Lord Elpers wrote:
The government voted to join the EEC.... as in European Economic Community. A couple of years later the public voted to remain in the EEC but it was at the time understood to be what it was ie: an economic free trading club.
After De Gaulle had repeatedly said "Non" to UK entry and when Pompidou became President of France, the French stance shifted towards allowing the UK in as a member but only as part of a deal deepening monetary union, co-operation on foreign policy and the CAP.
I doubt this ecaped the notice of the UK government or their negotiation team at the time.
Lord Elpers wrote:
It is true that the political leaders of France and Germany harboured political and perhaps federalist ideas but not all members were committed to closer union ...
See above and re-read your history.
Lord Elpers wrote:
... and the European public were not given the chance to say if they were committed to a closer union.
After the above (which was widely reported), the UK public voted 2 to 1 to stay in.
Lord Elpers wrote:
... The greed of the EU politicians and bureaucrats could well be worse than the in UK but as the EU accounts have not been independently signed off for many years we may never know! And we do not have unelected and unaccountable commissioners who wield enormous power and spend the public´s money like water.
As the commission is responsible for approx. 20% of the errors in the accounts and the member states for the other 80% ... and that the error rate is now down to about 4% (I may be slightly out on that last bit) and, as the auditors confirm that most of the errors are reclaimable, the non-sign-off is not all the EUs fault.
There may well be Commissioners claiming for moat-cleaning, duck-house repair and mortgages that they don't have but I don't see that as a reason to withdraw from the EU any more than I see it as a reason to withdraw from Westminster.
Lord Elpers wrote:
... By the way I have lived and worked in 3 different EU countries for 12 of the last 30 years
I have worked in Spain and Germany for more than a year each at a stretch and have made many, many business visits over the last twenty years ... and your point is ?
Lord Elpers wrote:
... The performance, or should I say lack of performance, regarding the Euro crisis has shown the serious problems that have to be overcome before any talk of further integration.
I think you are fairly isolated in that view as most economic literates agree that the lack of fiscal integration was what let down the Euro. i.e. The Euro cart was put before the fiscal integration horse.
Lord Elpers wrote:
... The EU has grown uncompetitive in part due to its own stringent regulations on business and has serious problems of debt with no real plan to solve it other than real austerity.
Ah, a Farage favourite, this one.
The truth is that that the EU abolished and/or harmonised tens of thousands of individual nations' rules, regulations, tariff and non-tariff barriers making it far easier for them to trade within and outwith the EU. This enormous task was completed ahead of schedule and under-budget.
If you are referring to social and employment law, ask yourself why it is that when the UK had an opt-out for the working-time directive, Germany still out-performed it whilst complying with the directive ... strange eh?
Also ask yourself, why the UKs trade with both the EU and the USA rose during that time?
The idea that the UK is being strangled by EU red tape is actually the opposite of the truth ... EU harmonisation has been of enormous help.
However, I would agree that austerity is being relied upon far too heavily by the EU and I would (and often do, on this very message board) level the same charge against the UK government.
But we are straying from the topic of federalism and subsidiarity here.
Subsidiarity would push MORE power to the local level than we in England are allowed by Westminster at the moment.
Federalism is not solely an EU possibility, the UK could be a federation, this could be a political solution for the West Lothian question, for example.
