Why it’s hard to take eurosceptics seriously | Nosemonkey's EUtopia                 .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 !important;}    var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "http://web.archive.org./web/20101127030459/https://ssl." : "http://web.archive.org./web/20101127030459/http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));   var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4031936-1"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview();     var sc_project=2068610; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=19; var sc_security="0c71bff8";          Home About Testimonials Comment Policy                 SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS FEED SUBSCRIBE VIA E-MAIL      Best of  Best of 2004  Best of 2005  Best of 2006  Best of 2007  Best of 2008  Best of 2009  Best of 2010    Culture  Blogs  The Media    Featured  History  A bit of context  British Constitution  Forgotten histories    Misc  Elsewhere  Linklog roundups    Food for thought  Nosemonkey News  Uncategorized    Politics  Britain  Conservatives  Labour  Blair  Brown    Lib Dems  Other parties    Elections  Europe  'New' Europe  Czech Republic  Poland  The Balkans  Ukraine    EU  EU Constitution  EU Reform  European Union reading list    France  Germany  Italy  Scandinavia  Spain    Rest of the World  Russia  The Caucasus  The War Against Terror  Civil Liberties  London Terror Attacks    Turkey  USA           Category : EU, Featured Tags | eurosceptic   Why it’s hard to take eurosceptics seriously Posted on 04 October 2009 by nosemonkey

  There are many, many good arguments to be used against the EU. Scores of them, in fact. In places it’s massively inefficient. In places there are strong indications of what seems like systemic corruption. Some of the policies it has introduced have been hugely harmful to both people and the planet.

 But do the eurosceptics use these as their main lines of attack? No. Instead they wander off into the realms of fantasy to spew out hilariously inane nonsense like this glorious example from leading Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens – easily the most stupid article I’ve read about the EU in years. Read the comments as well and it’ll swiftly become clear why some people assume that all eurosceptics are loons.

 Eurosceptics aren’t loons, of course. At least, not all of them. Many eurosceptic complaints are largely valid and – as I’ve argued before – should be paid attention to.

 But the maniacs tend to shout the loudest, and in the process end up doing the eurosceptic cause no end of harm. UKIP’s Nigel Farage realised this, hence his attempts to gradually cull the more verbal conspiracy theorists from the party over the last few years and associate with more intelligent and thoughtful critics of the EU like Jens-Peter Bonde and Marta Andreassen. The anti-EU crowd in Ireland have also no doubt realised this now – because one of the major reasons for the huge swing to the Yes camp was undoubtedly because the Irish people were so annoyed at being taken in by the baseless conspiracy theories that the No groups were spewing out last time around.

 Because if – as Hitchens does in the article linked above – you wander off into the realms of hyperbole (e.g. the wonderfully idiotic claim that “Increasingly, the provinces of Europe, which until today were countries, will need its permission to exist at all” or the pathetic “Shouldn’t somebody have pointed out that in the recent history of the Continent, yellow stars call up only one dismal image, the mass murder of Europe’s Jews?” – that last especially awful considering the Mail’s support for the Nazis), all you end up doing is discrediting yourself.

 Just as if I claimed that the EU’s great because it’ll give us all magical ponies that can fly and shit gold, you’d not pay attention to anything else I said as I was obviously a delusional liar, so do a lot of us get switched off every time a leading eurosceptic makes such obviously stupid remarks as those that run throughout Hitchens’ piece.

 There are all sorts of genuine problems with the Lisbon Treaty. There are all sorts of entirely legitimate reasons why the Irish shouldn’t have held a second referendum, and why they should have voted no.

 The thing is, I’ve hardly seen *any* of them brought up in the dozens of eurosceptic pieces that I’ve read over the last few days. Instead, eurosceptic arguments still seem largely to revolve around vague emotional appeals to patriotism and national myths, topped off with objectively false misrepresentations of what it is the EU does and is doing. Anyone with half a brain who looks at these arguments for half a minute will write them off as the nonsense that they are – and the eurosceptic cause takes yet another hit.

 Every time you make such wild claims – and they turn out to be unfounded – you are alienating potential allies. When Lisbon comes into force and life in the EU continues much as before, proving all the claims that this treaty is in any way significant to be objectively false (because no matter what many eurosceptics claim, Lisbon *is* just a tidying-up exercise) – when member states continue to run themselves, when the threatened abortion clinics and enforced involvement in military campaigns fail to materialise – then anyone with half a brain will be able to see that the claims of the eurosceptics were false, and so stop paying them any further attention.

 So come on, eurosceptic types – for your own sake start with the *proper* arguments against the EU. Stop all this hyperbolic emotional guff that’s characterised so much of the debate over the last couple of decades, and make with the convincing critical analysis. Stop with all the pathetic and blatantly false comparisons to dictatorships past and present. End the “EUSSR” meme – that only makes everyone who uses it look like a moron.

 Instead, try pointing out what’s *actually* wrong with the EU, rather than make up nonsense about Lisbon ending Irish neutrality, forcing abortion, ending national sovereignty, creating a superstate and so on. You’ll find that you’ll win a lot more support – whereas at the moment you’re just preaching to the converted (as the comments to Hitchens’ piece perfectly prove).

 It’s not like it’s a difficult target – the EU’s got so much wrong with it it’s like blasting away at the proverbial fish in a barrel. No one with any critical faculties can look at the EU and think it’s perfect. There’s simply no need for all the nonsense that Hitchens and co like to spew.

 (And yes, I know that not all eurosceptics use the sorts of silly arguments noted above. The point is that as long as a vocal minority of eurosceptics do, the entire cause is going to continue to be damaged by association.)

  Related posts:  - The European elections and the anti-EU case - Euromyths ahoy! - 113931377593371709 - David Cameron, eurosceptics and the EU     112 Comments For This Post  1  Thomas Byrne Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm  What really frustrates me is that the same people who want to secede from the EU tend also to be unionists, when the SNP want to secede for exactly the same reason Eu withdrawists do. Blood and soil nationalism.

  2  Stephanie Migot Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm  And this is why I wish you blogged every day. I’ve been reading blogs and forums in the aftermath of the vote, but haven’t been brave/drunk enough to visit the Daily Mail yet.

 I think a large part of the general dislike and mistrust of the EU comes from the fact that its purpose and structure aren’t really explained in schools (at least in the UK), and even at university I knew politics students who didn’t do a single module in modern European politics. Add to that the lack of explanation from the press, and you’ve got the majority of people not having a clue what the EU does. Into that information vacuum comes the crazytalk of the sceptics.

  3  Ralf Grahn Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm  Nosemonkey, 

 You managed to find a loonier example of tabloid take on Europe than the one “representative” example I nibbled at today. 

 But the results are devastating and depressing over time, as many comments sections show.

  4  EvilEuropean Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pm  From my own experinces your call for a more rational argument wont happen.

 Whenever I have explanied what the EU is, what it does, how it works, good and bad points, I have found people to in general end up being more supportive or degenerate into even more bizzarre and irrational discussions. it aint perfect, its far from perfect, but the benefits out way the costs.

 A vaugly rational argument is not in the anti’s best intrests and they know it. Spewing forth shite means that a rational discussion about the EU cant take place, they know that if it did, it would weaken their position. While you will never persuade the hardcore nutters, a large chunck of the population, that mythical middle ground, could be more supportive. However, by muddying the water, keep those who are more supportive on the back foot trying to expalin that what they say is bullshit, they keep that swinging middle in thier camp. 

 Its like the right-wing echo chamber that exists in the US.

  5  Insideur Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 7:41 pm  NM, you’ve expressed very eloquently the exact same frustration that I have felt for a long time. The complete vacuum that exists in the space that should be filled by thoughtful euroscepticism (as opposed to anti-Europeanism) is quite depressing. As I think I have commented before elsewhere, I am especially disappointed with Open Europe. The blog is a sad example of all that is wrong with the eurosceptic community – just can’t resist the cheap shots, the populist, nationalist rhetoric, and tends to ignore or underemphasize all the really worrying bits of the system.

 Take a look at this post: http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/simple-but-effective.html

 Here is Open Europe publicly supporting posters for the No campaign in Ireland that don’t even make a pretense of arguing the real case against the Lisbon Treaty. Instead, the posters that it so hopes will be effective are trying to get the Irish to vote No as a protest against the government.

 That’s cynical politics at its worst. “I don’t care how I get there, as long as the result is the one I want”. The worst part of that is actually not the cynicism, but the fact that it leaves readers assuming there is no substantive anti-Lisbon case to be made.

  6  Valery Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 6:50 am  Excellent post as usual. Thank you.

 The problem with the UE is that our beloved political leaders in governments have managed to make it so complicated that the general public remains uninformed and ignorant about most things European.

 As we very well know ignorance leads to fear. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

 The nationalist propagandists have managed to exploit the mediocre level of understanding of the general public to their advantage. The worst lies and horror stories still have an impact because of this situation and they know it, even if eventually they end up believing in those themselves.

 This is precisely why a referendum is not appropriate on such issues. It may be a democratic an appropriate decision making process on issues that everyone knows about well, or are simple moral issues, but hardly on complex multifaceted and badly known issues.

  7  dave bones Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am  Great post. I think the drama of Hitchens article is quite amusing but you are totally right in what you say about it- unless there really is a biblical conspiracy to put a benevolent dictator on the throne of Europe and his name shall be 666 of course.

  8  Peter Davidson Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 10:56 am  By way of illustration of the point raised here, there’s a wonderful ding-dong going on at Comment is Free, where Rafael Behr has certainly succeeded in rattling a few cages amongst the serial Europobic crowd. 

 Some wonderfully ill informed and puerile nonsense on display for us to marvel at the power of the media to distort public opinion.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/03/eu-britain-sovereignty-lisbon-treaty?commentpage=1

  9  Tim Worstall Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 11:12 am  “Instead, try pointing out what’s *actually* wrong with the EU”

 Its existence. 

 Anything else you wanted to know?

  10  Nosemonkey Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am  Tim – thanks for another perfect illustration of what I’m talking about. Wonderfully unconstructive and unhelpful – even though you’re usually one of the better anti-EU voices out there, and have thought about the issues in significantly more detail than most, you (like many eurosceptics) have opted to go for glib soundbites and sarcasm – that play well to the converted – rather than reasoned arguments that might win your case more supporters.

 Of course, I know what you mean – you’re a libertarian, and believe that big government is fundamentally bad. The EU is another layer of governance on top of the national – and you already believe that national governments are too big and doing too much.

 The thing is, though, that this is ideology not argument.

 You know perfectly well that you and I are in agreement on a number of issues about what is an appropriate level for decision-making, and that I (as a firm supporter of the subsidiarity principle) would agree entirely that a number of areas in which the EU currently has the power to act should not be decided at EU level.

 What your task is – not just as a leading anti-EU withdrawalist blogger, but also as a UKIP press officer with the remit to persuade the British people that your party’s policies are in the national interest – is to convince me and others that there are *no* levels at which EU decision-making is appropriate.

 The only way to do this is by using indisputable facts (of which there are many) – not the usual distortions (like UKIP’s “£40 million a day” nonsense, etc.). Because lies/deliberate misrepresentations from political parties and pressure groups will always, eventually, be exposed – at which point even the *valid* arguments coming from that side will be discredited by association: witness the deep suspicion of Blair and co after the “45 minutes from destruction” claim was exposed as a nonsense.

 In other words, you need to be rather more constructive than simply repeating your “Unio Europaea delenda est” mantra again and again and again.

  11  Hunter Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm  NM:”Just as if I claimed that the EU’s great because it’ll give us all magical ponies that can fly and shit gold” Legend.

 Tim Worstall: “Anything else you wanted to know?” Yes: firstly, how many hours did it take you to come out with that comedic masterpiece and, more importantly, please enlightment me as to why exactly the EU’s existence is wrong? I’m pretty young and uninformed on the actual pros and cons of the EU (only so many hours in a day, and I can usually find better things to do than research EU affairs outside my burdensome office shifts), and base most of my thoughts, opinions, and reasoning on the general virtues and vices of centralised government, gleaned predominantly from logical reflection and meditation (which is probably quite dangerous). As such, please, as invited by your host, and subsequently (and courteously) requested by me, enlighten us all as to the evils of this Machiavellian misanthropy.

  12  Tim Worstall Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm  “but also as a UKIP press officer ”

 You’re behind the times Clive. Stopped doing that after the euro elections. I only agreed to be there up until then.

 “The thing is, though, that this is ideology not argument.”

 Tsk, one definition of ideology, certainly the one I would ascribe to myself, is an argument that you’ve already had and one side won. Having had that argument you’ve then got a reasoned set of rules by which to judge proposals for action.

 You might think my insistence that the very idea of the EU is a bad idea is odd, wrong, even the product of “ideology”. I of course think it eminently sensible.

 For the last time we divided the world up into “power blocs” , “areas of exclusive interest”, and so on we ended up with the disaster that was WWI.

 “Of course, I know what you mean – you’re a libertarian, and believe that big government is fundamentally bad.”

 No, I’m a classical liberal (The “Adam Smith” part of the “Adam Smith Institute” might be a clue there) and insist that government is both necessary and desirable: but up to a point Lord Copper.

 Further to my not wanting the EU to exist at all I most certainly don’t want the UK to be a part of it. For I want a classically liberal government and country. That isn’t what is on offer from the EU. What is on offer is a Roman Law/Napoleonic style state, where what we may do, when and with whom has to be described by the State so us peons know what we may do.

 A classically liberal state would operate on the Common Law principle: we may do anything we might desire if it were not specifically prescribed by law…..and there had better be a damn good reason for that law.

 To take just a couple of examples: the light bulbs directive. When a liberal like myself puts forward the idea that an adult should be allowed to choose the method of lighting their own front room the Continental answer is that no, they must be told. For how could people know what to do if the State did not tell them? Or the working time nonsense. Free people will decide their own working hours thank you very much: but that isn’t part of the Roman Law concept of freedom.

 Right at the heart of my opposition to the EU and all who sail in her is this pesky idea of freedom and liberty. I really do think that the liberals (even the Liberals) were right: Campbell Bannerman’s “the man who is ruled best is the man who is ruled least”.

 It isn’t just that this doesn’t make sense in the Roman Law system, it’s entirely incomprehensible to those brought up in it. For of course the bureaucrats need to write detailed rules about what may be done: how else can a system work?

 I don’t want this for the UK: thus the UK should not be a member. And of course, given that I am indeed an internationalist, believing that freedom and liberty do not stop at the borders of one country, I believe very strongly that all should enjoy exactly the same freedoms and liberties. As the EU will not offer, doesn’t even understand these conceptions of, freedom and liberty therefore the EU should not exist.

 Just to give you an example I know you already have heard my bang on about. The jams, jellies, marmalades and sweet chestnut purees (for human consumption) regulations. In there we find that it is illegal to add the leaves of apple geraniums to jams and jellies: unless they are primarily made of quince. To add apple geranium leaves to jam or jelly (or even, heaven forfend, extra jam or extra jelly) made of gooseberries or kumkwats is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and or 6 months in jail. To add oils of citrus to any jam, jelly or marmalade which is not primarily made of of citrus fruits is similarly an offence. Carrots are defined as fruit (so are tomatoes under this regulation, rightly so, although in others they are defined as vegetables). 

 Now I know, I know, the defence will be that this is all Single Market regulation, entirely necessary for a market of 500 million people. But that’s exactly my point. Roman Law insists that there must indeed be such detailed regulation for a market. Common Law insists exactly the opposite. The jamness, jellyness or marmaladeness of an item is something that is up to the consumer to decide, not some spotty penpusher in an office a thousand miles away: it’s simply not a function of politics, politicians, the State or government to decide such things. To me, to my ideology (that argument that I’ve already had, considering all sides of the issue and making a decision), the very idea of a State making such laws is insane. The EU has made such a law, ergo it is insane and should be destroyed.

 OK, jams aren’t all that important: but the basic point is. The EU means that the classically liberal State which I desire, which I really do think will maximise human happiness, wealth, freedom and liberty for all who live in it, will not be possible. For the EU is, in the very bones of those who administer, of those who actually are the EU, entirely antithetical to those basic concepts of classical liberalism.

 Thus it’s a bad idea and we should tear the buildings to the ground, plough the land with salt and sell the population into bondage. QED: ” Unio Europaea delenda est”.

 Or if you’d prefer it more pithily: government should fuck right off except where it is absolutely necessary. The EU is built on the idea that government is necessary nearly everywhere: thus it can fuck right off and die.

  13  Hunter Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 3:17 pm  “You’re behind the times Clive.” Tim and NM are clearly on surname-prefix relations. “Stopped doing that after the euro elections. I only agreed to be there up until then.” You can take the girl out of the trailer park eh… “Tsk, one definition of ideology, certainly the one I would ascribe to myself, is an argument that you’ve already had and one side won.” So, as opposed to using standard definitions, such as Britannica’s “Form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones.” we are stuck with “I won’t actually answer any of the serious points that you raise, but I will propose a new set of meanings for words that I don’t like”. “Having had that argument you’ve then got a reasoned set of rules by which to judge proposals for action.” Really? Please do explain how arguments establish reasoned sets of rules for the judgement of proposals. I certainly haven’t seen any of the minutes of these arguments that establish these aforementioned rules for the judgement of proposals on these pages, and I can assure you I’m not taking notes. From the looks of your previous and abrupt statement, it doesn’t look like these “arguments” generate more than resentful one liners and a politician’s ability to ignore direct questions. Having had the argument on the EU as another layer of governance on top of national government, and already won, please do let us, the ignorant masses, share in your proposals for action, or at least the rules for judging them. “You might think my insistence that the very idea of the EU is a bad idea is odd, wrong, even the product of “ideology”. I of course think it eminently sensible.” Again, to refer to Jm Clv-Mtthws’ (we are on consonant only terms) term in the actual text, you might think my insistence that the idea of magical ponies that can fly and shit gold is odd, wrong or even the product of “ideology” (I hereby express my concern that this word, whose definition I challenged earlier, is in fact not a word at all, but “newspeak”, and should be treated as such). I of course think it eminently sensible, but will provide no justification to support my point of view because I have already won this ideology. I mean argument. “For the last time we divided the world up into “power blocs” , “areas of exclusive interest”, and so on we ended up with the disaster that was WWI.” And the last time Britain decided to do anything like that it created Palestine. I put it to you that Doctors are the “radix malorum” (I, too, it seems, can use short Latin words). I will, however, explain. Jesus healed people’s injuries, like blindness, leprosy and death. The crusades, led by the followers of Christ killed thousands, maybe millions of people. Doctors heal peoples injuries Q.E.D. (ooh, abbreviated Latin, I rock!) doctors will launch crusades (they weren’t called “Hospitallers” for nothing you know) and kill thousands, maybe millions, too. “No, I’m a classical liberal (The “Adam Smith” part of the “Adam Smith Institute” might be a clue there) and insist that government is both necessary and desirable: but up to a point Lord Copper.” As might the “Mental” part of “Mental Institute”, which is also “clearly” “mentioned” earlier on the page and, as such, is entirely pertinent to the conversation. The refutation is also a sound point. Britannica definition of libertarianism: “Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty.” whereas classical liberalism is “a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens.” Adam Smith, again according to Britannica, was a “Scottish social philosopher and political economist. Remember, this is the “Adam Smith” Institute, only Scottish social philosophers and political economists may be associated with it, which does, Mr. Worstall, raise questions about the first line of your biography “I am an Englishman”. I was educated in school, which makes me a Scholar. I was also once lightly impaled on a pointy object, which would make me a – - – - – (answers on S.A.E.). “Further to my not wanting the EU to exist at all I most certainly don’t want the UK to be a part of it.” Indeed, because we wouldn’t want a large, neo-imperialistic state controlling large swathes of the world would we? “For I want a classically liberal government and country. That isn’t what is on offer from the EU. What is on offer is a Roman Law/Napoleonic style state, where what we may do, when and with whom has to be described by the State so us peons know what we may do.” Ah, so unlike the current system in the UK, where decisions are made by an elected body of individuals, who then employ other individuals to constitute a working government, and make decisions on behalf of the population that they represent, often forgetting to allow its population referendum on important issues, lying about foreign wars waged for natural resources and embezzling large sums of money for ridiculous garden improvements while watching our every move on closed circuit television? Indeed, that’s the last thing we need, thank God for the British Government eh! I like this classical liberalism idea, it’s got [buzz word]! “A classically liberal state would operate on the Common Law principle: we may do anything we might desire if it were not specifically prescribed by law…..and there had better be a damn good reason for that law.” Indeed, thank God there have never been laws about using an empire to take over 1/3 of the world eh! So, common law. The development of laws by judges through court decision. So if it were not prescribed by law, and we were using common law, all crimes that have, thus far, resulted in the passage of laws would have to be re-committed to ensure they were common law? Surely, if it was legal unless specifically prescribed by law, and common law is the development of legislation on the basis of judicial rulings, then everything is, and always will be, legal. I’m not a Scottish social philosopher and economist, and have trouble grasping this concept. Does that mean if I kill someone, but am wearing a penguin on my hand, it is legal, because no one has ever killed anyone while wearing a penguin? I think it’s specific enough to get away with. “To take just a couple of examples: the light bulbs directive. When a liberal like myself puts forward the idea that an adult should be allowed to choose the method of lighting their own front room the Continental answer is that no, they must be told. For how could people know what to do if the State did not tell them? Or the working time nonsense. Free people will decide their own working hours thank you very much: but that isn’t part of the Roman Law concept of freedom.” Indeed. So, if I were to choose the method of disposing my radioactive waste, the Continent wouldn’t be able to tell me that I can’t put it in your front room? I like this idea, and I am willing to fight with you for my right to dump radioactive waste in your front room. And as for working time, I think you have a point too. Let’s bring back the 16 hour working day. For children. Hell, why not bring back slavery too! Stupid European Institutions… “Right at the heart of my opposition to the EU and all who sail in her is this pesky idea of freedom and liberty. I really do think that the liberals (even the Liberals) were right: Campbell Bannerman’s “the man who is ruled best is the man who is ruled least”.” Ah, okay, so, you have a problem with freedom and liberty, and yet you live in the country in Europe which has the most State control (from CCTV, to drinking/pet/ antisocial behaviour orders, to electronic tagging, to 28 day detentions and stop and searches without permission, to collection of all electronic calls and messages etc.), while the European Institutions challenge the right of your own government to do such things. You actually believe that your non Roman, classically liberal political system is better than the system that is trying to protect you from State intrusion in your life and the unauthorised State collection of all available personal information on you? Okay, I understand. Freedom is the liberty to remove the freedom of liberals. Or something. “It isn’t just that this doesn’t make sense in the Roman Law system, it’s entirely incomprehensible to those brought up in it. For of course the bureaucrats need to write detailed rules about what may be done: how else can a system work?” Indeed. Going what you have said so far, it is both incomprehensible to anyone speaking “English”, and anyone who does not belong to “The Institute”. And yeah, who needs to write detailed rules about systems? It’s not like Adam Smith published anything. “I don’t want this for the UK: thus the UK should not be a member.” I have persuaded myself I am God, and thus my decisions are legally binding. I am the voice of the 61 million UK citizens. “And of course, given that I am indeed an internationalist,” Who would like to pull his country out of an international organisation. “believing that freedom and liberty do not stop at the borders of one country,” Because the British Empire ruled a third of the world, and broad, generalisations that barely touch upon, let alone refute the virtues of Europe are all I need to persuade you to vote for me as Supreme Deity of Earth “ I believe very strongly that all should enjoy exactly the same freedoms and liberties.” Such as the liberty to join the European Union? Or the liberty to claim that because “I don’t want this for the UK… the UK should not be a member.” Don’t get my wrong here, but that sounds more like dictatorship than democracy. “As the EU will not offer, doesn’t even understand these conceptions of, freedom and liberty therefore the EU should not exist.” Indeed. All hail Worstall! “Just to give you an example I know you already have heard my bang on about.” Your bang on? Don’t you get your bang on anywhere near me. “The jams, jellies, marmalades and sweet chestnut purees (for human consumption) regulations. In there we find that it is illegal to add the leaves of apple geraniums to jams and jellies: unless they are primarily made of quince. To add apple geranium leaves to jam or jelly (or even, heaven forfend, extra jam or extra jelly) made of gooseberries or kumkwats is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and or 6 months in jail. To add oils of citrus to any jam, jelly or marmalade which is not primarily made of of citrus fruits is similarly an offence. Carrots are defined as fruit (so are tomatoes under this regulation, rightly so, although in others they are defined as vegetables).” How dare they correctly describe fruits erroneously believed to be vegetables as fruits, how dare they! And as for the use of apple geranium leaves, well, you’ve sold me. Let’s get rid of an organisation that has passed massive amounts of legislation on human rights and social issues, as well as promoted the growth of European business and other philanthropic issues on the basis that they have an unfavourable policy toward leaves. Why not abolish the UK because it can arrest me without legal representation or reason for 28 days? What? Is that an answer I hear? “Now I know, I know, the defence will be that this is all Single Market regulation, entirely necessary for a market of 500 million people. But that’s exactly my point. Roman Law insists that there must indeed be such detailed regulation for a market. Common Law insists exactly the opposite. The jamness, jellyness or marmaladeness of an item is something that is up to the consumer to decide, not some spotty penpusher in an office a thousand miles away: it’s simply not a function of politics, politicians, the State or government to decide such things. To me, to my ideology (that argument that I’ve already had, considering all sides of the issue and making a decision), the very idea of a State making such laws is insane. The EU has made such a law, ergo it is insane and should be destroyed.” Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the most trivial reason for ending the European Union that humanity has ever presented, and the irrefutable point to which Jm Clv Mtthws was referring. This is like nailing Jesus on a cross for double parking his sandals. “OK, jams aren’t all that important: but the basic point is. The EU means that the classically liberal State which I desire, which I really do think will maximise human happiness, wealth, freedom and liberty for all who live in it, will not be possible. For the EU is, in the very bones of those who administer, of those who actually are the EU, entirely antithetical to those basic concepts of classical liberalism.” Ok, Jesus has nothing to do with anything, but pretend I was coherent, and presented a really convincing argument against the European Union, thus concluding this ideology or “argument”, and allowing us to put in place rules and judge proposals for action. “Thus it’s a bad idea and we should tear the buildings to the ground, plough the land with salt and sell the population into bondage.” Thus, I think it’s a bad idea and you should all listen to me, and what I say, because I [insert something] at the Adam Smith “Institute”. « QED: ” Unio Europaea delenda est”. » Q.E.D. “Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. ” “Or if you’d prefer it more pithily: government should fuck right off except where it is absolutely necessary. The EU is built on the idea that government is necessary nearly everywhere: thus it can fuck right off and die.” Yeah. Take that European Union, you economic and political union you.

  14  Robin Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm  That`s funny Nosemonkey because I feel the same about EUrophiles ,and asked them to give rational arguments for Britian to be in the EU . Fully explained and not ignoring the drawbacks of any supposed advantages put forward. Normally of course all we get are Glittering Generalities, insults about EUrosceptics, sayings about how the EU is the “future and trying to intimate that all the young people support it, all businesses do, and all the happy, good looking succesful ABC 1 socioeconomic groups support it.

 Dont forget, most EUrosceptics didn`t start out as EUrosceptic. It was the project itself that made them so.

  15  Hunter Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm  That`s funny Robin because I feel the same about EUsceptics ,and asked them to give rational arguments for Britian to leave the EU . Fully explained and not ignoring the advantages of any supposed drawbacks put forward. Normally of course all we get are Glittering Generalities, insults about EUrophiles, sayings about how the EU is “not the future and trying to intimate that all the young people are against it, all businesses loathe it, and all the unhappy, ugly unsuccesful ABC 1 socioeconomic groups are against it.

 Dont forget, most EUrophiless didn`t start out as EUrophiles. It was the project itself that made them so. 

 As an addendum, I love that last line Robin. That’s like saying that most Christians weren’t Christian until Jesus showed up. 10/10 on perception.

  16  french derek Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm  Well, most governments at any level, have faults. That doesn’t mean that the EU should not put their’s right – I just mean to put things in perspective a little.

 The UK and others joined the EU mainly because the international issues with which the EU is charged (by the governments of the member states themselves, note) were felt to be too big for them to deal with alone. In the same way, nations have joined the UN, NATO, etc. One could ask of them what is their purpose. The fact remains, democratically elected governments, acting on behalf of their citizens, signed up to join the EU, and have contributed (more or less) to agreements furthering the work of the EU (whilst insisting on subsidiarity, note).

 Most of what the EU actually does is boring. But sometimes they catch the headlines eg in getting organisations like Microsoft fined for anti-competitive behaviour (or is that just “free-market capitalism”?). 

 If you want an extended explanation of what the EU is for, what it really does (ie facts) then try looking at the many EU sites.

  17  Robin Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 6:15 pm  Hunter,

 Your Addendum

 Trying to make sense of it. Are you saying that there would be EUrophiles and EUrosceptics if there was no EU ?

 How many people do you meet who were ambivalent towards the EU but have become EUrophiles after experience of it ? Without bribery , employment or the EU giving them an advantage over others ?

 French Derek,

 Some of us EUrosceptics do look at pro EU sites, and do so in a spirit of trying to test our EUrosceptic opinions , as my posting here and elsewhere shows. If we`re not insulted, we have civilised debates .

  18  Nosemonkey Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pm  Robin, I’ll field that one, if I may.

 I used to be a hardcore eurosceptic, and an advocate of British withdrawal from the EU. Then I started to learn a bit more about precisely what it is that the EU is and does, and I saw that many of the things I believed (that I’d picked up mostly from the eurosceptic press) were based on distortions and untruths.

 I’m not a europhile, by any means – because such people are very, very rare. I still think that the way the EU works is full of flaws, as are many of the things it does – and so do most pro-EU types. (Which is, incidentally, why you’ll not find many posts along the lines of “the EU’s great” on this blog – at least, not without qualifiers.) But the important point is that I came significantly *less* eurosceptic after learning more about the EU.

 And – for the record – I’ve never been paid any money by the EU for anything. I did some unpaid work experience there several years ago – but at the time I was still a hardcore eurosceptic, and treated the experience as learning how the enemy thinks. I didn’t change my mind about the EU for a few years more.

  19  french derek Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 8:15 am  Robin: I hope by “pro-EU sites” you mean factual sites such as europa.eu (the official portal for all EU sites)? There are others, dealing with statistical, financial, etc info.

 I admit to be pro-EU but would bridle at being labelled a europhobe. During my working life I worked with politicians at all levels, so I’m too hardened by that experience to get over-enthusiastic.

 I do get uptight, though, when people such as Tim Worstall “sound off” very publicly with untruths, half-truths and even outright lies (NB I’m not targeting Mr Worstall with that last remark).

  20  Insideur Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm  I’m no starry-eyed europhile either. Like NM, I was also once a raving withdrawalist. But I have become deeply disillusioned with the eurosceptic movement. See my related post at http://brusselscomment.blogspot.com/

 Banning incandescent lightbulbs is a policy decision, and not an expression of the fundamental or philosophical otherness of the EU vis-a-vis the UK, or any other Member State, or indeed any other part of the world. Don’t forget that the Clean Air Act in the (presumably classically liberal) US pre-dated any such environmental legislation in the EU. The UK has enthusiastically applied all sorts of environmental rules, some of which have not come from the EU. 

 The jam example is equally poor, and inaccurately described. The EU rules on jam, just as the EU rules on bent bananas, do not proscribe the product itself, but the labeling. Thus, quite rightly in my opinion, you may not call your jam “strawberry jam” if it contains raspberries. The inaccuracy is in ascribing the penalties to the EU. The EU legislation does not tell Member States to make incorrect labeling a criminal offense. Nor does it specify what penalties should be applied. These details of implementation are imposed by Member States.

 So, Tim, if you want to show examples of why EU legislation is fundamentally alien to British political culture, you’ll have to find better ones.

 Hunter, glad you’ve got all that spleen off your chest. to be fair, you sound almost as angry and vitriolic as an anti-European.

  21  Vic van Rumpt Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm  Thanks NM, great article.

 I know I’m nitpicking here, but I have to say nil points for Hitchens’ background research. Not only is his Holocaust reference completely superfluous, disingenuous, and vulgar – he also ‘forgot’ that one of the two designers of that very same European flag was Paul Lévy, himself a Holocaust survivor…

  22  Hunter Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm  Insideur: Give as good as you get. I’m pretty ignorant, and can still knock together a good case for the EU, and have done before (to “Glittering Generalities-man”, who refuted my points and failed to provide rebukes other than “they got me fired”). I get angry when self-professed muftis of the ASI strut in, all-knowing, and tear apart something with “I don’t want this for the UK: thus the UK should not be a member.”, when not only should they, as educated, mature adults, know better, but they should be able to do better. European Reform can’t take place if the dissenters are rabid malcontents. I’d be happier if ignorami, such as myself, kept it quiet (which is why I’ve averaged about two posts a year here since it was founded) and let real men raise the problems with Europe, and give actual weight, rather than ridicule, to the discussions and reforms of the EU. Perhaps I’m mistaken of course.

  23  BenMurphy Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm  Can I just say that I have explained the advantages of the EU more than once to our old pal Robin, but that, like most Europhobes blinded by 30 years of negative press stories about the EU, he dismisses all those arguments without any due consideration.

  24  Robin Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm  Have a look at Ben Murphy`s postings on Margot`s site everyone. Then come back if you think all EUrophiles are sane.

 Nosemonkey,French Derek, A haulier has to take and pass a CPC (Certificate of Proffessional Competence) course. A large part is taken up about the structure, workings and policies of the EU . After that it was travelling around, through, out and back into the countries of this project.That`s when the EUroscepticism starts .

 Let`s also not forget that you are saying “if only you know the details, you would not be hostile.” I have to point out that I have shown some details ,details that have destroyed our businesses,jobs, way of life and even lives, but this as been dismissed as “insane details”. Would that inspire confidence in this project to you ?

 Hunter, Are you going to be like Ben Murphy ?

  25  Nosemonkey Says:  October 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm  No, Robin – as we’ve previously established, the problems you encountered were due to *British* rules and regulations, and *British* refusal to become more involved in European integration – not the EU. You accepted this yourself.

  26  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 11:19 am  Nosemonkey,

 Think maybe we shoud take your concern about UK “eurosceptics” not making their arguments properly with a bit of a pinch of salt?

 Serious Euroscepticism in the UK is based on the premise that full membership of the Project is not in the overall interests of the UK both in terms of our economy and our society. That is somewhat different to arguing whether the whole project is a good or a bad thing for Europe in general.

 OK, you’ve changed your mind on the Project. But you seem to have a “good for Europe” focus rather than a “good for UK” focus – are you quite sure these are identical?

 Sometimes it is helpful to try and look at things form the other person’s perspective.

 Why don’t you try and write an article on the theoretical premise that the UK has already moved to the EEA only position, or perhaps even to the sort of relationship countries like Canada and Mexico are developing with the EU? (The sort of approach science fiction writers sometimes do to make a point.)

 In this fantasy new world then how and why would the UK “suffer” do you think? Specifics would help please, rather than generalities about “isolation”/”lost of influnece”. 

 I’d really love to know what the serious arguments actually are, as opposed to the simply false free trade or EUTS canards. True there was an FDI subliminal argument (which played again in the Irish vote), people used to say that the Japanese wouldn’t invest if we didn’t join the Euro. Hardly the view of Honda, Toyota and Nissan now methinks, and serious investors now well understand the difference between the integration Project and the EEA.

 The only concrete argument I hear now is that of some sort of “bloc” geopolical group interest. But;

 1. If UK interests are identical with the Franco/German axis does it really matter if we don’t formally align with them in saying the same things. Anyway how meaningful is it anyway without EU armed forces?

 2. Or if UK interests are different to the axis (in many cases I think they are) then surely its a moot point whether you are better acting on your own as a sort of swing negotiator rather than lowest common denominator in a bloc? (- see game theory for more details. In commercial marketing theory and experience shows it is often the smaller customer who frequently switches as opposed to the larger customer who locks themselves into a long term contract who gets the best deal.)

 A lot of Eurosceptics in the UK suspect the only people who would suffer in the UK from disengagement from the political integration aspect of the Project are those who make their living from the Project in one way or another. Yes, cynical I know but I’m afraid this view goes a long way beyond the readership of the Daily Mail, as perhaps you well know. (I suppose there is also the rather old fashioned anti-English lobby popular with Irish and Scots nationalist politicains – my enemy’s enemy is my friend type of argument, but that is hardly serious ideological commitment to the Project?) 

 So my advice to you is don’t worry about Mr. Hitchens spoiling things for UK Eurosceptics – he’s just a journalist looking for copy. 

 What maybe you don’t see is how mainstream Euroscepticism has now become in parts of the UK political/business class these days. For my Eurosceptic bias the way Lisbon has been handled has done us a tremendous failure in this regard. Roll on Blair and more posturing from Sarkozy please.

 But its always helpful

  27  Insideur Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm  Mark, I suspect that you are assuming that Nosemonkey is all in favour of the status quo with UK membership of the EU. I can’t speak for him, but I think you’ll find very few people in any section of opinion who would take that view.

 I fully accept that UK interests diverge from the way the EU does certain things. The prime example is the CFP, where the EU system has been a complete disaster. In leaving the EU, it is likely that the UK would be able to manage its territorial waters better than the CFP does, and that the UK economy would benefit as a result.

 But this example isn’t necessarily the clear-cut reason to leave the EU that you might think. Because actually, the CFP isn’t in ANYONE’s interests. In other words, while the UK interest diverges from the way the EU currently does things, it doesn’t follow that the Uk interest diverges from that of the other Member States, even if there are political reasons for them to delay reform.

 I must say I am genuinely surprised at the longevity of the whole idea that being in the EEA and/or EFTA but not the EU would somehow improve things for us economically. Ask any Norwegian – they’ll tell you that all their economic regulations are ade in Brussels, and that they have no say.

 But from your comment I suspect that you are more worried about the political aspects of EU integration: police cooperation, the arrest warrant, defence cooperation, common asylum and immigration policies, border controls, the diplomatic service, etc. than you are about the details of economic integration. Economic integration is often easy to attack because the detailed regulations on jams or bananas come across as ridiculous and can easily be taken out of context. But actually I would agree with you if you believe that insufficient attention is being given by the media and the public to the very significant steps that are being taken in political cooperation.

 Let me play devil’s advocate, however, and suggest to you why it might be in UK interests to play a full part in such political integration. Let’s take a hypothetical case, where EU governments might look at imposing common visa criteria on citizens of all countries traveling to the EU. Assuming that this case were under QMV (I don’t know that it would be), it would theoretically be possible for the EU to impose visa criteria on Commonwealth citizens that the UK might be against. On the face of it, that sounds like something undesirable. 

 But if you dig a little deeper, you’d find out that QMV, where it exists in EU decision making, is comparatively rarely used. I remember taking a look at the year 2006; I think I identified 2 occasions, across all policy areas, where the UK had been outvoted under QMV. One was on Austrian rules relating to GMOs, and another on some obscure piece of single market legislation, if I remember correctly. In practice, QMV is used not as a mechanism for overriding countries that object to proposals, but as an incentive to consensus-based decision making. The possibility that you might have to go to a public vote where one or more national governments would have to go and explain the gory details of Council negotiations serves to put everyone off confrontational discussions. Every Member State has a common interest in keeping things cool and collaborative, and finding a solution acceptable to all.

 That is all assuming that QMV is used.

 Let’s assume that there is a veto in this area, instead of QMV. Because there will continue to be vetoes under the new Lisbon Treaty system. Well then any objection that the UK government has can easily be converted into a veto.

 One of the things you seemed to imply is, “what is the value of a veto as compared to not being in the system at all”? The answer is what in my mind is the strongest argument in favor of full participation in integration. And that is that the EU institutions provide a safe and predictable framework for regular and deep contacts between governments at all levels except the lowest ranks of officials, regardless of whether a specific measure is in fact adopted or not. This type of contact is of tremendous value because it allows for the sharing of ideas and experience, best practice and lessons learned. As members of the Council working groups, UK officials are regularly in contact with colleagues from 26 other countries, telling them how they do things and why, and learning about what is happening elsewhere. This type of contact would be completely impossible outside the EU. UK officials might be able to influence how French officials deal with certain situations by a series of bilateral meetings, but it would be much more difficult to do the same with the rest of the Member States. As a UK official, you just put an issue on the Council agenda and go to discuss it in Brussels with all 26, instead of being obliged to set up an expensive series of bilateral or even multilateral meetings. Even if you assume that we are dealing with a “negative” proposal for the UK, such as the visa example, you would have be able to achieve a lot more for the Commonwealth citizens you are trying to defend by being a part of the discussions than if you were outside them.

 In other words, EU integration in any given policy area is about much more than the nuts and bolts of individual issues as they come up for discussion or agreement; it’s about governments having a clear, predictable, and “safe” opportunity to network with colleagues from the countries that matter most to you.

  28  french derek Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm  @Robin: sorry your experience was so different from that of a member of our family. He drove across western and eastern europe for many years. He is still (in retirement) happy with his end of the haulage business and so were his employers (still in business up to last news, 6 months ago). He lauded the single market (able to carry return loads) Schengen (end of customs bribes), and the Euro (no need for boxes of different monies). And his employer lauded the CPC (meaning that foreign drivers and UK drivers competed on a flat pitch).

 @Mark: The EU would probably lose more from a cessation of trade with Britain than the other way round. From a relative point of view, though, the loss of a part of the market equivalent to 60m consumers would have only a minimal effect on the EU’s export market (internal market would = 450m). However, you’re arguing that each would have trading access via EFTA.

 If the arrangements between EFTA and the EU remain unchanged, then the only difference for the UK would be that they would have no say on EU trading requirements, social conditions, etc. Most EFTA countries are small: making concessions to them causes little difficulty (they might, one day, be tempted to join the EU). If the UK joined, then who knows how the EU might wish to trade with EFTA members? NB ask any exporter how the like tariff barriers. 

 In 2008 Baier, Bergstrand, Egger & McLaughlin published a paper “the EU and Economic Growth”. In it they showed that, after about 10-15 years of EU membership a country’s trade increased (on average) by between 127 and 146%. (It takes about 5-10 years to phase a country in to a typical International Economic Integration Agreement). Membership of EFTA raised trade by about 35% over the same time-scale. They explained the EU higher figures as perhaps being due to greater national involvement in pursuing economic integration. (Hardly the case in the UK?).

 Finally “the EU is all a French/German stitch-up” story is just that – a story. Every nation has its own cultural, economic and social differences, and will emphasise these accordingly within the EU (though they will come together in groupings on specific issues, from time to time). It will always be so.

  29  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm  ~27. Insideur. Thanks your considered reply.

 I think the fact that QMV is rarely used is besides the point because the mores is to always reach consensus and avoid “isolation”. It has the effecct even if it is not used.

 -28.French Derek. Likewise

 I’m attracted to EFTA status (what I call EEA) because then the UK would no longer part of the CAP, CFP and the various other political integration projects. But above all we would greatly reduce the annual net payments to the EU which I think will climb to £9billion per annum by 2010. This is surely significant if you don’t think there is much of a benefit. I think therefore this proposal would easily pass a referendum in the UK becuase the europhiles couldn’t run the trade war argument.

 I’m not worried about losing influence on EU commercial regulations because in my world we would also be a member of NAFTA, which was offered and turned down by Blair (I see the UK as essentially another Canada in terms of its relations with the EU). NAFTA has already shown itself more than capale of influencing EU regulations. 

 By the way I think the EU could not change it trading agreements with the EEA without unanimous agreement of all current EEA members, and isn’t every single member of the EU also a member of the EEA by virtue of Maastricht?

  30  Insideur Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm  Mark I think my point was that QMV does NOT have the effect of isolating countries, precisely because it is not used even where it is in force. QMV is more of a legal problem than a problem of effect.

 I would be curious to learn how NAFTA has influenced the EU – that’s a new one for me.

 I think having a referendum on CFP and CAP membership in the UK could be positive in itself, as a message to other EU countries about how serious the UK is about root-and-branch reform. I think Open Europe is advocating a similar line. The risk is in how that referendum result is used. If it is used, as Open Europe suggests, to block agreement on the EU budget until the UK’s demands are met, it could potentially be truly catastrophic for our relations with other EU countries. I really think I cannot overstate how pissed off EVERY EU capital would be at this sort of behaviour.

 However, if it were used in a more constructive way, to emphasize the strength of feeling in the UK and the democratic mandate that the UK government had received as a result, it could be a powerful tool for EU reform. I think my key concern is that I haven;t seen enough of Cameron and friends to have the comfort level I’d like to have about how they would use such a referendum.

 By the way, I think the UK probably makes up for the contributions it makes in terms of the value it gets. I haven’t seen any credible piece of research that shows the UK would be better off financially out of the EU. And then there’s all the other benefits that I described. As I said earlier, I think there are large-ish chunks the EU could shed, leaving us with a leaner and more beneficial machine.

  31  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm  ~30

 Just one example. Didn’t NAFTA forced the withdrawl of the prohibition on using Imperial measures.

 I don’t agree with your assertion that the UK gets more than £9billion pa “value” back. But even if we did how much of this “value” would we lose if we were still in the EEA do you think? 

 Would you accept the findings of a proper cost/benefits analysis as was conducted for example by the Swiss? Do you think we should conduct one?

 I’m glad you note the strength of feeling argument. Obviously personally I’m a grossly unrepresentative obsessive.

 However my argument is that there has been a sea change in the “soft” attitudes held by many influential people in the UK. Quite simply the obvious trickery and bullying in preventing us expressing a view is not liked, particularly when it is so clearly orchestrated by the French and Germans.

 Wish could be father of the thought of course, and is merely based on how some of my drinking mates have changed their view to my way of thinking on the EU quite a lot over the past year.

 I’d be interested in whether there has been a similar movement in popular sentiment in Holland. Ireland seems to have decided they would rather be ruled by anybody than their own politicians (as long as they are not British of course), rather like the Italians? However a more mature democracy like Holland is possibly of more interest.

  32  french derek Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm  Mark, time to withdraw, I suggest. You are starting to rely on “stories” rather than on fact.

 The fact is that the EU is not “orchestrated by the French and Germans”. eg Neelie Kroes (Dutch) is the Competition Commissioner – and we owe Neelie some big thank-you’s (as consumers) for the work on our behalf.

 No country in Europe is “ruled by” the EU. Nation states make EU decisions and nation states are responsible for carrying them out, in accordance with their own rules of governance, etc. (eg John Major – remember him? – complained that UK civil servants ‘gold-plated’ EU regulations). It’s your own government that made the law (conjointly) and apply it. OK the European Court of Justice is there to interpret and to enforce laws passed by the EU. But many private citizens from around the EU have found this a useful court. NB national courts refer such queries to the ECJ for a ruling.

 As for your drinking mates, do you really take their views (eg on football) seriously? Why be different on the EU?

  33  Nosemonkey Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm  Mark – A lot of stuff, there, some of which has already been covered by Insideur and French Derek. First a few points on your comment @26 (sorry if I miss a few – there’s a lot there).

 I’m not sure where you get the impression that I tend to argue only that the EU is good for Europe as a whole. I more often tend to be accused of being too UK-centric (if not Anglocentric) in my coverage. My entire (loosely) pro-EU stance came from a belief that it is in the British national interest to be a part of it, after all.

 As for your hypothetical fantasy world suggestion – it would be a fun exercise, to be sure. But there’s no way I could write anything that would be overly convincing in blog format. You’re talking something the length of a novel, based upon so many counterfactuals (political, economic, social) that it’d be impossible to come up with anything overly plausible.

 On your final couple of points in comment 30:

 You say “If UK interests are identical with…” – which suggests that you’ve missed the whole point of the EU. Different nation states have conflicting interests – if they were identical then there would be no need for the EU to exist.

 The EU provides (as Insideur noted above) a regular, reliable framework for discussion to try to ensure that those conflicting interests don’t cause serious problems, and can be resolved in as efficient and as satisfactory a way as possible. (And the fact that the framework that the EU provides doesn’t always succeed isn’t, it should be noted, necessarily the fault of the EU – more often it’s due to the stubborness of national governments.)

 You also say “surely its a moot point whether you are better acting on your own as a sort of swing negotiator rather than lowest common denominator in a bloc?” This would, of course, be true for Britain – were Britain not one of the largest and most influential of the EU’s member states. Remember the rejection of the EU Constitution in France? One of the prime reasons given was that it was too “Anglo-Saxon” (i.e. British) – because Britain had successfully managed to water down some of the more enthusiastically integrationist and socially-focussed elements, instead shifting it to a more trade-oriented model.

 Britain has succeeded in innumerable ways in innumerable EU directives, regulations, treaties and all the rest in subtly modifying the EU’s plans to better suit its own ends – because it is too big and important to ignore.

 Were Britain no longer a member, it would no longer be able to wield this influence. Instead, if Britain wanted to continue to trade with the EU it would have to abide by the EU’s own rules and regulations with no input whatsoever (just like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, etc. etc. etc.) – either that, or lose a sizable chunk of its EU export market. Which makes up, it should be noted – as this is a vitally important point – the majority of the UK’s export trade.

 @29 you mention the net payments to the EU – an area I’ve covered before. It should also, however, be noted that the £9bn (or whatever it may be) is just *governmental* net payments. We have no idea what the net financial benefit of EU membership is to the country as a whole – and estimates vary wildly because, as I have noted before, it is *impossible* to do a true cost-benefit analysis of EU membership.

 As such, there are no reliable figures to go on. All we have are our hunches and prejudices.

 Personally, I reckon that although pulling out and going the EFTA/EEA route may save the government a few billion a year (a paltry amount in terms of the overall UK budget, and it wouldn’t save the full amount, as we’d still – like Norway and co – have to contribute to the EU budget), it is very likely to cost the British economy as a whole a hell of a lot more – due to lack of ability to directly influence EU regulations to our advantage, possible loss of overseas investment, possible loss of trade, etc. etc. etc. – all what ifs, none of them (as noted above) provable one way or the other. It’s just my feeling.

 On the NAFTA and EEA issues you mention @29 and @31, I belive you’re wrong on both counts (though neither are particular areas of expertise).

 I’ve certainly not heard of any NAFTA involvement in the metric/imperial squabble before – and it would surprise me if this was the case, what with US “imperial” measurements being different to British ones, and Canada and Mexico both being metric countries.

 On the EEA front, I’d also be surprised if there was a unanimity requirement to changing trading agreements – because that would imply that the non-EU EEA countries have the right of veto over every single bit of EU trade legislation, and every EU trade regulation. Since the introduction of QMV, not even EU member states have that power – and the whole point of the EEA from the EU’s point of view is to impose its own trading standards on its near neighbours to ensure uniformity and reliability of goods and services within the common market, while allowing its near neighbours access to that common market.

 So, given that Britain needs the EU market (it makes up more than 50% of Britain’s export market, after all), we would need to remain members of the EEA. For Norway, Switzerland and co, staying out of the EU makes some sense – they have populations that are too small to guarantee them much influence.

 But membership of the EEA would put Britain at a distinct disadvantage in terms of negotiating power to that we have now, as a member of the EU. For the UK, it’d be an incredibly risky gamble – any change in EU trade policy (a trade policy we’d no longer be able to swing closer to the “Anglo-Saxon” model to make it more paletable to British tastes), and we’d either have to put up with it or more or less give up on our European trading relationships. That would almost certainly be disasterous.

  34  Robin Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm  Nosemonkey,

 No we established that there are British rules and Britian could not make other rules due to being in the EU . Also that other countries like Germany had to take a certian route that impoverished us . Integration would only have been of help (to hauliers) if the EU was one country, and England was equivalent tothe EU as Kent is to England .Not that many want that. Otherwise it`s better for us to be out.

 French Derek,

 It`s possible I would know your relative if he did the Eastern Bloc. He would be happy driving through it when the times were good . He would have been able to take return loads irrespective of membership of the EU , and even third country traffic. Shengen is a minor advantage but not in all cases,the EUro is again a small advantage (again depending on circumstances ) and the CPC is of no importance in levelling the playing field. Was your relative fully aware of all the ramifications of the situation ? If you go down to Dover docks you can see the outcome of the rigged market. This was warned about in the trade press but people often dont want to hear the Cassandras .Now we`re paying for it.

  35  Nosemonkey Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm  Robin – No, if you recall we established that there were British rules, and then there were rules that had been adopted by a bunch of European countries (which Britain decided not to sign up to) which were nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, but which were instead a product of a series of bilateral and multilateral negotiations between countries all acting in their own national interest rather than in the interest of the Europe-wide free and efficient movement of goods. As Britain was not part of those negotiations, you – as a British lorry-driver – were disadvantaged, and this disadvantage was then compounded by British regulations.

 We also established that the EU is now trying to bring in EU-wide rules to ensure that the situation you found yourself in never happens again – by creating a situation whereby hauliers are on an equal footing, without nationally-imposed charges and subsidies creating an unfair playing field.

  36  Insideur Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 6:32 pm  Mark actually the metric about-face was the result of years of pressure from the UK and USA. I can tell you with 100% certainty that NAFTA had nothing to do with it.

 I would be very interested in seeing a proper cost-benfit analysis, but I rather agree with Nosemonkey, and suspect that any study, regardless of its conslusions, would be vulnerable to a evel of criticism that would make it completely inconclusive.

 Sadly for the eurosceptic crowd, the EU is the status quo, and the onus is on them to prove their points. This is why I would think that a piece-by-piece approach, i.e. CAP, CFP, and and and – would be more realistic and would be much easier to justify economically and politically.

 As a formerly rabid anti-European myself, I suspect that your views are inevitably coloured by the prism of the UK media. I may live in a bubble of my own (the Eurobubble), and that may blind me to the iniquity of some of what goes on here. But equally, I am convinced that your views are influenced by the quite shockingly poor reporting of EU issues by the overwhelmingly eurosceptic and biased UK media.

  37  Tim Worstall Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pm  “Sadly for the eurosceptic crowd, the EU is the status quo, and the onus is on them to prove their points.”

 That’s one of those pieces of logic which are technically described as “cock”.

 It was, at one time, the status quo in England that men found buggering each other were hung (there was actually one year when more were hung for this than murder).

 No, the onus is not on those who would oppose such stupidity to prove the points of their opposition. The onus is upon those who would continue such a blindingly stupid course of action.

 As above, the EU provides detailed rules about what each person may do. For the EU to be supportable it is necessary for someone, somewhere, to offer an argument as to why this is necessary. If that is not possible then the EU, as a concept, fails.

  38  Ralf Grahn Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm  Tim Worstall, 

 This “blindingly stupid course of action” has been scrutinised by every member state government and parliament ahead of joining the EEC/EC/EU, and with regard to every subsequent treaty. 

 In addition, they monitor and participate in decision-making on a daily basis, but continue blithely towards the utter destruction only the British tabloids and their avid readers have detected, among 27 countries? 

 It must be hard to be a misunderstood genius in one’s lifetime.

  39  Insideur Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm  I’m sorry Tim, but with the best will in the world, you are either missing the point I am making, or just plain wrong. I am trying to say that practically speaking, we are in a situation of EU membership. Practically speaking, if someone wants to change that, either by re-negotiating the treaties in any way or by withdrawing, it is up to those people to justify that course of action. This is not a point of principle or philosophical approach, or my opinion – it’s simply the practical reality. 

 Note that as I have said above, I myself am in favour of lopping bits off the EU acquis. I think this would be much easier to get past the electorate – not just because it would allow us to keep the bits that I think are worth something, but also because it’s practically much easier to justify than withdrawal, in terms of building a case.

 And I’m sorry, but for all its faults, the EU does not provide detailed rules about what each person may do. It provides rules for EU governments to apply. Those rules do not regulate individual behaviour in any example that I am aware of. Again, if you’d like to provide an example, I’m more than willing to learn.

  40  Insideur Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm  On EFTA, I’d also point out that over time, 10 countries have been members (not at the same time, mind you). And over time, 6 of those 10 countries have left EFTA to join the EU. The 4 that are left include a country with massive oil and gas reserves, two offshore banking havens, and a country that has historically depended on its huge fisheries, and is now applying to join the EU too. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the EFTA model.

  41  Tim Worstall Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm  “This “blindingly stupid course of action” has been scrutinised by every member state government and parliament ahead of joining the EEC/EC/EU, and with regard to every subsequent treaty.

 In addition, they monitor and participate in decision-making on a daily basis,”

 You make the assumption that governments and parliaments are trustworthy.

 I do not.

  42  Ralf Grahn Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm  Insideur, 

 Without going into any scholastic debate, I think that roughly the EU provides rules which affect individuals mainly in cross-border situations (mostly to make life easier: euro, Schengen, family law, free movement, freedom to reside, consumer protection etc.). 

 Directives, which are transformed through national laws, do affect private businesses: business regulation.

  43  Ralf Grahn Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:34 pm  Tim Worstall, 

 However imperfect representative democracy and the rule of law are, your confession is in effect an admission that you belong to a sect of conspiration theorists.

 Voters beware!

  44  Tim Worstall Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm  “However imperfect representative democracy and the rule of law are”

 The rule of law would be nice. On a minor level, EU law states that tariffs may only be imposed if a cost benefit analysis shows that the benefits would be higher than the costs. This is not done: most certainly it was not done in the case of tariffs against Chinese and Vietnamese shoes.

 Another example of the rule of law might be “Hey, you people who must have a referendum, what do you think? No? Wrong answer, try again!”

 If we only actually had either democracy or the rule of law in the EU….

  45  Nosemonkey Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:49 pm  Tim – “the onus is not on those who would oppose such stupidity to prove the points of their opposition”

 Come on, you’re better than that. At least, you used to be.

 You aren’t just a critic of the EU. And in any case, all of us here are critical of the EU in some respect – because it’s imperfect. That much is a given – all political institutions and all political systems are imperfect.

 However, rather than merely criticise the EU and advocate ways to make it better, you advocate *withdrawal* from the EU – and, in fact, its dissolution.

 In which case – considering that *it exists* (an absolutely fundamental point) – the onus is *entirely* on you to demonstrate that your preferred alternative to the status quo is a) viable, and b) desireable.

 So far in this thread, you’ve done neither. And to make matters worse, your criticisms – that you claim are of the EU as a concept – have instead been either criticisms of policy or of an entire political system (one that is not unique to the EU by any means).

 As I say, I thought you were better than this.

 (Sorry to other respondents – I’ve only read Tim’s first comment at this point… Will come back in a tick.)

  46  Nosemonkey Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm  Tim @41 – “You make the assumption that governments and parliaments are trustworthy”

 No we don’t – that’s where you’re entirely mistaken, and where your own political ideology seemingly gets in the way of any attempt at restrained, thoughtful analysis and criticism. It also hugely diminishes the impact of your arguments to assume – as you evidently do – that those of us who advocate the EU as a sensible solution to a problem support it wholeheartedly.

 Ralf is by far the most enthusiastic pro-EU type in this thread, and even he has written reams of critical analysis of the way the EU works and what the EU does.

 As I say, there is a *massive* and vital difference between looking at the EU, seeing its flaws, and wishing it was better and looking at the EU, seeing its flaws (or, as seems to be the case with some eurosceptics, *thinking* that you’ve seen flaws when they actually may not be there or may be due to other factors) and advocating withdrawal or its destruction.

  47  Slartibartfas Says:  October 7th, 2009 at 10:41 pm  Someone mentioned light bulbs above in connection with the continental law traditions. 

 If you know about how this “light bulb ban” came into place, this argument gets pretty hilarious. One of the strongest motivations by those pushing forward the ban was the fact that Australia had made a similar ban already before. I guess Australia is one of the core countries of the continental law traditions, is it?

  48  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 7:21 am  “No we don’t ”

 Yes you very much are. You’re asking “how could we make this better” which presupposes that whatever changes you might desire or work out would be adhered to. I simply don’t think that a level of government at such a level of abstraction can in fact be trusted in that manner. As you very well know I don’t trust Westminster enough for them to retain the powers that they currently have and passing them further up, another level of abstraction away, simply multiplies the problems.

 I want power to move down, closer to the citizenry, not ever upwards in some tower of structures becoming ever more rarified.

 If you wish, we could put it in terms of subsidiarity. Power should be exercised at the correct level. There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level. Thus we shouldn’t have the EU.

 It’s pretty simple as an idea isn’t it?

  49  Insideur Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am  Tim, I agree with that philosophical framework. But you have produced a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because powers should be exercised at the correct level that the EU is never the correct level.

 Whether or not you are right, I think it’s safe to say that you are in a pretty small minority if you think that things like climate change or the ozone hole should be dealt with at municipal level. Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans either. So that puts you in another small minority.

  50  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am  Tim – again, ideology, not argument, with an attempt to be patronising thrown in for good measure.

 You believe that big government is bad. Fine. You believe that the EU is bigger government than national? That’s merely an opinion.

 The European Commission has a total staff (including translators, secretaries, cleaners, canteen workers, etc.) of c.35,000 – far, far smaller than many British government departments. Add the staff of the Council and Parliament on top, you’ve still got a total “EU” workforce not much bigger than that at the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions.

 This to run most of a continent. I’d say that’s pretty efficient, pretty small government.

 And then, of course, there’s the fact that by having things decided at EU level we’re reducing the need for scores of national-level civil servants and politicians to implement legislation, reducing the size – and cost – of government even further.

 Of course you have a point about the levels of scrutiny and accountability that having decisions taken at an EU level imply. No one, that I’m aware of, has ever denied it.

 Which is why so many pro-EU types advocate reforms to increase the ability of national parliaments to scrutinse EU legislation (as brought in, in part, by the Lisbon Treaty), to increase the democratic involvement from the people (the resistance to Lisbon Treaty referenda mostly coming from governments keen to avoid another decade of negotiations), and to increase the transparency of the entire process by, for example, opening up Council meetings.

 And the subsidiarity point, which you drop in as if to imply that pro-EU types are opposed to such a concept, is something I’ve long regarded to be absolutely fundamental. *Of course* powers should be exercised at the correct level.

 As far as I’m concerned, there are large numbers of policy areas that currently fall under an EU remit that shouldn’t, because they’d be more effectively dealt with at a more local level. If I believe that, it is my job to *prove* that.

 You state that “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level” – fine. You believe that. But without *justifying* that belief, you merely come across as somebody acting on faith alone. To win an argument, you need to rationally and clearly demonstrate the point.

 Because to state that *nothing* is best dealt with at an inter-/supra-national level implies that you think cross-border crime, terrorism, immigration, energy security, trade, environmental policies and so on and so on (those are the main ones that convince me of the need for something like the EU to exist) can all be determined at a level below that of the EU. So where? National? Regional? By county? Borough? Village? Ward? Street? House?

 And furthermore, given that some issues affect more than one house, region and even country, why would it not make sense for people who are all affected by the same issue to pool their resources?

 Because what you are implicitly advocating by stating “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level” without any kind of elaboration or explanation (beyond “I don’t like big government, so ner!”) is the destruction of society itself.

 In other words no, it’s not a simple idea at all.

  51  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 8:59 am  “Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans either.”

 You’ll have to look long and very hard indeed to find me saying anything so damn stupid. Sorry, but you’ve got me confused with someone else there.

 “Whether or not you are right, I think it’s safe to say that you are in a pretty small minority if you think that things like climate change or the ozone hole should be dealt with at municipal level.”

 You missed a very important qualifier there. “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level.”…..”political system”.

 I’m entirely happy with the idea of cooperation. No problem at all with the idea of, say, the WTO. It deals with trade issues only, each and every member has one vote and a veto. You can leave any time you want. Great.

 What I do have a problem with is the “political system” bit.

 I’ve no problem with the idea of international treaties like Kyoto (I happen to think that was a very bad one but that’s another matter: I’m not against the idea that we might need an international agreement on CO2 emissions. As an earlier example, I’m not enamoured of the actual way that the Montreal Protocol worked (about CFCs) but the idea that there should have been *an* agreement is fine) but I do have, as I say, a problem with the idea that simply because sometimes such international agreements are necessary then we should set up an international polity.

 The idea that we need the EU, the political system, to deal with climate change doesn’t even work in its own terms. To deal with emissions we’ll need the agreement and cooperation of (at the very least) the US, India and China. But absolutely no one at all is suggesting that we should have “ever closer political union” with the US, India and China to solve this problem. Thus all are indeed agreeing that we don’t need “ever closer political union” to deal with climate change. We just need an international agreement that deals with climate change.

  52  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am  Insideur – Even if you don’t buy into the man-made climate change thing, there’s still plenty of areas where cross-border environmental legislation can be agreed as necessary by all but the most obsinate.

 For example, were Europe a continent of nation states, as in the past, what was to stop Germany from pumping industrial waste into the Rhine, to be swept downstream, polluting the Netherlands, before settling in the North Sea, poisoning the fish relied upon by British, Danish and Norwegian fishermen? All we could do was ask nicely.

 But sorry, I forgot – there’s no need for any levels of decision-making or arbitration above the national…

  53  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am  “For example, were Europe a continent of nation states, as in the past, what was to stop Germany from pumping industrial waste into the Rhine, to be swept downstream, polluting the Netherlands, before settling in the North Sea, poisoning the fish relied upon by British, Danish and Norwegian fishermen? All we could do was ask nicely.”

 Err, no.

 http://www.iksr.org/?L=3

 International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

 “The Convention signed in 1999 replaces the Treaty of Bern signed in 1963 as well as the Chemical Convention of 1976 ”

 etc, etc, etc. The EU is now a signatory….but so are all the riparian states individually. This is one of those things that has been absorbed into the EU (in a way) rather than something created by it. And yes, similar agreements cover the Danube, the Nile, Rio Grande and other rivers that run internationally: note, please, without there needing to be “ever closer political union”. 

 If you’d like my argument more formally then. Consider the question that Ronald Coase asked about firms (and note that his answer won him the Nobel). Why do firms exist? Why do not people simply contract with each other: what is the benefit of having things under the same ownership, of long term contracting if you wish? And if there are benefits which lead to that being a better system, then why is there anyone at all still being a contractor? Why isn’t all economic activity being carried out in a few large multi-nationals?

 The answer is that of course there are costs and benefits to both approaches: having a firm leads to a reduction in transaction costs. You don’t have to send out tenders, choose someone, negotiate, every time you want something done. Excellent. But there are also costs to this “enforced cooperation” system. The overheads of running the firm for example. The losses which will come from diseconomies of scale (yes, they exist just as much as economies of scale do). The opportunity costs of always using the inhouse option rather than contracting it out to a specialist.

 The model transfers over neatly to international cooperation. Those who are arguing that we need the EU to deal with all of these complex problems are making exactly the same argument that is used in favour of the firm itself. That by continuously cooperating with the same people then we’ll reduce transaction costs and thus get to the desired goal more efficiently.

 People like me who are arguing against the EU as this hub of cooperation are making the argument for the contractual basis. In essence, that the transaction costs of continual reassessment of who we cooperate with and how, through international agreements, will be lower than the deadweight costs imposed by a single political system. 

 That example of the Rhine is a nice one: we agree that we need to control what goes into the Rhine: but the costs of doing so by making an agreement with Switzerland are a great deal less than trying to subsume Switzerland into a single political order to control what goes into the Rhine. And we make the same judgement about climate change too as above. Having a treaty with India is cheaper than bringing them into the EU.

 “Because to state that *nothing* is best dealt with at an inter-/supra-national level implies that you think cross-border crime, terrorism, immigration, energy security, trade, environmental policies and so on and so on (those are the main ones that convince me of the need for something like the EU to exist) can all be determined at a level below that of the EU.”

 The error you’re making is to assume that without the EU we would not be able to deal with these things at a level higher than national. Which, as the very existence of international treaties shows, is nonsense. The question is rather, which system of international cooperation should we use? The firm model or the contractor model?

 As I say, everyone has already bought into the contractor model at some point: Montreal, Kyoto, NATO, that Rhine agreement and so on.

 All I’m saying is that the internal costs (no, of course not purely monetary) of taking the firm model, the EU model, are greater than those of the contracting model.

 As an example: Sr. Barroso has made the point that the purpose of the EU is to stop Germany invading France. Again. (No, really, he did, even if in jest.) The firm model, the EU model, as it plays out in practice, leads to a fat Portuguese dwarf telling me what light bulbs I may use in my living room in England.

 That’s too high a cost for that model: we should be using the contracting one instead.

  54  Insideur Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 10:38 am  Tim my apologies for the misrepresentation of your beliefs on climate change. I should have done my research.

 Your point about the specific nature of the EU system is clearer to me now, and I like the analogy of the Rhine that you and Nosemonkey are using. I would most certainly agree that it would be unnecessary and indeed highly undesirable to subsume Switzerland into the Eu just to deal with the problem of pollution of the Rhine.

 But as you know, the EU is about a lot more than river pollution. And therefore your contracting model, which works fine for a situation where countries have relatively few points of discussion over areas that are of mutual interest or concern, falls down. Because the fundamental assumption behind the development of the EU is the exact opposite: that in this increasingly interconnected world, the impacts that we have on our neighbours become ever more significant.

 Indeed, as you say, the same logic can be applied to economic activity. Why have we seen the rise of large multinational corporations? Precisely because of the “firm” logic you describe. I challenge you to find a lightbulb, whether incandescent or otherwise, that is designed, manufactured, and sold only in your twon, or your county, or England, or indeed the UK. The overwhelming bulk of market share in lightbulbs worldwide is held by large multinationals. This wouldn”t have been true in 1960. It is just one example, but it does illustrate the trend.

 The fact is that the “firm” model of economic activity is growing in importance in parallel with the “firm” model of international organisation. This parallel growth is not a coincidence. You may be in favour of retreating from globalisation and internationalisation, but you’re currently swimming against the tide.

  55  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am  “I challenge you to find a lightbulb, whether incandescent or otherwise, that is designed, manufactured, and sold only in your twon, or your county, or England, or indeed the UK. The overwhelming bulk of market share in lightbulbs worldwide is held by large multinationals.”

 You might find that you don’t want to continue with this industry as an example: as it’s one that I work in.

 Please note that my argument is not for economic localism (designed and manufactured in my town). It is about what method are we going to use in economic cooperation around the globe. Those light bulb companies. Do they mine their own sand to make the glass? No. Do they mine their own mercury for the charges of CFLs and metal halides? No. Do they mine wolframite and smelt it to make tungsten filaments? No. Do they mine scandium oxide so as to make metal halide bulbs work? No, in fact they don’t. I get it for them. In fact, I get the raw material from somewhere in Kazakhstan, then refine it in Moscow, then sell it on. To a company which makes the mercury charges. It is those completed mercury charges that the light bulb companies (Osram, Phillips and GE) purchase. Everything up to the putting together of the glass and the mercury is done by other firms, companies and groups on a purely contractual basis.

 And the thing is, the development of multinationals since the 1960s is of *more* such contracting out of activities, not more consolidation into the centre, into the firm. Those mercury charges were made by the light bulb companies themselves back then. Then, in the 70s and 80s the company that makes the charges now was dealing directly with the mine to get the scandium. In the 90s we arrived on the scene and another level of contracting was born.

 This is true right across the board: the multinationals are retreating from owning everything, producing all of their component parts, spinning off everything that is not a core competence. For the transaction costs of doing so have fallen as technology changes.

 So if we are to continue the analogy of the political and the firm then the arguments in favour of the EU as the firm model are also failing. It is, for example, a great deal easier now to organise a Rhine Conference than it was only 50 years ago. Transport, information flow, are vastly easier. So rather than insisting on moving more to the firm model, we should be insisting on moving more to the contractual. 

 Bit like generals always ready to fight the last war: and there’s another example there as well. The Single Market is based upon hte idea that more trade is good: quite correct. But also that we should be trading with those geographically close to us: not correct, for trade geography is not as the crow flies. Oddly, the container ship and the Treaty of Rome both happened within 6 months of each other. And it was the container ship which changed the trade geography. If you’re on the container network, if you can load up a comtainer onto a railway car at the door of your factory, then you’re on the global trade network. If you cannot you’re not. Some factory in Shanghai is now part of the trade geography of Rotterdam, or Brindisi, in a way that some mountaintop village above Brescia or Gstaad is not.

 But because we’re using this firm system, that because we’re countries geogrpahically close to each other, rather than using the contracting system which would recognise trade geography, we’re getting it wrong. We have trade barriers against cheap shows from China for example.

  56  Insideur Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 12:08 pm  Tim I’m delighted that we can learn from your own experience of the lightbulb industry.

 Now I may have misunderstood here, so please correct me if I am wrong. The lightbulb multinationals are contracting out the production of their raw materials and the manufacture of some of the components and other elements needed for their product, right? But who are they contracting that out to? To small companies that operate locally and sell locally? No. They are contracting out to other multinationals who specialise in other parts of the business. You are drawing a false analogy, it seems to me, between the move of the multinational BRANDS towards their end customers and away from their raw materials, and a shift away from the “firm” model. The multinational lightbulb brands, while shedding some of the elements of their traditional business, have replaced those with new elements. they are not shrinking the scope of their activities; they are just shifting it.

 The logic can also be applied to the EU, and I wouldn’t disagree: the EU is a structure that needs to be more adaptable to the changing realities of the globalised world. For example, it ought to be able to shed the CAP, which was a tool created for the purpose of feeding a starving post-war Europe, and move into areas that are more relevant today, such as economic regulation.

 But the way you describe the lightbulb example, I don’t see any evidence of a move away from the firm model.

  57  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm  “To small companies that operate locally and sell locally?”

 Why are you so fascinated by this “local” thing? It’s a global marketplace, not local.

 As to small companies, yes. We’re three people and yes, we do 80% of the global trade in (this admittedly very small indeed) market.

 Yes, I would say that three people as a subcontractor (to a subcontractor) to Phillips, GE and Osram is indeed a move away from the firm model. We may be global but we’re damn small.

  58  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm  I get the impression that the firms/contractors analogy is leading us away from the point, to an extent. But let’s see if I’ve got this right.

 Of course it sometimes makes sense to subcontract, rather than do everything in house. The EU does this as well, via the subsidiarity principle, devolving decision-making to an appropriate level. (In theory, at least. We all know that this doesn’t yet work very well in practice, but it is, at least, one of the key stated aims for the EU’s operation, and there have been a few promising moves in that direction in recent years – albeit not as many as I’d like.)

 The thing is, though, that although the lightbulbs industry can function via lots of little subcontractors, it is still the big multinationals – the likes of Phillips, GE and Osram, judging by Tim’s examples – who bring the whole thing together and deliver the finished product to the consumer. 

 The EU is, to follow the analogy, more like one of these big multinationals. No matter how many things are subcontracted, those big firms will still exist, because they provide a vital function. In the case of lightbulbs, providing product specifications for the subcontractors to adhere to (and an easy point of reference and coordination for all the various subcontractors, suppliers, distributors and retailers, so that they don’t have to keep track of everyone in the supply chain themselves, as well as a final arbitrator as and when contractural disputes may arise – and contractual disputes are more likely the more subcontractors are involved). In the case of the EU, it’s providing rules and regulations for the lower levels of governance to adhere to.

 So, subcontracting may well be a sensible cost-saving route, but a certain amount of centralisation is still necessary to provide a guiding hand and prevent inefficiencies. That’s where the big multinationals fit in in a globalised industry; that’s where the EU fits in when it comes to the European economy. (And yes, in a globalised world it probably would be better for the level of governance to be set even higher than merely continental, but we’re not quite at that stage yet – hell, we haven’t even properly managed it on a continental level yet.)

  59  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm  We’re alomst there then.

 “The EU is, to follow the analogy, more like one of these big multinationals. No matter how many things are subcontracted, those big firms will still exist, because they provide a vital function.”

 Continuing with the analogy we now need to find something which is a vital function which the EU should be fulfilling. To find that we need to find something which is indeed a vital function and further, a function which can only be (or at the very least, would be best performed by) done by political union between 27 countries.

 As, as I’ve already indicated, there are no such vital functions that meet these two standards then the EU should not exist.

 Where there are indeed vital functions (riparine environments, climate change, trade) then we are all already agreed that the contractual method is best: vide the Rhine, Kyoto and the WTO. Hech, even human rights are a contractual basis with the Council of Europe.

 Where we have things that the EU is doing which are not contractual arrangements, but are firm style arrangements, they are not vital functions: CAP, the absurdity that is the CFP, banning light bulbs, limiting the freedom to set our own working hours, etc etc.

 Thus the EU should not exist.

  60  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm  And so we’re back to square one. You’ve *asserted* that there’s nothing that makes sense to run at EU level, but you haven’t *demonstrated* this.

 As noted above, I don’t think that a continental level is the ideal one for many of the multi-/supra-national roles that the EU provides. Ideally it would be much larger in scope.

 At the same time, I don’t think that a *national* level is very often the best for many of the roles currently fulfilled by nation state governments.

 But you work with what you’ve got. Before, we only had nation states, so we worked with that. Now we’ve got the EU, so we work with that too.

 You advocate withdrawing from the EU – presumably this is back to the earlier nation states model? The thing is, though, that the old nation states model can’t be returned to. As you note, global organisations like the WTO exist, modifying the old way that states worked with each other. Likewise, the EU exists, modifying the way European states work with each other.

 I was challenged to provide a counterfactual earlier, showing what I reckoned would happen if the UK pulled out of the EU. That’s what you’re advocating – and so you need to do the same.

 And if you’re advocating the complete dissolution of the EU, then your task is even larger – because you have to demonstrate that all 27 member states would be better off having to do what they do via the EU through alternative multilateral routes.

 In other words, what you’re advocating appears to be a return to old-style multilateral national diplomacy. Which is fine. But considering that for the last 50 years Europe has been moving away from this model (due largely to all its inefficiencies and failures), you need to explain precisely why and how you think it would be better.

 You’re always bringing up your apple geranium leaves in jam, delving into the details – yet when it comes to presenting your alternative you seem only to talk in terms of broad generalities.

 And here – to make things clear – I’m using “you” to mean not just you, Tim Worstall, but you, eurosceptics in general. Criticising is easy. Coming up with genuinely viable alternatives is very hard indeed.

  61  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm  “In other words, what you’re advocating appears to be a return to old-style multilateral national diplomacy. Which is fine. But considering that for the last 50 years Europe has been moving away from this model (due largely to all its inefficiencies and failures), you need to explain precisely why and how you think it would be better.”

 No, rather you need to explain why giving a polity the power to regulate apple geranium leaves in jam is better than the multi lateral model.

 I’m even willing, arguendo, to agree that the EU is indeed better, in theory, than certain multilateral solutions. But in practice, the EU always ends up, as any new polity will and a multilateral solution won’t, arguing about jams and lightbulbs. The costs of which I think are greater than the possible inefficiencies of the multilateral approach.

 You think differently: great, prove it.

  62  Hunter Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm  Worstall; Why is it always about you, your definitions of what it should be, and why it shouldn’t exist because it fails to meet your definition? I think your sole purpose should be to bring me food and wine. As you do neither, you should not exist. Doesn’t seem fair does it? 

 On an issue like international aid it makes far more sense to centralise coordination of programmes and activities for several reasons. Firstly, this removes the “doublage” of aid, whereby several donor organisations approach and execute the same task in different ways, often introducing contradictory or conflict modus operandi into a developing environment, thus complicating and undermining the situation, as opposed to ameliorating it. It also allows for the creation of a dedicated base of expertise among private sector contractors, increasingly able to understand the European development environment and thus tailor their operations to the European standard, ensuring both institutional development and personal development among the companies and contractors engaged in such work, again reinforcing aid effectiveness. In addition to these points, it allows for the contracting organisations such as EuropeAid to build up a body of in house expertise, as well as “institutional memory”, that serve to further support aid effectiveness through continual monitoring and evaluation processes, reviews, and optimisation of flawed or failing imlementation strategies. While the member states mostly retain their development agencies, under initiatives such as the Paris Declaration aid is becoming increasingly streamlined and effective, especially since the centralisation of aid under the EU institutions reduces the effect of national agendas (as you mentioned earlier, one must bear in mind what happens when European nations divide up the world).

 Then there is policy. Surely centralised policy making again mitigates the chances for national agendas in the international market, often far more susceptible to corporate lobbying (the effects of which can be seen by the oil lobby continuously undermining renewable energies, for example), to affect policy; bureaucratising everything to the extent that it must be approved by 27 different nations surely reduces the ability of individual ministers and ministries, or even countries, to follow through their corrupt plans.

 It would also seem to be that democratic governance would be far cleaner if managed by a third, international party. As one can see by the United Nations, it is impossible to really stop anyone messing around on a global scale through policy and politics. However, with a limited membership like the EU, it may become increasingly possible to ensure that all EU citizens are protected by the same rights, and that I, as a citizen, may resort to a third party, the European Institutions, as and when (increasingly likely in the UK) my own government fails me. In addition to this, the 27 countries of European can again reach increasingly objective conclusions when common ground must be found between them; the UK may see fit to detain someone for 28 days without legal representation (which is a significant cost to a working man who doesn’t have your “reputation”), but if a strong European Union were present, perhaps such transgressions could be mitigate, or avoid. 

 If you make straw man arguments against the European Union, you will of course win. However, to my youthful eyes, rosily tinted by the idealism that a lack of years brings, the EU has already achieved some great things, and may achieve greater things yet, given time and cooperation. I would go so far to say that it is the best hope us little people have of truly democratic governance to date, even if it is a monolithic bureautic mess staffed with the occassional madman.

  63  Hunter Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm  Find the missing “d”.

  64  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm  No, Tim. I don’t have to prove anything – because the EU exists. I’m arguing in favour of *a modification* of the status quo. You’re arguing for its wholesale rejection.

 If the EU didn’t exist, and I was arguing for its formation, then yes – the onus would be on me to make the case. But the situation is the precise opposite.

 Your point of view is, therefore, advocating a huge change in the status quo – and therefore, like any extreme or revolutionary viewpoint, needs justification and clarification to convince people to back it. 

 As it stands, all you’re doing is proving my point that eurosceptics really don’t argue their case at all well. Hell, you’re even agreeing with me on that much by *refusing* to argue your case.

  65  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm  “On an issue like international aid”

 At maximum 0.5% of the EU area economy. We shoudl have 80% of our Statutory Instruments determined by Brussels in order to deal with 0.5% of the economy? Yank again, there’s bells on the other one. Especiallçy as EU directed aid is generally determined to be completely shite. Worse than useless, actively harmful (go read some Bill Easterly).

 “Surely centralised policy making again mitigates the chances for national agendas in the international market, often far more susceptible to corporate lobbying”

 If you think that Brussels is *less* likely to succumb to corporate lobbying then you’re smoking some seriously strong shit there. We have huge tariffs on Chinese and Vietnamese shoes precisely because Brussels caved in to the shoe manufacturers. 500 million people must pay more for their shoes so that a few hundred small firms (180,000 workers all told) in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal don’t go bust.

 “It would also seem to be that democratic governance would be far cleaner if managed by a third, international party.”

 If you cannot vote the bastards out then it ain’t a democracy, is it?

 “Worstall; Why is it always about you, your definitions of what it should be, and why it shouldn’t exist because it fails to meet your definition?”

 Actually, I stood for election on my ideas just a few months back. The party I was standing for, the one espousing these views, that we should leave the EU, came second. Yes, beat both Labour and the Lib Dems. I’d say that my ideas and definitions have a decentish amount of popular support actually. Indeed, if the UK were offered the referendum that everyone promised then I think my ideas would be in the majority.

  66  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pm  “because the EU exists.”

 No, it doesn’t not with legal personality. Not until Vaslav Klaus puts his signature to the Lisbon Treaty.

 Your turn.

  67  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm  You complain because international aid is a pifflingly small 0.5% of the EU’s economy, so not worth btohering with? Fine.

 The total GDP of the EU27 (not necessarily the best method of working these things out, I know) is c.12,250bn euros per year.

 The EU’s total annual budget? 120bn euros (in 2007) – a little under 1%.

 So by your logic we shouldn’t worry about the EU budget, right?

 And as for “80% of our statutory instruments”? – I call utter rubbish.

 Again – one of my other key complaints about the eurosceptic argument – relying on false statistics on the assumption that no one can be bothered to check them out.

 This works fine for a while – but sooner or later the anti-EU cause gets caught in a big lie that no one can miss (like “Lisbon will bring in abortion clinics” or “Lisbon will end Irish neutrality”), and the anti-EU support base will collapse.

 Yes, UKIP may currently have a high level of support (for numerous reasons, not all to do with their policies) – but that support is based on a misunderstanding of the EU among the electorate brought about by a combination of poor press reporting, shoddy EU PR, and wilful, deliberate deception on the part of the anti-EU crowd. Just like that 80% claim, in fact – a claim that has been repeated so often that it’s usually accepted at face value, and yet it’s total nonsense.

 When people discover that your claims about the EU’s pernicious influence are based upon exaggerations and lies, they will turn against the eurosceptics. And my whole point is that this is bad for *all* of us. We *need* strong critics of the EU – but we need constructive ones, who base their criticisms on the facts, not on a combination of ideology and lies.

  68  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm  “No it doesn’t”

 Come on, Tim. You’re an intelligent man. You can do better than that. I’m trying to have a genuine discussion, and you’re resorting to shutting your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and going “ner ner ner”?

 Is that seriously the best you’ve got?

  69  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm  “The EU’s total annual budget? 120bn euros (in 2007) – a little under 1%.

 So by your logic we shouldn’t worry about the EU budget, right?”

 I tend not to, you’re correct. It’s the rest of it that worries me. The CFP, for example, quite possibly the worst regulatory regime for fisheries in the entire world (it’s worse than not having one at all, certainly) is not included in that budget figure.

 If we’re going to have cap and trade (I’d prefer carbon tax but…) then we should auction all permits. The EU has insisted that no one can auction them all. That’s not in the budget.

 “a genuine discussion, ” So am I. I do not see any reason that the EU should exist. Everything that is actually desirable to be done at a supermnational level can be better done on the treaty, contractual basis. Everything else that the EU does isn’t desirable.

 What’s not genuine about that? There’s reams of examples, of information, of details, above. All I’m getting back from you is, well, this is where we are. Yes, and that’s what I’m complaining about!

  70  Tim Worstall Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm  Here’s, quite by chance, something from the EU that just arrived in my inbox:

 “Under REACH, multi-constituent substances are described as ‘well-defined’. This terminology belies the fact that characterization for the purpose of registration can, in some cases, present a significant analytical challenge. The successful analysis of multi-constituent substances requires a combination of in-depth knowledge of the chemical processes used to prepare them and a well-chosen suite of tests.”

 Yes, that monstrous abortion of a law about chemicals assumes that things are “well defined” and then we’ve got to have a training course because of course they’re not, so we’ve all got to go off and learn how to make them so.

 While I was registering one chemical I found out that I couldn’t register an oxide. I could register the metal, other compounds, but not the oxide. Why? Because the fools who wrote the law assumed that you wouldn’t have to register oxygen: fair enough, it is all around us after all. But this means that as you do not need to register O, thefore you cannot, so (to make up the chemical name) I can register BiMgLuCl, but not BiMgLuO.

 And these cretins want to try and run a continent? 

 I simply dfo not see them doing anything well, even the things that arguably might be done better at supranational level. Thus we shouldn’t be using them to do anything.

  71  Hunter Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm  Tim Worstall: Tell the Indonesians they don’t need our food because it’s shite, or the raped women of the Kenyan forest tribes they don’t need our democratisation and justice processes because rape is just fine, or the South Africans that they don’t need our AIDS medicines because a shower will cure it. 

 I don’t think it’s more susceptible than the UK, where the bribery, kickbacks and profiteering have been well documented, and the endemic corruption in the seat of government is clear. I’d say there are far more honest Eurocrats that British bureaucrats. I can’t vote out the Labour Government either. You can’t vote parties out. Only in. For a clever guy you sure are stupid. I didn’t know you stood for election. I guess your “ideas” were so popular you didn’t get voted in. Which is why you no longer represent UKIP.

  72  Hunter Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm  Oh, you can’t register a chemical? I’m so sorry for you Tim. Baby P, and those cretins want to run a country? You’re a bigger jackass than I thought.

  73  Nosemonkey Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pm  Come now, Hunter dearest – lay off the personal stuff. It may be frustrating, but the second you resort to name-calling you undermine your entire argument.

 Tim – “I simply dfo not see them doing anything well”

 Who is this “they”?

 Like any organisation, the EU’s functionaries are a myriad of individuals like you or I (and that’s before we start to note that much of the groundwork of drawing up EU legislation and regulations is actually done at nation state level, so small is the EU’s in-house workforce – that whole subcontracting thing again).

 What makes these individuals so incompetent?

 Why can’t we hire more competent ones?

 If it’s the system that’s flawed, why can’t we fix the system?

 If large multinationals can function effectively with large workforces, why can’t large government-style organisations?

 And why is the EU an especially incompetent case, when its workforce is so much smaller than that of the governmental machinery of numerous nation states?

 And, more to the point, (although you may have found an instance where it didn’t work) isn’t it better – should you wish to register a new chemical – to be able to register it in multiple countries simultaneously, rather than have to file papers to 27 different offices, in more than a dozen different languages? Doesn’t that have the potential to save you time and money?

  74  Robin Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm  Nosemonkey,

 Unfortunately it would be tedious to those who are not in my trade if I keep refering to aspects of haulage .I obviously have not explained the full situation well enough. If I may just make one example, when in a meeting with a transport minister and a couple of civil servants, when a complaint was made about French controls near the channel ports and why cant we do the same, the mandarins replied that it was illegal under EU law.The French can do it, we cant. Same laws, different culture . I hope I have made it clear though, that I dont blame the EU in the whole for our tribulations, but our unsuitability to this project .

  75  Robin Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm  Hunter,

 Why are you so angry ? What reason do you have to hate EUrosceptics ? Has your job, trade, way of life been affected by anything EUrosceptics have done ?

  76  Insideur Says:  October 8th, 2009 at 8:54 pm  There’s a lot of water under the bridge since I last commented, even though it was only a few hours ago… good work, folks.

 Tim, sadly, you didn’t address my main observation on the issue of the parallel growth of multinationals and international organisations. The fact that your own company employs three people is neither here nor there. My contention is that multinationals are growing, and that their number is growing. Therefore, the “firm” model that you so dislike is growing. Philips may have shed the upper levels of the supply chain, but it has compensated by growing into distribution. Right around the corner from me in Brussels, there is a large lighting retailer called Massive. It’s just a Philips brand, and all the lamps and bulbs on sale are Philips. This is a business that Philips was not in 20 years ago. So it has not shrunk; it has shifted. 

 Why do multinational businesses shift? Because the dynamics of the market push them to cut costs and increase efficiencies. My argument is that the EU is like a multinational business. It wouldn’t exist at all if the market didn’t want it. And the market is the countries that join it. This is not to say that it’s a smooth, well-oiled machine. Like Philips, maybe it should get out of some businesses, and move into others. Sadly, it’s a lot less agile than Philips. Bu I think the analogy holds.

 I’m afraid that I have to agree with Nosemonkey about where your argument goes. In the end, what you have said in all the long comments you have posted above boils down to the assertion that the EU is not necessary, and that it therefore ought not to exist. But you have not given any satisfactory arguments for why it is not necessary. And more fundamentally, you seem to be unwilling to accept the reality that the intertia of the status quo needs to be shifted by something, or it will not change. That something is persuasive arguments against the system, or at least parts of it. And sadly, if the best we can come up with is, “the system is unnecessary and I know this because I know it”, we won’t get very far.

 The incandescent lightbulb ban is not an inevitable consequence of having the EU, as you seem to suggest. It’s a policy decision. You can agree or disagree with the policy decision. But the institutions of the EU are not pre-configured to take certain policy decisions. They are a law-based framework for discussions leading to such policy decisions, just as is the WTO, and just as is the UN. If you believe that leaving the EU will restore you to a political system (the UK) that will inevitably come up with much better policy decisions, you are deluding yourself.

 I think it is indisputably the case that some things at least ought to be taken away from the EU and left to Member States. I’ve mentioned the CAP in that regard. Others might disagree with me, but I think the evidence base for that argument is strong. But I think the evidence base for the contention that lightbulb bans or jam labeling regulations should be left to Member States is much, much weaker. Nothing you have said has really convinced me otherwise – despite my hope that you could use your own line of business to illustrate your points.

  77  Hunter Says:  October 9th, 2009 at 7:58 am  As my comments seem to have been unwelcome, I offer an unreserved apology for my behaviour. Robin: My local pub happens to be the hideout for UKIP. At least we managed to get rid of the BNP. It’s nothing personal, I’m just a little tired of it all.

  78  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am  36 Insideur

 Actually not so regarding being overly influenced by the British media.

 Agree with you that the British media European coverage is poor, but you must bear in mind that most of the “serious” British media is europhile rather than sceptic – definitely so in the case of the BBC and Channel 4, but also the FT, Guardian, Independent and Economist in the print media. The Times faces both ways. Not sure whether you would consider the Telegraph to be serious or not? Some of their writers are serious, so you could say the Telegraph is the only Eurosceptic part of the British media. The Scotsman is also Europhile by the way.

 Name dropping (apologies) I can remember discussing the issue with Harold Wilson just before he became PM for the second time at a Labour Party students do. Wison was a genuine internationalist of the old school and a serious peacenick which is why he fortunately kept us out of Vietnam. Naturally he was on the fence on the EU issue, but he did stress the peace in Europe line as the big argument in favour, rather than economics in his off the record chats. (He was the driving force behind the Esperanto movement you know, and wanted Esperanto to be the only official language of the EU.)

 Also remember Mike Gapes from that long ago time (he is now the Europhile chairman of the HoC Foreign Affairs select committee). In those days he wore the de rigeur Mao suit and denounced me as a bougeois capitalist lackey and opposed the EU as an impediment to building the Fourth International, so like you it seems he has changed his mind! 

 Plenty of people do of course. Chris Huhne was a big Forth International man too and can vaguely recall him squaring the circle by arguing the EU was the route to build the Fouth International which was why he was leaving his job on Red Merseyside with the Liverpool Echo and applying to work for the Economist in Brussels. Presumably Cohn-Bendit still takes this view?

 In the real world I worked for a major European multinational for many years including stints in both France and Germany. My personal disenchantment with the Project really began in the 1980s when I was involved in various Commission consultative committees set up to help design the single currency.

 For what it is worth I continued to mix with senior people in the Labour Party (including a minor involvement in drafting “the longest suicide note in history”), but left when Bryan Gould lost the leadership election, and Labour subsequently reversed its position on the EU. I suppose its a moot point whether Gould would ever have become PM, but had he done so then presumably the UK would no longer be an EU member?

 Please forgive this egoistic CV which I was tempted to post a few months ago when Nosemonkey told me I was a “xenophobe” and should “grow up” – if only I was still young enough to do so!

  79  Nosemonkey Says:   October 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am  Mark – I’d disagree with your assessment of the FT, BBC and Economist as being europhile, though I guess that depends on your point of view. I’ve noticed all of them being decidedly critical on numerous occasions. Unless by “europhile” you mean “accepting of British membership”? I always consider it to mean something far more enthusiastic, myself.

 On The Scotsman, though, you’re flat-out wrong. The Executive Editor of The Scotsman is Bill Jamieson, former Economics Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, author of the decidedly eurosceptic “Britain Beyond Europe” as well as numerous outright anti-EU pamphlets and articles for the Bruges Group. He joined in part because he liked the paper’s editorial line, and that line has continued since he’s been there. The only slight modification to the general anti-EU tone is that public opinion in Scotland is generally more pro-EU than south of the border, and so they have to be careful not to alienate the readership.

 I’d also suggest that – as the shifts in position of the various people you mention over the years might suggest – the EU is a very different beast now to what it was in the 70s and 80s. Maggie Thatcher’s obstinancy did have a significant effect – but only towards the end of and after her time in office. Maastricht changed a lot – and, despite the claims of many eurosceptics, the majority of those changes (the subsidiarity principle in particular) were to the advantage of the more reluctant Europeanism that successive British government have long displayed.

 Oh, and I don’t think it was me who called you a xenophobe and told you to grow up. The only comment I can find that uses those phrases in relation to someone called Mark is here, from someone called Ed. That also appears to be the only comment ever left on this site that uses “xenophobe” and “grow up” together.

  80  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm  Further to my rambling musings on the past think I can remember that both the late AJP Taylor and Dame Aggie Ramm being sceptics, but also the late I. Berlin and Freddie Ayer were in favour? Stuart Hampshire was all over the shop? That’s much more interesting and worth taking seriously than the political hacks.

 Do people of my student generation see these “towering figures” through rose tinted spectacles? (Do Google them if you have perhaps never heard of some of them.). Is it because we have a nostalgia like the English cricket team was better in the 70s (it wasn’t), or for some reason the nature of national debate has changed (something about university funding?). Can it really be that Garton-Ashe is their equal?

 Would AJP and Dame Aggie have posted on blogs had they been around today I wonder? If so Nosemonkey might have got his wish for some serious sceptic arguments. 

 Don’t think you can argue their views are out of date, not when you are looking at in terms of general political philosophies and the long span of European history. Seems to me the arguments of the 70s are still the same in principle?

  81  Mark, Edinburgh Says:  October 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm  79 Nosemonkey – you’re right it was “Ed” not you, apologies. Should read more carefully.

 My view of the Scotsman is based on them using Angus Ogg as their main commentator on EU matters.

  82  Insideur Says:  October 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm  Mark, I was far too young in the 70s to understand what Europe was, let along European integration. My CV is therefore inevitably much less impressive than yours, and I don’t know first hand what the arguments were back then!

 However, on the media, I must (rather boringly) again agree with Nosemonkey. I feel that the Guardian and Independent are the most europhoile of the serious UK media. But their readership is tiny compared to the audicences reached by the BBC, Times, and the Telegraph. As Nosemonkey says, where these media sit on the EU is all relative. Guardian and Independent clearly favour “ever closer unuion”. The FT and the Economist are close to my own views – deeply critical of various aspects of the EU, but in favour of its continued existence and believe that on balance, membership is a benefit. It has been some time since I read the Times regularly. But I can’t remember it facing both ways. My own recollection is that it is not far behind the Telegraph in terms of its hostility to everything European. The Telegraph had that interesting episode when David Rennie was the Brussels correspondent. He said publicly that he had demanded a free voice as a condition of taking on the role. I sensed that the frustration among the editorial staff was a factor in his move to the Economist, and also one of the reasons why Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was allowed to continue a drip-feed of anti-EU stories. Perhaps the most extraordinary expression of the Telegraph’s hostility to the EU is the fact that it grants Christopher Booker the “Notebook” column in the Sunday edition. The result is, as you seem to imply, that on EU issues at least, the Telegraph cannot really be considered a serious paper. And I say that as an avid Telegraph reader, who agrees with the editorial line on large swaths of the rest!

 Regardless of the editorial line, only the FT and Economist really cover the EU in anything like satisfactory depth. No reader of any of the other print publications can really be expected to have an informed view on the EU, because they are not informed.

 The BBC is absolutely not “europhile” in my opinion, if by that you mean uncritical of the EU. It is scrupulously fair in its coverage, especially since the big report that was done in the days when euro membership was a hot issue.

 But at least the BBC covers the EU. The Record Europe is somewhat lightweight, but it is the only programme of its kind of which I am aware, and provides viewers with the basic coverage of day-to-day issues that they need, beyond the headlines.

 I suspect that you feel the BBC is europhile because you don’t hear BBC journalists attacking the EU. And since the BBC’s coverage of the EU is greater than that of other media, it “feels” friendly, even if the content is actually presented in a carefully balanced way.

 But frankly none of the above matters when the mass circulation papers like the Mail and the Sun are so willing to print mountains of total rubbish about “Brussels”. What is “Brussels” anyway?

  83  Martin Keegan Says:  October 10th, 2009 at 12:40 am  Nosemonkey, stop tarring Eurosceptics with the excesses of an obviously lunatic fringe. Sane Eurosceptics find them just as pathetic and irritating as you do, except that we don’t have any reason to give them airtime and attention.

 Your blog always seems to attack the most lowbrow Eurosceptic positions: the idiocy about “Corpus Juris” and the definition of Sovereignty, Superstates and all the rest of Ken Adams’ playbook. You write long, good pieces undermining the essentialist account of nationhood, but when it comes to answering the hard Eurosceptic arguments, e.g., at On the EU’s “democratic deficit”, you have in the past run out of steam.

  84  french derek Says:  October 10th, 2009 at 8:35 am  Phew, I’m away working for a couple of days; meanwhile so many people seem to have found time for so much online debate!

 Most discussion seems to revolve around trade and commerce: both very important in the EU but not the be-all and end-all of its existence. The EU’s consumer-protection and competition work alone should be applauded (OK they make mistakes – but anyone who doesn’t isn’t trying to do well). Another much protested but generally beneficial area is employment.

 I could argue endlessly against the CAP (at least in it’s current form) but the EU has worked wonders in agreeing upon controlling better farming practice (pollution, insecticides, etc). Just don’t mention the Fisheries Policy (so-called).

 Another area some find difficult is Justice – asylum, immigration, border controls police and judicial cooperation – but, overall, Europe is better off with them than without. The EU’s Public Health activity is well-regarded by the health profession. Then, there’s transport (Yes, Robin: eg coordinating the building of international motorways and railways, air transport).

 Oh, there’s a lot more. All of which have been put in place by democratically elected national governments, by mutual agreement. (eg my grandson would like me to mention Erasmus). 

 So, what have we got? An organisation that can pass laws, yet has no government; it agrees social policies but it cannot meddle in national welfare policies; it has a single currency yet no economic powers. And it’s messy. None of the above areas is managed properly – but that is an impossibility for any organisation larger than one person. For a governmental institution it has an enormous democratic deficit.

 But, overall, I find it a necessary and valuable institution.

  85  Insideur Says:  October 10th, 2009 at 8:37 pm  A piece of advice for Martin Keegan. Start making more noise than the lunatic fringe. The fact that they are giving you a bad name is not Nosemonkey’s fault.

  86  Martin Keegan Says:  October 11th, 2009 at 7:53 am  I’d love to say “yes it IS Nosemonkey’s fault”, but I don’t want to get a reputation as unreasonable in argument ;)

  87  Robin Says:  October 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm  Here is a list (incomplete) of EUrosceptic types.

 1; those that think it is a facade for German domination. 2; those that think it is for the French 3; those that think it was set up by the CIA 4; those that think it is a plan by Bilderburgers /Illuminati /Jews/CFR/ Trilateral Commission/ Freemasons/ Vatican/Knights Templars 5 ;those who think it is racist 6; who think it is corporatist 7; think it is fascist 8; undemocratic 9; not suitable for Britain 10; it is corrupt 11; bureaucratic 12; run by elites 13; expensive 14; Communist 15; Nazi 16; the work of the devil.

 Now clearly it cant be all of those things some of which are diametricaly opposed , but some are more credible than others . You EUrophiles will agree with a lot of that list though, wouldn`t you ?

  88  Insideur Says:  October 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm  Don’t forget that in the UK it’s a Catholic conspiracy, and in Poland it’s a Protestant conspiracy.

  89  Slartibartfas Says:  October 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm  From the list above, I would only consider “run by elites”, “bureaucratic” to have good legitimation and “undemocratic”, “not suitable for Britain” maybe but only maybe also “corporatist” with limited legitimation. The rest is by far and large pure BS.

  90  french derek Says:  October 12th, 2009 at 8:10 am  @Slartibartfas: every large organisation -public or private – needs bureaucracy (and “red tape”): they couldn’t function, otherwise. One of the major problems the EU has it not enough people in their bureaucracy: which is one reason why (a) things take so long and (b) why they often don’t get it right. The EU has to rely on national governments to do a large of the work – and some of those are (shall we say) less efficient than others.

 As for the elites – well your government’s ministers and Commissioner appointments are the elites: they are the ones who run it. Believe it or not (and you probably won’t) the Commission is there to serve the Council of Ministers. Why do you think national leaders wanted a weak Commission President (ie Barroso)?

 Whether it is “corporatist” (whatever that means) depends on member nations. Those governments created it and hand over more and more functions to it.

 As to whether it is “suitable for Britain”. That’ a matter of opinion: and I respect yours. (NB I note no-one has thought to mention what pressure the US might bring to bear on Cameron’s actions once elected ….. interesting thought?)

  91  Slartibartfas Says:  October 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pm  @french derek There is hardly anything you wrote that I would disagree with. I want to add though that I added the “suitable for Britain” thing only because there seem to be so many Britons out there who get not tired repeating that. I am nonetheless sceptical thats why I “limited” the legitimation in my opinion at least. I don’t necessarily think it does not suit Briton, economically it certainly does quite well, but you need also a political will for a certain decree of integration and I fear a large amount of Britons is crudly lacking it. That could possibly change of course, but I don’t see that for now. 

 I think a supranational organisation has to be bureaucratic and probably will be less efficient than a centralized state, by principle. But its less less bureaucratic and more efficient for what it does than pure international organisations while having a considerably better democratic legitimation. 

 The point about the elites is not so much of who has the power but that the project is an elite driven one. Thats a problem, we would need a broader support in society for it. Thats one of the greatest problems I identify. Don’t ask me how one could change that to the better.

  92  Slartibartfas Says:  October 12th, 2009 at 3:17 pm  PS: I just read my comment above and excuse for the horrible spelling mistakes I had made. ;)

  93  Nicolas Says:  October 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am  I don’t think the eurosceptics have done a particularly bad job. I mean, there is a reason why every treaty approved since the foundation of the EU has not been subject to popular vote (except for the Constitution that went rather bad and the recent Irish vote). 

 Personally I think popular support is already won by eurosceptics. So I don’t think that their campaign or communication strategy is flawed. the problem that eurosceptic face is that it doesn’t matter what the public opinion think: the EU is managed by an elite anyway.

  94  Insideur Says:  October 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm  No it’s really not that simple Nicolas. Voters do have a choice between eurosceptic and other parties in most countries. They generally don’t elect eurosceptic parties. The UK may be about to break that rule, but the Conservatives in the UK are trying very hard NOT to campaign on EU issues because they know that voters don’t care. Or at least, they don’t care compared to the way they care about Afghanistan or MP corruption or healthcare or taxes, which are all nationally-controlled issues.

  95  Nicolas Says:  October 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm  Insideur: except for the UK as you say, practically all major parties in every country are pro-EU. Socialdemocrats, Liberals and Christian Democrats they all have similar position regarding the EU. And sorry to disagree, but people do not vote these parties because they back the EU, they vote them because they are the major parties in their countries and they have always done so.

 It doesn’t take much to figure out that if the people would have been consulted more frequently the EU would be nowhere.

  96  Insideur Says:  October 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm  Nicolas I don’t think you understand the point I am making. 

 The fact that the main parties are not eurosceptic indicates that the voters they are targeting do not care enough about the EU to make it worth their while to be eurosceptic. Parties constantly shift policies in order to win votes. The “market” for votes is like any other – there is a dynamic relationship between supply and demand.

 My point is not that voters could easily elect eurosceptic governments overnight. Indeed, in most EU countries, it would take a longer process of euroscepticisation (nice new word?) over time to achieve that result. 

 Voters choose a party on a basket of issues that they deem important. Probably no single voter in history has voted for a party that offered only policies with which that voter agreed. In other words, I do not for a moment contest the claim that many eurosceptic voters vote for pro-EU parties. I am sure that this is correct. My point is just that they don’t disagree strongly enough with the parties’ views on the EU to make these views electorally relevant. As far as I am aware, no party in history has won an election on the single issue of EU membership, or even on a platform that put the question of EU membership in the top rank of its priorities.

 In the end, the people have spoken. If they do not elect eurosceptic parties, then eurosceptic parties are not close enough to the people’s concerns. It’s a little like football. I’m an Arsenal fan. My club plays absolutely beautiful football. But since 2005, the club has won no trophies. In the end, in a competition, you can be judged only on results. In 100 years, no one looking through the history books will say, “between 2005 and 2010, Arsenal played beautiful football”. They will say, “between 2005 and 2010, Arsenal won no trophies”.

 Similarly, we can say all we want now about the reasons for the way voters vote in Europe. But history will show that European voters did not support eurosceptic parties (at least until 2010!). And there are some out there, even in the most surprising countries.

  97  french derek Says:  October 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm  Nicolas Each nation takes its own view on how “democracy” will work for them. Some offer referendums on specific topics (eg Ireland); some use referendums as an occasional option (eg France); some rarely use them, unless there is an external requirement (eg the UK and entry into what is now the EU). Nations in this latter category (eg the UK) tend to rely on the fact that government is elected to act on behalf of the people: and it does so. eg I wonder what might have been the outcome of a referendum on entry into the Iraq war?

 Mr Cameron has promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whether the Treaty isin force or not. We can debate precisely what effect this could have but it appears to be his party’s political commitment. So, if you vote for his party, then you might expect the stated policy to be acted upon. But then, who trusts a politician?

   98  Nicolas Says:  October 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 am  Insideur and French Derek :

 I think we are discussing different things. My comment was in reply to the original post that said that eurosceptic’s communication strategy or propaganda had failed to convince the population. I disagree with this. I think it has been quite effective in general terms. At least it is not worse than the pro-EU propaganda which has failed to convince a big part of the public opinion. But as I said before public opinion is not very important in the EU debate what matters are the elites and I think eurosceptics should target these groups instead of the general public if they want to further their goals more efficiently.

  99  Nosemonkey Says:  October 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am  Nicholas – in which case I think we may be (sort of) in agreement. Because part of the point of the original post is that the current eurosceptic approach is only convincing to people who know little or nothing about the way the EU actually works or what the EU actually does, yet looks ridiculous to anyone who knows a bit more about the reality. To be more effective, they need to stick more to the facts, which will be more convincing to the political elites, as well as those who know a bit more.

 I’d agree that, in the UK at least, there’s probably a majority of the population that’s loosely eurosceptic. But I’d argue that a lot of this euroscepticism is based upon misunderstandings that have been deliberately propagated by anti-EU groups. (The “80% of all laws come from the EU” claim, or UKIP’s “£40 million a day” one in the run-up to the European elections this year, for example, are both better-known than the true situation.)

  100  Insideur Says:  October 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm  Nicolas, I don’t think the eurosceptic movement has been very effective in general terms at all, except perhaps in the UK. Across Europe, it has failed to make a hot issue out of the question of EU membership. And as Nosemonkey says, in the UK, that is sadly largely the result of tabloid tactics and misinformation, when there is plenty of “real” dirt to dish. See my post on Open Europe for more: http://brusselscomment.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-europe-is-failing.html

  101  Slartibartfas Says:  October 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm  Nicolas, what I don’t understand is if the eurosceptic side is so unbeatably supported by the broad majority all over Europe, how does it come that out of 6 referendums over treaties, that does not cause enthusiasm in hardly anyone, 3 were in favour and 3 were in opposition? That hardly looks like a clear cut undefeatable public general EU skepticism.

  102  french derek Says:  October 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am  Niclas: if, by the eurosceptics you mean the eurosceptic UK press, then I fully agree they have continuously put over a very strong message (OK, based on what I see and read on my very occasional visits there). However, as has already been noted, so much of it is half-truths, deliberate distortion, taken out of context, or downright lies. Just the sort of stuff you would expect from the gutter press, but not the sort of stuff you would expect a reasonably intelligent person to accept at face value.

  103  Nicolas Says:  October 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 am  Insideur and Nosemonkey: then I agree with you. Eurosceptics have not been efficient in terms of advancing their objectives but they have been quite successful in convincing a large portion of the population.

 Slartibartfas: I’m not talking about a “clear cut undefeatable public general EU scepticism”. What I am saying is that the propaganda of eurosceptics is clearly not as bad as hinted by the author of the post, at least when aimed at convincing the general public. Your own example of referendums, 3 in favour and 3 against, could be used to support my point. Don’t you think eurosceptics’ campaigning has been doing pretty well provided that all major parties were supporting the approval of the treaties on each instances? I mean, they were against all odds.

 Personally I think they’ve been doing a rather good job in convincing the people, and on the contrary the pro-EU propaganda has been quite bad.

  104  Slartibartfas Says:  October 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm  @Nicolas

 I just know the Austrian Eurosceptic propaganda (if you may call it that way) which is apart from some exceptions of plain terrible quality. Everyone who has only a slight idea of the EU can’t take it serious. There are few exceptions, where those agitating seem at least like they know what they are talking about, but their argumentation seems often so terribly biased and and on the brink of openly lying that it would never convince me either. I mean I am perfectly sure that people alike a Prof. Schachtschneider are intelligent, educated and know their field. But if someone tells me eg time over time again, that the Lisbon treaty as such will reintroduce capital punishment (and implying that it will dictate that on the memberstates), thats a point where they leave the arena of sensible argumentation. 

 On the other side, lets have a look on the pro European propaganda (let’s call it consequently that way as well). Yes I think I can agree with you insofar as it is bad as well. (In my opinion however not quite as bad) 

 In my opinion we do not lack EU haters on one side and EU self glorfying material on the other. We lack sensible information sources in between not specialiced on SUN scare stories or EUropean sunday speeches. We need more good journalism in Brussels and we need the whole spectrum of it. Liberal , conservative … and all of them please, independent from the EU.(I don’t think grants are a big problem, as long as they are fix and not dependent on the opinionated content but there must not be a connection to an EU institution otherwise)

 Regarding the Referendums. If you look at them, the arguments of the no side varied largely. Actually it can be argued that eg in France, the no side, did to a large extend not vote against an ever closer Europe, but it voted against a “neoliberal” Europe. The party of Chirac being in favour did not really help either, as he was deeply loathed by many. Moreover many of the no sayers lived in the illusion that if they voted no, a new draft could be made, which would be more socialist in tendency. A pipe dream at best if you ask me. Anyway, these Referendums were not about the EU as such but about the specific treaty. In Ireland for example a key argument of the no side was that voting against the treaty does not mean one has to be oposed to the EU as such. As the Lisbon treaty is a watered down compromise of the watered down Constitutional treaty which was a watered down version of the Convent proposal which never made anyone enthusiastic, its not surprising that the no side managed a negative result in 3 out of 6 cases. 

 I tend to think also that these vast and complex things always are rather easy to be handled by no sides. There will always be aspects that someone does not like. Everony no matter what his opinions are, will find something he does not like about it. Its not possible in a different way. So the yes side has a harder game in general I think. Its different to a single issue referendum. You can be in favour of it or against. There are less chances of finding arguments that may attract each and everyone.

  105  Nicolas Says:  October 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm  Slartibartfas: I think we disagree in what ‘good propaganda’ is. According to me, good propaganda needs to convince, that is its sole objective. This is usually better done by appealing to emotions rather than rational arguments. Check otherwise the TV screen and tell me how much sensible argumentation you find.

 “In my opinion we do not lack EU haters on one side and EU self glorifying material on the other”.

 Here I think you give a hint about what is wrong with the pro-EU propaganda. Self glorifying material is simply boring for the general public. At best it will leave the people indifferent and at the worst case it will make them angry. On the contrary, scary stuff is much better.

 Just remember what made the Irish finally vote for YES. Was it sensible argumentation? I don’t think so. It was fear.

  106  Slartibartfas Says:  October 25th, 2009 at 5:54 pm  Personally I am opposed to propaganda in the narrow sense which is just there to “convince” no matter what that needs. 

 The Irish voted yes for several reasons, economic fear was only one aspect. Another one was certainly also that those in favour of the treaty were more motivated to turn up at the polls than last time, since they knew that it can’t taken for granted that the yes side wins. 

 Another argument is quite interesting and its a bit ironic as well. The Irish people resented being threatened by some politicians across Europe if they don’t vote yes. This time that had the result that most bit their lips, but on the other side the UKIP thought it has to foster the no side in Ireland and campaigned quite substantially. It seems if Irish people resent something more than being told by “Europe” how to vote, it is being told by British how to vote. 

 What you suggested that one should use more scare tactics on the pro European side (on the EU sceptic side, its pretty commonly used already anyway) is indeed very cynic. I think if you overdo it with this kind of cynism, especially if you are at power, you may do more harm than good. All the scare tales will fall back to you eventually if you are the one at power.

  107  french derek Says:  October 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am  The blog started with a blast against biased newspaper articles. Interesting to compare with what I read in my daily newspapers, here in France, and occasionally in Germany and Spain.

 First, it seems that News items are reserved for straight news reporting; and Comment is clearly signalled as such. NB there was a news item this last week which I haven’t seen reported in online UK newspapers. This concerned an EU-sponsored survey of the problems that both retailers and customers have in trying to do business between countries in the Single Market (I can often find something for sale in another country but can’t buy because of VAT, payment, or some other problem). Surely this would be of interest to UK readers? Bias (ie they’re doing something useful), negigence, lack of EU-based reporters, or what?

 Second, there are regular news items (often just short clips); comment is rarer and can be heavily biased – as one expects of a comments column. But there is often a more open debate, where both sides (or more!) are offered.

 Of course, the online blogs area gets a more mixed presentation – and plenty of reader posts, including from me.

 Propoganda can be failure to report or comment (good or bad news) as much as actual reporting/commentary.

  108  Nosemonkey Says:  October 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am  French Derek – on your final point, very much so. See Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent (one of the few Chomsky books I’ve managed to read cover to cover…), in particular the propaganda model – only replace anti-communism with euroscepticism as a driving force, and we may be getting somewhere.

 I’ve been vaguely planning a post on this (applying the propaganda model to British EU reporting) for the last couple of weeks – especially with this ongoing nonsense about an “EU president” that the British press now seems obsessed with – but have been ridiculously busy of late.

  109  Nicolas Says:  October 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am  Slartibartfas: Your view is more or less the one used by the EU: propaganda must not be aimed to ‘convince’ but to ‘educate’. The result is that no one understands or cares about how the EU works. If in some instances the population backs the EU it is certainly because they are aware of the economic benefits the membership entails, not due to the EU’s communication.

 “All the scare tales will fall back to you eventually if you are the one at power”

 This sounds more like an unsupported popular myth in the same vein as ‘justice always prevails’, etc.

 french Derek: “Propoganda can be failure to report or comment (good or bad news) as much as actual reporting/commentary”

 Maybe it can be considered as such. Personally I think the lack of reporting is due to lack of interest. Just take the case of the Swedish press. Svenska Dagbladet, the last newspaper that had a correspondent in Brussels, axed the post shortly before the start of the Swedish EU Presidency.

  110  french derek Says:  October 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am  Nicolas: “lack of reporting is due to lack of interest”; agreed – but lack of interest on who’s part? A poorly informed readership, or an uninterested owner, perhaps?

 Wouldn’t a “Europe” correspondant (as, eg, at the BBC) be a more useful post, for both readership and editorial spread? Surely journalism is (should be) more about digging out the real news/stories than passively sending in re-worked press handouts? (not that I accuse Svenska Dagsbladet staff of that).

  111  Slartibartfas Says:  October 30th, 2009 at 12:33 am  @nicolas

 Maybe I am only a helpless naive idealist, but maybe scare tactics, disinformation, emotionalisation, populism etc are really more successful than somewhat rational at least decently balanced information. (I am not saying the EUs PR is the latter, but its IMHO closer to the latter than the former) But in the end I really could not sleep with such a huge amount of cynism in my life. Maybe thats why I am not a politician nor a PR guy. 

 But I may only mention that in Austria a party who did a pretty good job at being rational, fair in argumentation and reflected rather than adressing the gut feeling, managed to get 10% of the votes in national elections. Not a huge amount, but more than you could expect from a party which campaigns had a bit of an academic podium discussion feeling.

 PS: Doesn’t it come down to in the end what oneself honestly believes is the better choice? And I am talking about a rational opinion not a gut feeling.

  112  Slartibartfas Says:  October 30th, 2009 at 12:36 am  PS: Two Austrain newspapers have a correspondant in Brussels and a third one is trying to improve its coverage currently.

   2 Trackbacks For This Post   Still a cunt: Peter Hitchens caught abusing the Holocaust « Left Outside Says:  October 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm  [...] NoseMonkey has also noticed this ridiculoous article and has rightly pointed out the Peter Hitchens represents [...]

   End of History (again) | The Democratic Society Says:  October 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm  [...] to Nosemonkey, I read a fantastically dotty article on the Irish referendum from – where else? – the [...]

            MORE EUROBLOGS:Bloggingportal.eu   FEATURED POPULAR COMMENTS TAG CLOUD      So, I’ve won the internet category of the European Parliament Prize for Journalism Starting an EU reading list You COULD make it up: On abolishing eggs by the dozen The Greek crisis, Germany and the future of Europe Why no one understands the EU The libertarian case for European integration The European Council, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe: A guide First Europe, then… the world? Why it’s hard to take eurosceptics seriously British citizenship vs European citizenship     London tube explosions (403)Why it's hard to take eurosceptics seriously (114)De Menezes shooting liveblog (78)Models for an EU superstate? (71)National identity vs European identity (67)UKIP’s “Britain paying the EU £40 million a day” claim vs the REAL costs of UK EU membership (66)UK race relations improve no end… (64)West Yorkshire, the BNP and the Conservative Party (59)Hackney, Shepherd’s Bush, Warren Street (59)On the EU’s “democratic deficit” (57)   Blair Blogging Brown CAP Civil Liberties Constitutionalism Culture democracy Economics Elections Energy EU EU Reform European Parliament europhile eurosceptic France Georgia Germany History idiocy Ireland Italy Kosovo Lisbon Treaty Merkel Middle East NATO Nosemonkey philosophy Poland pro-eu Russia Sarkozy South Ossetia Spain Switzerland The Caucasus The Media Turkey TWAT UK Ukraine UN US       CATEGORIES  'New' Europe (6)  A bit of context (7)  Best of (2)  Best of 2004 (15)  Best of 2005 (9)  Best of 2006 (12)  Best of 2007 (17)  Best of 2008 (15)  Best of 2009 (13)  Best of 2010 (4)  Blair (50)  Blogs (110)  Britain (138)  British Constitution (38)  Brown (22)  Civil Liberties (69)  Conservatives (42)  Culture (19)  Czech Republic (4)  Elections (46)  Elsewhere (83)  EU (212)  EU Constitution (49)  EU Reform (97)  Europe (41)  European Union reading list (1)  Featured (60)  Food for thought (5)  Forgotten histories (2)  France (47)  Germany (38)  History (31)  Italy (30)  Labour (64)  Lib Dems (7)  Linklog roundups (64)  London Terror Attacks (53)  Misc (28)  Nosemonkey News (101)  Other parties (21)  Poland (5)  Rest of the World (21)  Russia (73)  Scandinavia (4)  Spain (7)  The Balkans (13)  The Caucasus (21)  The Media (48)  The War Against Terror (49)  Turkey (11)  Ukraine (39)  Uncategorized (905)  USA (32)      Archives  Select Month  November 2010   October 2010   September 2010   August 2010   July 2010   June 2010   May 2010   April 2010   March 2010   February 2010   January 2010   December 2009   November 2009   October 2009   September 2009   August 2009   July 2009   June 2009   May 2009   April 2009   March 2009   February 2009   January 2009   December 2008   November 2008   October 2008   September 2008   August 2008   July 2008   June 2008   May 2008   April 2008   March 2008   February 2008   January 2008   December 2007   November 2007   October 2007   September 2007   August 2007   July 2007   June 2007   May 2007   April 2007   March 2007   February 2007   January 2007   December 2006   November 2006   October 2006   September 2006   August 2006   July 2006   June 2006   May 2006   April 2006   March 2006   February 2006   January 2006   December 2005   November 2005   October 2005   September 2005   August 2005   July 2005   June 2005   May 2005   April 2005   March 2005   February 2005   January 2005   December 2004   November 2004   October 2004   September 2004   August 2004   May 2004   April 2004   March 2003   From the archives...  US response to Russia's invasion of Georgia The Great Depression: A reminder amid the ever-increasing hyperbole Strong words from the US, but it's up to the EU - for now The EU's Caucasion lessons NATO, Russia and Europe  Recent commentsPasser by on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam EffectThomas Klausen on So, I’ve won the internet category of the European Parliament Prize for JournalismMacarena on So, I’ve won the internet category of the European Parliament Prize for JournalismOliver on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam Effectbloggingportal.eu Blog & Support » Blog Archive » The Week in Bloggingportal: 10 reasons why Brits are killing the “Europe” category on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam EffectNosemonkey on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam EffectFreeborn John on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam EffectNosemonkey on UK trade, the EU, and the Rotterdam Effect Latest from BloggingportalCarl Bildt (SE): Också Twitter November 25, 2010#euroblog: Open Democracy - Rescue the EU’s External Action Service from the European Commission November 25, 2010Kosmopolito: Bloggingportal event in London: Programme now available! November 25, 2010#euroblog: UKIP MEP thrown out of European Parliament for Nazi slur | Left Foot Forward November 25, 2010Euromyths: Mentioning the Second World War is no laughing matter… except in Britain November 25, 2010Le Taurillon: Vers une industrie de la défense européenne ? November 25, 2010 Like this blog? Why not show a little PayPal love and help keep it going? Donate in Euros:      Donate in GBP:       Advertisements Read reviews of Organic Liaison and other new weight loss products!Head to Boating.com to find boats for sale online from top boat manufacturers       ARCHIVES  November 2010 (1) October 2010 (1) September 2010 (2) August 2010 (2) July 2010 (3) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (5) April 2010 (2) March 2010 (2) February 2010 (2) January 2010 (4) December 2009 (2) November 2009 (6) October 2009 (5) September 2009 (2) August 2009 (7) July 2009 (4) June 2009 (18) May 2009 (9) April 2009 (6) March 2009 (7) February 2009 (12) January 2009 (8) December 2008 (11) November 2008 (13) October 2008 (9) September 2008 (12) August 2008 (24) July 2008 (26) June 2008 (13) May 2008 (5) April 2008 (22) March 2008 (19) February 2008 (38) January 2008 (7) December 2007 (3) November 2007 (10) October 2007 (11) September 2007 (20) August 2007 (9) July 2007 (19) June 2007 (21) May 2007 (35) April 2007 (22) March 2007 (21) February 2007 (23) January 2007 (37) December 2006 (33) November 2006 (25) October 2006 (5) September 2006 (19) August 2006 (24) July 2006 (28) June 2006 (18) May 2006 (42) April 2006 (31) March 2006 (57) February 2006 (64) January 2006 (71) December 2005 (43) November 2005 (59) October 2005 (55) September 2005 (85) August 2005 (70) July 2005 (102) June 2005 (76) May 2005 (54) April 2005 (64) March 2005 (45) February 2005 (38) January 2005 (44) December 2004 (38) November 2004 (49) October 2004 (65) September 2004 (62) August 2004 (11) May 2004 (4) April 2004 (9) March 2003 (8)             All content copyright © J Clive Matthews, except comments which are © their respective authors

         $(document).ready(function(){ $(".nav2") .superfish({ animation : { opacity:"show",height:"show"} }) .find(">li:has(ul)") /* .find(">li[ul]") in jQuery less than v1.2*/ .mouseover(function(){ $("ul", this).bgIframe({opacity:false}); }) .find("a") .focus(function(){ $("ul", $(".nav>li:has(ul)")).bgIframe({opacity:false}); /* $("ul", $(".nav>li[ul]")).bgIframe({opacity:false}); in jQuery less than v1.2*/ }); });   $(document).ready(function(){ $(".cats-list") .superfish({ animation : { opacity:"show",height:"show"} }) .find(">li:has(ul)") /* .find(">li[ul]") in jQuery less than v1.2*/ .mouseover(function(){ $("ul", this).bgIframe({opacity:false}); }) .find("a") .focus(function(){ $("ul", $(".nav>li:has(ul)")).bgIframe({opacity:false}); /* $("ul", $(".nav>li[ul]")).bgIframe({opacity:false}); in jQuery less than v1.2*/ }); });   $(function() { $("#lavaLamp, #2, #3").lavaLamp({ fx: "backout", speed: 700, click: function(event, menuItem) { return true; } }); });