“Not peace at any old cost.”

Appologies to Mr Sturdy if I have breached etiquette here.

I’m glad that you appear to be wary of federalism. It seems, however, that this is going to be foisted upon us by stealth and guile whether we like it or not.

I would like to point out that WW11 was a stand against a unifying tyranny and that the sensible concern of ‘europhobes’ is that devolvement of democracy could easily lead to a bloodless coup by such a tyranny at some point in the future. In the meantime we are being asked to have absolute faith in inherent human benevolence.

I would also like to remind readers that post war peace was kept by NATO and not the EU. That it was deemed worthy of the risk of nuclear conflaguration to stand four square against an expansive Soviet Union. What is to prevent similar sovietism occuring here within the EU ? As I pointed out earlier in this thread, in fiscal terms it already appears to be a law unto itself.

In respect of our forebears, their sacrifice and their good sense: not peace at any cost.

(My appologies to you, Ellee if Mr Sturdy was to have had the last word – I understand for that reason you may want to delete this.)

I don’t have a problem with migration of workers through the EU. Free movement of people and services is one of the things which makes the EU a strong market competitor. Also, I now never have to worry about finding a plumber!

With the impending 50th anniversary this is an obvious time to question the achievements of the EU. While I agree that there are problems with the EU I think that it is important to bear in mind the initial aim which was to bring peace to the region so that nothing like WW II would happen again and to build a prosperous group of European countries, this is an achievement which we should be proud of. Having said that I am against a European Federal State and will do everything in my power to stop this.

I am a member of both the International Trade and Environment Committees and I think that these areas offer the most obvious examples of where being a member of the EU is beneficial.

The EU has a greater power on the global market than each individual country would have. This allows an even playing field on issues of trade and allows us to have a voice on issues of trade with developing countries such as my report on Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP countries currently going through Parliament.

The EU has already pioneered the Emissions Trading scheme – this is something which can be used as a way for the market to regulate its own climate responsibilities. The European Agenda is focussing on environmental issues. Hopefully this will help us to engage other countries to take the initiative to engage with their own global responsibilities to recognise and work towards this common goal.

It is easier and more effective for the EU as a whole to stand up to America on issues such as climate change or to pool resources to improve competitiveness on the global market because the EU, in that role is a more dominant figure than the individual countries would be.

I would say of the Constitution that there were actually some reasonable parts to it, for example it would have given co-decision to the Agriculture Committee which would mean that we would have been able to stop the waste of spending we have.

However, the constitution, rather than simplifying existing treaties, actually takes the Union away from the citizens of Europe, and further centralises power. It runs into thousands of pages and incorporates much strengthening of centralised power. I don’t feel that this is the best option for Britain because it is a step towards a federal Europe with the UK losing sovereignty over many policy areas.

I would like to see a new treaty simplifying the existing treaties, co-operation in foreign and home affairs on a bilateral basis, more democracy and accountability, greater practices of co-decision between the European institutions, support for international free trade to enhance the single market and a European arbitrator to enforce decentralisation.

The big difference between the United States and the EU is that, even though the states are very different from each other (geographically as well as politically) they still have their Nationality to bind them. The EU doesn’t have this.

However, it is important that we are in Europe but not ruled by Europe. It is vital that we protect the sovereignty of the UK and do not allow Europe to try and move into making decisions on all policy issues. Europe should work for the UK, not the other way around.

As to the issues raised about local and community councils and devolution – I am in favour of bringing politics closer to the people but think that there have been problems with Devolution so far. More needs to be done to address the West Lothian problem – is it fair that Scotland has autonomy over issues such as education and taxation but can vote to make decisions about these very same issues in England and Wales? The tuition fees debacle brought this issue to the forefront but nothing has been done to address it.

I hope that this answers your remarks.

Kind Regards,

Robert Sturdy MEP

Point by point:

Culture: fish … chips, cup o’ tea, Mary bleedin’ Poppins – you got it. But I’m also interested in preserving things I love about Europe – bull runs in Pamplona, Ooompa bands, French waitresses …

As for Indian, Chinese and other culture I love it (I’ve studied Okinawan martial arts and blues/flamenco guitar for years) but I don’t want it taking over. I think it would be highly unfair of anyone to accuse me of being xenephobic for saying that.

People are bored by Euro politics and that is one of the dangers of it. I don’t know who my MEP is and care even less I’m afraid.

I don’t see the US democracy as the ideal standard. In fact as Winston Churchill said there is no such thing as perfect democracy but prior to the signing of the Single European Act and Maastricht I think we were doing pretty well.

I’ve a big issue with Mr Cameron as leader and I have abandoned voting because I feel disenfranchised; for this reason I think it would be harmful for democracy if both major parties recieved State funding in order to make up for abandonment by grass root supporters; the people will never be able to get the representation that they want, perhaps that is the intention. I don’t buy it that people don’t care about politics, just look at the popularity of David Dimbleby’s Question Time.

I live in a rural/coastal area and both farming and fishing have been blighted by the CAP and fisheries policies – I am no longer a Tory supporter by the way, so their gains with regard to personal funding are of no interest to me, they couldn’t be more diminished. Here I should state that I am appalled at our loss of border control and the Human Rights Act (HRA) which has wreaked havoc in our criminal justice system. The HRA was, of course, brought in to converge with European legislation.

‘One shoe fits all’ ? I see nothing but devolvement of democracy away from these shores and a devaluation of each and every vote.

As for the fragmentation of party representation you speak of, I see no relevance as they all conform to what is acceptable in Whitehall(ergo Europe) and not to what the electorate actually want (this statement is validated by low voter turnouts and loss of party membership/funding)

I doubt very much that my view of what is ‘English’ differs from 59 million others, I really do. Why not have a referendum on the continuance of EU membership to find out ? But I think we know the answer to that one already, don’t you ?

I don’t wear glasses BTW. I hope this reply fits your standards of cogency, Qasar 9, and my unaided eyesight is good enough to convince me that your statement at No5 pertained to xenephobia against Poles.

What is wrong with an EU Constitution?
What do you call culture? tea and cucumber sandwiches? flat beer and Real Ale? Fish & Chips? Driving on the left? Speaking English?

Is the EU stopping you enjoying cucumber sandwiches, or tea from China or India?, Real Ale or fish & chips.
It is certainly unlikely to stop you driving on the left, unless you cross the channel. And the English tend to apeak english even if and when they are in Spain (El Dorado), Portugal, France or Germany, and I dare say Poland et al.

Democracy is a ‘limited term’ at the best of times. Did you vote for Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party – not all conservatives did. We know the government at any time is elected by less than half the ‘voting’ pop, and the PM by less than a quarter.

And yes the election of MEPs in a Region is not very democratic – the election of MEP candidates list even less so.

And Bush got elected by such a small margin, no one knows how many chats were counted twice.

If you would have said he is the prime example of the real dangers of a European suprastate I would agree. But the funds created by the EU for regional development funds, and even the corrupt agricultural subsidies … mainly go into the pockets of ‘conservative’ voters, don’t you see – mainly because they know how to fill in the forms, and are informed of the funds available.

We all know ‘the one shoe doesn’t fit all’ argument, but how do you create EU wide policies for aviation and the environment, for employment and housing legislation, unless you have an EU ‘government’ of representatives.

Yes you can have a labour government and a conservative county council and a lib dem City Council as in the case of Cambridge Cambs uk.
And to me it seems they are all pursuing the same agendas – just criticise or blame each other over the differences in policy or budgets

So you could end up with a conservative dominated EU, with socialist (Labour) dominated governments, and a handful of libdem or green dominated local councils – and why not

PS – Remember your view of englishness probably differs with at least the views of 59 million others. Your views on what conservatism IS probably differ with at least 59% of conservatives, and your views on any subject in life the same. Any significant democratic majority is only ever achieved on ‘single issues’ – the rest of the time it is an assortment of compromises – and sometimes they are just a protest vote, or because there is nothing other to vote for.

Your justification of EC on the basis of our past hegemony seems to be based on the concept that ‘two wrongs make a right’ rather like the pro-cannabis lobby, “Alcohol is destructive, so why not legalise drugs as well ?”.

The lack of correspondents on this thread is probably a good indication of how the EC affects people, even those of mild political interest – Zzzzzzzzzz, better than Horlicks !

So what is wrong about the constitution is that it ties us into and institution which is very dubious as I have pointed out in terms of corruption, false agendas and withdrawal of democracy. If it matters to you it is also about the standardisation of culture too.(That matters an awful lot to me, though there’s not much of our culture left now)

As for ‘xenephobia’ I fail to see how you can be xenephobic about an institution – this is even more ridiculous than saying an ‘institution can be racist’. And can we please refrain from ad homenyms which include ‘phobia’ as it can be inferred quite unfairly that rational skeptics are suffering from a delusional illness – not the way to argue democratically I’m afraid, but sadly a common tactic from the pro EC camp which says a lot more about it that it does about detractors.

Criticising the follies of the EU is fine, but ignoring the good things about the EU is absurd

People historically like to ‘rule’ over others, but are not themselves keen on being ruled at by others. Scotland does equally ask what has London got to do with Scotland.

And I repeat the question, what is wrong with an EU Constitution?