This may seem out of the blue but in conversation the other day the topic of the Strasbourg seat of the EU parliment came up. Now the way I see it MEP's having to move staff, equipment and themselves hundreds of miles is just rediculous. Is there any pressure that not just citizens but political parties could put on the EU to force the abandonment of the Strasbourg seat?

What a good idea!

How about leaving the EU, then it wouldn't be our worry, or cost!

Whilst I generally agree that the EU does not serve the UK's best interest it has been an important factor in the development of our economy and those of our continental neighbours. The point I was trying to raise was just how wasteful the EU is. Therefore would it not be in our best interests to break away now? If the EU continues to abide by legislature that is extremely out of date, such as the part that advocates the Seat in Strasbourg, is it going to cause problems down the line?

From my perspective I really don't see how dramatic change in the EU can come about from a change in Governments (i.e. Labour to Conservative etc) as long as the individual members of the EU (i.e. Joe Public) don't show that they want change. Change doesn't often come from the top in democracy. When it does it is often change for the worse. We as individuals need to stand up and force change through the democratic proceedure. However as with many things most people I have met seem to think that the only governance that matters is that of the UK Parliment!

It is total lunacy to maintain the Strasbourg seat if for no other reason than the cost of commuting between Strasbourg and Brussels. But this is par for the course as far as the European project is concerned.

I have grave reservations about membership of the EU partly because I recognise it is expensive to maintain two people within a command structure who are essentially doing the same job but in different places. There is too much job share, which while workable and expedient at the lower end of the job market, becomes a beaurocratic expense unnecessary at the top level of European management.

I do not favor the idea of any Treaty being called a 'Constitution'. Any treaties under discussion regarding the framework through which European nations construct a set of guidelines for streamlining the administration of the European Parliament, would be more acceptable if refered to as a Treaty of Affiliation, where each nation is not subsumed into an all encompassing document to which they may only agree with in part.

I don't think we can escape the idea that the UK will need to work with it's European allies and there are some ideas that would be worth further consideration, not least of which being the idea of ending the rotating Presidency, it is not in the best interests of any command structure to have a regular turnaround of leadership.

What we are witness to is hardly the vision of President Ciampi for an integrated Europe but more a Continent betrayed by leaders whose axis of self interest has left the people betrayed, despairing and alienated.

It is to my chagrin that political parties neither have the vision nor the common sense to rise to a challenge that is the reason d'etre for their very existence.

Another problem is the one million signiture petition needed to approach the Commission, although strictly speaking in a Multi-National entity like the EU 1m people is nothing considering that the UK is home to 60m+

Astro sometimes I agree with you and other times I don't.

I certainly go along with resistance to ANY European Constitution and 1 permanent fixed term President.

I also agree with the whole Theme in that the maintenance of 2 European Capitals is extremely expensive and wasteful.

But I would love to believe in the dream of Europe (rather than the fact) The idea of clasping all and sundry to our bosoms exclaiming "Mon Frere" is one appealing to me.

But reality is far otherwise.

Europe is currently a wasteful ogre that looms over all and taints the spirit of all.

We need to turn it around and Astro I agree.. I see no real vision at the moment.

But one hopeful sign to me is the movement by DC to found another European centre right Party. One step one very ponderous slow step at a time.

Rats!!!

My opinion of petitions is less than complimentary. For example 1.7 million petitioned Downing St regarding road pricing. They got an e-mail in return and a few platitudes.

Sorry but I don't think the EU is going to take much notice of a million signatures when they're proposing member state votes are based on "A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union."

so 1 mill. represents how much influence at a European level?

A complete nonsense from top to bottom. Exit and save £billions!

The only people who want it are the snouts-in-trough political classes.

jonjii - how boring it would be if people always agreed!

but lets not go there regarding clasping a brotherhood to my bosom

:))

rats is star backwards .... which I would see reflected in the rune 'Is' and the tarot card the 'hanged man' which is ruled by Neptune (the master of disguise).

'Is' counsels caution and asks us to metaphorically freeze all plans as to continue would be foolhardy. It denotes that things have gone on for too long and does not augur well for the future... it is a rune that means the same whichever way up it appears as its shape is the same in reverse.

the hanged man denotes a period of temporary suspension of activities and offers the chance to look at things from a different persepective by inverting commonly held truths.

Today Neptune is trine the Sun ... so I am suspending judgement for the time being and would agree that one very ponderous slow step at a time is probably the best option .. until things become clearer.

The original idea of Europe as an "Economic Community" ie one where the various countries could trade with eachother across national borders without protective tariffs or other charges interfering was a good one and one that I'd agree with.

Unfortunately the current monstrosity has gone way beyond that and there are some who seem to have a vested interest in creating a "European Superstate" with its own taxes and armed forces and president and government which is something I most certainly would not agree with at all.

IMO more needs to be done to curb the power of the EU before it takes over entirely and our already minimal influence over our national governments gets even further diluted to the effect that the entire operation gets run by a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats and controlled by multi-national companies who have the money to make their voices heard.

In Reply to ASTROCAT
Actually Article I-47(4) which has been nicknamed the 'citizen's initiative' states

"Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of it's powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the union is required..." (European Convention, 2003)

So it is more detailed than 1m signitures however, the UK government does not legally have to acknowledge any petition with formal action, the Commission does have to acknowledge a petition regardless of whether it acts or not. Therefore, it would theoretically be harder for the Commission to ignore petitions than it is for the UK government.

As a hypothetical what do you imagine would happen if the UK were to withdraw from the EU? Here's my belief.

1) The UK's Sovereignty would be fully restored
2) The tide of foreign workers would be curbed
3) Our economy could fall due to lack of CAP + associtated subsidies
4) The EU would collapse. With almost a fifth of the money being withdrawn from the EU they are no longer able to support the smaller piddly eastern states. Ergo Collapse.

In short withdrawing from the EU would be no where near as simple as it sounds, the UK would face economic instability for an indeterminate period of time and the EU would most likely collapse meaning that other countries would become more powerful and wealthy.

In principle, I'm the lone voice here (apparently) in favour of the EU, BUT it needs a top to bottom re-organisation. No one seems to be in control, for obvious reasons, and without that it will continue to be seen as financially grossly obscene from the outside in.

It is time for an overhaul, a new constitution/Treaty, which means that the major states need to get together and agree a new strategy that doesn't overly favour one nation over another (cough, France).

I agree completely with all that you have said. The treaty of Rome (The foundation of the EU) MUST be abandoned completely if the EU is to survive and adapt in what is becoming a new more conscious world. However, may I point out that all political systems work...on paper. No matter how you re-organise a political system you will never get a perfect result. Humans by our very nature are too different and greedy. There will alway be corruption or bias of some form with any government or political system.

Might I pose another question Tizzy? How would you re-organise the EU and could you guarantee that your system would not garner as many complaints as the current system?

Crikey, Martin, give me a day to put together something resembling a coherent reply - bit late tonight! But I can answer the second part immediately: no system is perfect and I can guarantee that some will feel more disaffected than others in the short to medium term.

Appologies I am up late working on my assignment for the Governing Europe course that I am doing so am neck deep in the EU atm!

Tizzy - you are not alone. I think the EU is a good thing too.

Martin

You say, theoretically it is more difficult for the Comission to ignore petitions. I'm sorry but that doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Theoretically pulling out of the EU.

The problem as I see it boils down to a simple logic. Where I believe the EU made a political mistake was in its approach. They should have sought to celebrate cultural difference rather than try to homogonise nation states. Each nations culture is separate and distinct from another and yet bureaucratic regulation seeks to crush this intrinsic and deeply felt identity.

This national identity is vital and the right of self-determination for any nation is imperative. When people feel they are loosing control and handing legislative power to an external body who demands compliance, it evokes deep feelings of mistrust almost akin to being an occupied country. This is where I feel the Union has failed.

I don't think withdrawal from the EU would necessarily be as dramatic as you make it sound from a financial perspective. A lot of UK business is in financial services which may even benefit from de-regulation from the EU. We are no longer a major manufacturing nation consequently we rely on a lot of imports from both EU and non EU countries which may indeed put more strain initially on the economy but as I said elsewhere, this doesn't seem to have affected the economy of Denmark too much.

As for the collapse of the EU, in some ways I think it's continued growth and taking on the less financially viable nations will lead to a collapse anyway. From the Roman empire to the Napoleonic wars to Nazi Germany - every time an ideology has tried to centrally rule Europe it has failed. It is utter madness to believe that this will not ultimately result in a similar fiasco.

Tizzy
I too am on record as supporting the ideal of the EU... just not it's overbearing intrusion into the internal affairs of it's members.

See quote on other thread "Democracy is not Freedom" which thread I commend.


Ronald Reagan

Well the EU has expanded beyond it's utility.

So good luck in putting together your vision for a slimmed down Europe.. I look forward to readingh it and hope, given time I can make a positive contribution.

But 2 principles I would like to give up front.

1. Smaller, less bureaucratic is better.

2. Think of the No's List the items that Europe should not try and do

Astrocat

I do not believe that anyone is able to say exactly what the economic fallout would be if we withdrew, which is why I said indeterminate period of time. Further I would go so far as to say that if we did pull out of the EU now the ramifications for the UK would be less than if the EU collapsed, surley it would have a worse effect on us.

As for trying to centralise governance of Europe. That was not the original goal of the ECSC and in fact I believe a return to just a free trade community would make far more sense than the current entity (EU).

Martin,

I agree with your comments. It is impossible to quantify the economic impact of withdrawal but one positive that may come from it might be that we as a nation might invest in our own agriculture and fisheries instead of subsidising others.

I would agree extracating oneself early from the EU would be preferable particularly as its financial irregularities are currently running at about 1 billion euros and whose accounts have yet to be legally audited. As one of the largest contributors to the EU upon whom is placed more and more pressure to contribute to its expansion, I am less than happy that UK taxpayers money is either fraudulently or incompetantly managed.

Tizzy

Did you watch the EU debate put forward by Lord McNally this afternoon in the House of Lords?

It was really good, I enjoyed it.

Part of the discussion was the Eu's role in looking outwards to deal with a variety of problems such as the Middle East, developing industrial nations, climate change and so on, but it would seem to me that before the EU can be a driving force for constructive change in these areas, it needs to get it's own house in order first and as one noble lord pointed out; it is morally repugnant to spend more on subsidising cows than it is on aid to the 3rd world.

I think the time will come when we have to start looking beyond aspiration to the actual mechanisms; where they are failing and where they are successful. It is pointless to keep ammending treaty after treaty if the substance at the core is morally bancrupt.

I believe that part of the problem that is faced here is that the EU has a representative to the G8 summits. Because of this it is amlost forced to look forward. The EU therefore should be looking at what it can do for the 3rd World.

However, let us not forget that the EU cut the system of 'dumping' excess food stocks on 3rd world nations. So whilst the EU and CAP created the problem of 'dumping' it did make a substantial effort to rectify the situation.

Going back the whole Strasbourg thing for a moment. The only way that this really quite wasteful move will be stopped is to bring it onto the public agenda. How is the best way to do that?

I propose:

1) A campaign to show that it is merely French vanity that perpetuates this situation.

2) Begin an active campaign by MEP's who oppose it whereby they refuse to pack up and actually move. They should stay put in Brussels, and simply refuse to move. The resultant press scrum would push the issue high up the European agenda. And as more and more MEP's got involved the Parliament would be less and less able to actually do any effective business in Strasbourg. As it became a more and more embarrassing issue for both the EU and France, eventually they would give in and stop it, whether the French liked it or not.

3) Lets all stop complaining, become MEP's, and jump on the sweet sweet gravy train ourselves.

Weel those are some interesting proposals and I do agree that it is French vanity. The French have held a sway for too long they need to be knocked off their pedastal.

What a shame it doesn't make as much effort to rectify its accounts. Has Defra balanced its books for 2005/6 yet? or do agricultural subsidies still continue to go walkabout?

Perhaps if the European Parliament were willing to hold member states finance ministers to account we may find untold amounts of cash for the 3rd world, but for as long as members of the Commission refuse to hold anyone to account and deny allegations of fraud - how can we the public be expected to have any confidence that the EU is open, transparent and accountable.

More to the point when it comes down to transparency and accountability, the person suggested for the role of Foreign Minister, Mr. Solana (although how you can be a foreign minister of 27 countries at the same time I don't know) is the very same person who failed to give details to MEP's about the CIA rendition flights in Europe and whose report contained omissions and denials.

This is fraud and corruption at the highest level and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out the central european bank complicit because it certainly didn't inform anybody when the US started snooping through its financial transactions.

If I was a Zurich gnome, I'd be getting very nervous right now. The UK governments spending and borrowing is at the highest levels since 1997 with a tripling of house prices, record amounts of personal debt, inflation and interest rates increases. European expansion and development is not sustainable.

We cannot have a stable economy that hinges on asset inflation. How is this going to help the poorer countries of Europe ,,, at some stage the bubble is going to burst.

As I said, we have to look at the mechanisms of delivery, not the aspirations.

Well here's a problem as I see it. Aid (money) is not what the 3rd world needs. Giving money to nations just feeds corruption that is present in many of them. The best thing to provide is cancellation of ALL debts and free trade in all countries until such time as each 3rd world nation develops to the point where it's economy is strong enough to survive without that support.

Sorry, work got in the way of my reply and I've tried not
to make this too long, but it'll do for a start.

I'll try tackling the two main bones of contention:
overly-bureaucratic and costly; loss of sovereignty.

Costs and bureaucracy:

The disunity within the EU is apparent, with much
suspicion from the people about the validity and
costs of running the huge bureaucratic policies such
as CAP (CAP currently takes up over 40% of the
EU budget). This has to be addressed as a
priority else, without the foot-dragging by
France and others, else it will continue as a
running sore.

1. Get rid of all Commissioners and the Council of the
EU, but keep the European Council
2. Introduce a (5 year) 'federal cabinet', one member
from each country to be appointed by the relevant head
of state. Each cabinet member can draw on the services
of an elected representative from their nation,
according to the issue at hand. Cost of services to be
borne by each nation rather than a central budget.
3. Introduce a full-time EU President (max 5 years). Election by European Council (too costly for 27 nations
to vote).
3. CAP: Introduce a ten-year phased subsidies
period, reducing 10% per year. Compulsory audit
every two years. Failure to produce a satisfactory
audit from a membernation within a set time
results in a mandatory fine, equivalent to one
year's subsidy. The fine is distributed equally
to each other member nation. New members will
start with a ten-year time frame.
4. All audits: if not produced on time, suspend
25% of contributions from member nations until
satisfactoryaudits produced.

Sovereignty:

The EU already has the right to legislate over external trade and customs policy, monetary policy of member countries, agriculture, fisheries, and substantial areas
of domestic law, eg the environment, health and
safety (small traders with employees: note the
recent ruling (14 June 2007):

http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070041en.pdf

As it took the view that that provision does not
comply with the Directive, the European Commission
brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations
against the United Kingdom. It maintains that the
United Kingdom legislation allows an employer to
escape his responsibility if he can prove that the
adoption of measures which make it possible to ensure
the safety and health of workers would have been
grossly disproportionate in terms of money, time or
trouble when balanced against the relevant risk.
According to the Commission, the only derogation
possible from such a responsibility is in the
circumstances expressly laid down in Article 5(4)
of the Directive, a provision which, as an exception
to the general principle that the employer is
responsible, must be interpreted strictly.
The Court has dismissed the action brought by the Commission)

Tony has stated that he will not give up further
British rights but furtive discussions with Sarkozy regarding a watered-down constitution looks like
damning Gordon, who is reported as being anti-EU,
before he starts his premiership.

1. Remove veto's. Move toward the original
Constitional ideal of 55% majority of individual
nations AND 65% of total population.
2. Move over to the euro; the pound has had its day.
3. Retain national identity by promoting the
influence of the European Council. UK, France,
Germany, Holland, Spain, Poland, each to have
extra votes, and a tiered system for other nations
for at least ten years.


As an extra quickie comment, the point of the
EU was to provide a western economy and power
to rival the US. Since they've dragged their
heels, China has surplanted the ideal, and Russia
has grabbed the EU by the fuel nads. WIth both
Iran and Russia trading energy in euros, the EU
has got to sort its act out sharpish, and the
UK should join the euro before the £ becomes
irrelevant under Gordon.

(wrap-round probs is a female dog)

Tizzy - I don't think joining the Euro is a good idea in fact I think its economic suicide.

It would mean handing over the ability to set our own interest rates and taxation which would immediately reduce our ability to be competitive.

The Eu's loss of flexibility in employment legislation harms competition and a one size fits all monetary policy of the euro zone has prevented economies from pursuing more suitable interest rate policies for local conditions. This has deepened recessionary forces and consequently the EU has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the OECD.

In a high level report to Romano Prodi the conclusion was;
''The EU system has failed to deliver satisfactory growth performance ... In the EU there has been a steady decline decade after decade, and per captia GDP has stagnated at about 70% of the US level''

The European model was constructed on an assumption that integration and centralisation would be beneficial to offset existing and emerging trading blocks, but there has ben no evidence that economic growth or a growth rate is higher due to governmental co-operation.

The rules of the growth and stability pact are that each states defcit must not exceed 3% of GDP and public debt must not exceed 60% of GDP.
The following states have never managed to conform to the fiscal policy rules they established.
Germany
France
Italy
Poland
Belgium
Austria
Greece
Portugal
Czech Republic
Hungary
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Malta

Italy has vocalised that in order for its economy to grow, it needs to revert to the Lira.

The CAP is protectionist and cannot be sustained in light of enlargement. The sooner Europe wakes up to the fact that this experiment is deeply flawed the sooner they will be able to resolve the problems of discontent, stagnation and false hope and begin to operate more successfully.

Astro, couldn't agree more. The EU is strictly for the ambitious political 'elite' who aim to suck the blood of all nations.

Tizzy Hi

Well done

I see Astro has already answered and I haven't really assimilated her comments, but mine for what they are worth are:-


Costs and Bureaucracy
#2. If the Cabinet member is appointed by the head of state we get the ridiculous situation of the much discredited Mandelson getting a fat sinecure.

It is a conundrum but I suggest that the appointment to the EU "cabinet" be by election by the MEPs from the MEP's from each country.

This aspect of election is important to me because I distrust patronage.

#3. CAP I don't understand it all but as I see it France get's the lions share of subsidies which is plainly ridiculous and self defeating. I think that if Agriculture is to be subsidised it should be aimed at levelling the ploughing field as it were. I would suggest that the CAP be very severly examined to determine the raison d'etre and then maybe re design it from ground up.

Sovereignity
#2. Dissagree.. the pound, it's strength and the independance of the Bank of England is one of them main reason's that the City is the most important financial capital in the world which on it's own is worth Billions and Billions to this country.

I must agree that jojning the EU is 'economic suicide'. With the pound we can regulate our own economy abnd are not as affected by new piddly little member states (eastern europe) I'm not trying to be derogitory (is that spelt right?) but the small eastern european member states had a detrimental effect on the EU when they joined. The problem with the Euro is that if one country faces hardship (economic or otherwise) so do the other members of the euro

I agree with martinnelson and others on this. MEPs having to shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg not only causes immense disruption, but is estimated to cost well over £100 million a year – which is a ludicrous waste of money. And Green MEPs published a study in April which claimed that having the two sites produces additional carbon emissions equivalent to those produced by the entire population of the Turks and Caicos Islands! So there is clearly a big environmental cost as well as a financial one.

It’s basically up to member states to change this, because it would need a change in the Treaties – which has to be agreed unanimously. But there have been several opportunities to look at this over the last few years – when other Treaty or budget changes have been agreed - and none was taken.

Conservative MEPs stood on a Manifesto in the last European Parliament elections which said Brussels should be the permanent home – ie we should get rid of the Strasbourg side. They have often raised the issue, and I’m sure will continue to do so.

David, you talk of reorganising the EU's deckchairs in order to save a footling £100 million a year in disruption and expenses. Might it not be more appropriate address the wider cost to us of being sucked down into the morass of this black-hole bureaucracy?

Would you please undertake to show the British public the profit&loss account for the last 25 years of our membership of the EU?

Yorker, the point is there haven't been any audited accounts, and, I agree, £100m is pocket money relative to overall expenses.

Don't forget the resignation of all the Commissioners in 1999 amidst allegations of fraud, corruption, and refusal to accept responsibility (stemming from the Edith Cresson, a former French PM).

And nothing from David about his 'diary' conflict...a missed opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding.

Tiz, I'm not talking about the EU accounts, scandalous though they are, but our profit&loss account over the last 25 years of membership of the EU. The figures are never revealed even at Budget time.

Some notes from 1999
I list for information the issues which appeared to be connected to the EU

European directive Com 97599 (Forwarded by Stephen Hughes MEP when I inquired whether the EU had power to enforce any targets re renewable energy in general or wind power in particular. He kindly sourced this from the relevant member of the commission though at the same time making it quite clear that he could not himself as a labour MEP, comment on the issue)

Extract from 1.3.1
Commission’s view that an indicative target is a good policy tool. Giving a clear political signal and impetus to action. The strategy and action plan in this White Pape therefore are
directed towards the goal of achieving a 12% penetration of renewables in the Union by 2010

It is likely that the projected overall energy use in the EU 15 may decrease by 2010 if the necessary energy saving measures are taken post Kyoto.
The enlargement of the Union to new Member States where RES are almost non-existent will require an even greater overall increase.
It is in any case to be emphasised that this overall objective is a political and not a legally binding tool.

Comment;A few years ago the local Conservative MEP gave some an opportunity to visit Strasbourg. I did not go as I was not interested in seeing where they meet but more what they do/can do to benefit us all.

A very intersting thread but unable to really contribute due to lack of knowledge and still 'titlting at windmills' as Jonjii terms it.

Having no one capital of the EU is probably a good thing from an Anti-Federalist point of view. Undoubtedly the periodic migrations of the Euro Herd cause waste and pollution. If it is a mechanism slowing the ultra centralization nonsense I'm prepared to pay the price
. Sorry DC :)

Conand,
I'd like to dispute you believing that one capital would mean a federalist EU. A recent assignment I completed was regarding whether the EU was Supra-nationalist, Intergovernmental or Federalist. I can safely say that the EU is definatly not federalist. The definition of Federalism that was used in the reference materials was: Explicit surrendering of an individual state's soveriegnty to federal institutions. The new federal structure becomes sovereign in it's own right. (Clifton et al, 2005)

Whilst you may feel that this describes the EU it does not. We as a nation (or member state, whichever you prefer) do have sovereignty, eroded yes but not surrendered. There is no one model that the institutions of the EU all conform to. Some elements are intergovernmental and some are supranational, but I would say that the EU does not conform to the federalist model. Therefore, surely it is not possible to hold an anti-federalist view of the EU?

May I also state that the amount of waste caused by the constant movement is, in my opinion, the reason that we get so little out of the EU.