spelt out quite clearly in the Lisbon Treaty if you read and understand it.
I am just sorry that you cannot seem to accept that the policies of the Libertarian Party is to put the rights of the public above all else.
@chubbycheggars
From your comments I gather that you regard yourself as a libertarian. Also when you write "us" I assume you refer to LPUK so assume that you are a member. Did you perhaps mistake LPUK for LibDem when you applied to join?
It's still not clear why you think that continuing EU membership is in the interests of UK citizens.
It is not small-minded nationalism to wish to leave the EU; others here have made it clear that EU countries will always be important trading partners of the UK. No-one is trying to say that the UK is somehow 'better' than other EU countries in a nationalist way.
The EU IS an illiberal organisation. The 'bent bananas' directive is oft-quoted to the point of urban mythhood; but look at 'directive' (liberal language, do you think?) 1677/88 which deals in great detail with the sizes of different items of fruit and veg. Is this liberal, or adding value to the UK in any way whatsoever? I would say not. It regulates where no regulation is needed, and assumes that people cannot judge for themselves which fruit or veg they wish to purchase.
The notion that our payments to the EU give us access to the single market is all well and good, but the idea that we should have to pay to access free trade seems oxymoronic to me.
If you have any doubt that the Westminster parliament has lost its powers to Europe, the recent example of the unenforceability of the 1984 Video Recordings Act makes the point. It is perhaps ironic that an illiberal piece of legislation is not enforceable in UK law because the EU was not informed (as they had to be, under a 'directive') but there you have it - UK laws, passed by the UK parliament, are not effective until the EU is informed.
Lest this discussion start to get over-heated, I think it's important to remember that most people who are still pro-EU are just as patriotic and well-meaning as those of us who see the need to get out. I myself was pro-EU a few years ago, believing that it was possible to liberalise it. It now seems to me that there are too many vested interests in the EU setup to make that a likely option, so the best thing is to withdraw. The countries that make up what's left of EFTA seem to be doing OK - or at least as OK as anyone is in this recession.
I don't believe the EU has a future beyond a few more years. The centralising tendencies will come more and more into conflict with the desire of the various peoples of Europe to retain their independence, as well as the economic problems associated with central planning. The EU will start to come apart when the first major nation withdraws - and the countries that stay with it till the end will most likely have the worst time re-building their economies. So let's get out as soon as possible, ahead of the rush!
It could well be that once the EU's gone, a more liberal successor organisation will emerge that is more in line with Libertarian limited state ideas, but I don't see such an organisation evolving out of the EU.
Without wishing to sound to harsh, I think people who support the EU are either stupid, fascist, traitors or a combination of all three.
Sorry, that's my opinion.
Even if the EU were a libertarian organisation (which it will never be), I still wouldn't agree with it, because there is simply no need to centralise power to that degree. Centralising power is how we get into most of the messes we are in today. Even Westminster needs to be taken down a peg or 10, not go in the other direction.
I see people who support the EU as the enemy, who want to take away myt liberty and remove accountability to the people, by massive over-centralisation of power.
There is not one single thing the EU can do for us, that we couldn't do for ourselves, EXCEPT possibly impose our version of fascism on other countries one day. Sorry, but I don't want that power.
Give me a network of free small democracies, than one big centralised dictatorship any day.
The next stage of the EU Regionalisation plan, is the breakdown of Nation States.
Before too long we will again hear the calls for Scotland to become 'Independent'. To break from the UK.
Scotland may well become free of London, but as an EU region it will never break free of Brussels.
This call by the SNP, a fully fledged Europhile party is not to gain independence for the people of Scotland, but to ensure the break-up of the one Nation State that has always been a thorn in the side of the Euro-federalists.
Not too long afterwards will be calls by the 'Regions' of Wales and NI to follow suit, leaving England to be quietly broken into the 9 administrative regions for which Ministers have already been appointed.
Unless opposed, within 2 years, the UK will no longer exist. Ask Cameron, Clarke or Clegg, because this they already know.
EU Membership is the only LPUK policy that I disagree with but it is the one that apparently marks me out as "stupid, fascist, traitors or a combination of all three". Yet the leader of LPUK believes we have had "50,00 draconian laws" enforced on us although I'm sure our Ministers weren't twiddling their thumbs in those European Council meetings or those MEPs in Parliament - they may have actually voted for those "laws". Apparently sovereignty rests with the people - so long as they blindly accept LPUK's one size fits all collective National sovereignty - the fact that I can be English, British and European all at the same time within a federal system that reflects this is deemed a sell-out of my libertarian principles. I'm not even going to address the delusional points about regionalisation and a rubber stamping parliament, let alone campaign against the LPUK leadership - life's too short. My membership has just lapsed so I bid you farewell and good luck - you'll need it with IPJ in charge.
This is basically the same problem I have with most big government arguments. It requires that the public be informed and remain vigilant otherwise the wrong people get into these positions of power where they can cause a lot of damage. I mean look at who's about to sweep back into government next year, offering virtually zero change. Does it really feel like people are starting to get it?
Cheggers, there's no need for you to quit the Party over this little spat. It's true that some of the language employed in this thread has been pretty intemperate, but we're not the sort of party that requires the membership to be 100% in agreement with what the leadership say. If we were, I'd have been out long ago, because Ian knows full well that there are certain areas where I don't see eye to eye with him. There's a good variety of opinions within the Libertarian Party, and we need to keep it that way, or we'll end up no better than the LibLabCon outfits.
I think he should quit. I don't want to be on the same side as supporters of massive centralised government.
The LibLabCon are there for him.
Except of course that Cheggers is not a supporter of "massive centralised government". Note the following from one of his comments:
"I believe that LPUK should have a clear policy of engagement with the EU and press for a treaty that defines what limited functions the EU should have to promote peace, security, free trade, freedom of movement and environmental protection. It should advocate a federal model with the limited powers we think the state should exercise on our behalf being devolved to the lowest level possible. All treaties should have the support of the electorate in a referendum."
That's a libertarian statement. You and I may think they're mistaken, but people who think the EU is capable of being reformed are not "The Enemy".
If we're going to be a successful political party - and I'm fully committed to doing what I can to make sure that happens - then we have to avoid alienating people who honestly disagree with us on particular policies, especially when they're basically on our side.
@ Citizen Stuart
Thank you for actually listening to what I said and not dismissing the possibility that it is possible to support a federal Europe without comprimising ones libertarian beliefs.
@ Matt
I knew you wouldn't appreciate me turning to the dark side but I feel your intolerance of any other opinion than your own on the EU makes you the illiberal one.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8233788.stm
See I bet you they will vote for "independence" and then the downward spiral will begin.
I'll never tolerate certain issues and organisations. If that makes me illiberal, then so be it.
It's just my opinion anyway. You are free to ignore it.
Post a Comment