Undesirable and untouchable?
I suppose it is an act of faith, a declaration of purpose, but it always surprises me when senior politicians make bold announcements with no idea of how they are going to turn them into reality. This, it seems, is the case with Gordon Brown鈥檚 if they are convicted of dealing drugs to children or having guns.
It was one of those delightful moments that had me chuckling in the kitchen when the Secretary of State for Communities, Hazel Blears, was interviewed on the Today programme.The point was put to her that, given EU law, this wasn鈥檛 possible.
She answered that people would like such a law. She found a few figures to quote. She sounded firm and purposeful. Almost. But it was clear she hadn鈥檛 got the slightest idea how such a policy proposal would be translated into action.
Certainly, diplomats in Brussels have not been asked to look at ways of squaring such a policy of expulsions with European rules. But is the assumption that expulsions are forbidden under EU law completely accurate?
The reason it could be difficult to expel people from one EU country to another is that the European Union regards the : "Every EU citizen is entitled to travel freely around the Member States of the European Union, and settle anywhere within its territory."
But according to a 2003 directive, nation states are in fact allowed to expel certain categories of undesirables: the 2003 directive specifically singles out those who are "an unreasonable burden on the social security system鈥 and those identified on the grounds of 鈥減ublic policy, public security or public health".
However, Mr Brown鈥檚 promise is under greater danger from , which came into force in British law last year. It repeats the grounds for expulsion but says such conduct "must represent a sufficiently serious and present threat which affects the fundamental interests of the state". To many ears, that will sound like planning acts of terror rather than selling weed to 17-year-olds. I could argue that gun crime was a present threat to the fundamental interests of the state, but I bet I would find a judge to disagree with me.
When most people think about this they will remember the recent case of the killer of the headmaster Philip Lawrence, who will be allowed to stay in Britain rather than be returned to his native Italy, when he finishes his prison sentence. But that is because he was five when his parents moved to Britain.
The European directive that allows expulsions also states: 鈥淥nly in exceptional circumstances, where there are imperative grounds of public security, should an expulsion measure be taken against Union citizens who have resided for many years in the territory of the host Member State, in particular when they were born and have resided there throughout their life.鈥
The second directive, again, toughens this up. If someone has been in a country for 10 years, they can only be expelled under 鈥渆xceptional circumstances for overriding considerations of public security鈥.
It was the that looked at these laws and the and decided the killer should stay.
So will Mr Brown succeed? According to a spokesman for the , he may have a problem. 鈥淚f the government invokes a clause saying that someone is a threat to national security, then it will be up to British judges, not Brussels, to rule on a case by case basis,鈥 the spokesman says.
Indeed, the problem for Mr Brown is that it is the British appeals system that decides who stays and who doesn鈥檛, not him, not the commission. What is astonishing is that, as far as I can find out, there hasn鈥檛 been a single conversation about how this serious policy proposal might be turned into reality.
While I am waiting to hear from the ministers how they plan to keep Mr Brown鈥檚 promise, it鈥檚 worth reflecting on the value of such expulsions. Aside from .
There is a wider issue here: how far away should we be able to send undesirables? If a Mancunian commits a crime in Macclesfield, they can鈥檛 be deported back to Manchester.
But perhaps there is an idea here. The idea of internal exile has a long if equivocal history from Rome to Russia. While is not a sovereign state it is a country, and one with its own laws and If errant Dutchmen could be chucked out of Dover, is it so daft to send Londoners who commit crimes in Glasgow back across the border?
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mark, this blog of yours goes to the heart of the matter.
As you have clearly (implicitly, yet clearly) stated: it's not our national governments who decide matters. Our true government, the supergovernment of the EU, resides in Brussels.
And as I said, it goes to the heart of the matter. Politicians have gutted national parliaments, governments and courts and transferred all these powers. They have done so more or less covertly for decades, but have now switched to doing it overtly. And all the time without having a popular mandate to do so.
And all because EU-philes are on a 'superpower' trip. People like me for example don't see the need for 'Europe' or the EU (2 different things) to be a superpower. I would accept it if there was a popular mandate (and there isn't until EU-philes can prove otherwise).
The real horror is the lack of appreciation this shows - by even those at the top of our government - of the extent to which they are now restricted from acting in the public interest by directives from the EU.
This is far from the first example of those we elect being thwarted from responding to public demand by the remote and largely unaccountable EU institutions.
How long do our politicians think this charade can go on before people - not just here but across Europe - start to realise that those they elect really aren't in charge any more. And that they can't much control those who are now in charge.
It's becoming ever clearer that, slowly but surely, Europe is entering a post-democratic era. Our continent needs to experience a re-Enlightenment if we are to avoid the neo-feudal EU future that appears to lie at the end of the path we are currently travelling.
Why are you surprised that government has not thought this through? Knee-jerk reactions are never throught through.
What's in a name? Tony Blair and his promotees Ian Blair and Hazel Blears. They that love to blur over details.
Now where are we at? Money for new roads in Eastern Europe by what is meant to be an environmental union, enforced biofuel blending that encourages rainforest destruction (and is a very inefficient land-use for climate mitigation according to EU's own Well-to-Wheels study), MEPs endorse peat as a "renewable fuel"; unsustainable fishing and fish laundering by competing fleets, sorry if I digress Mark.
Surely deporting foreigners at the end of their prison sentences is institutional racism?
Aren't court sentences supposed to be about reform? If the prisoners are reformed, deporting them is pure simple racism. If they aren't reformed, don't release them until they are.
The EU embodies a series of compromises - typified by the subject under discussion - and encompasses a spectrum of social order. Perhaps the previous respondents would prefer a Europe riven by war and the social blasts dictated by the frictions arising from the contact between countervailing cultures? Well; not I. It's the balance of the positive that counts, and the institutions of the EU have created security and civilisation for more people than any institution in human history. To be obsessed by the comparatively small compromises required to achieve this state appears to me to miss the point.
To Marcel and Stuart Coster:
You deplore the fact that national politicians acting in the 'public interest' are restricted by EU rules.
I say - Thanks God for that. I do not particularly trust my national politicians, while their definition of 'public interest' changes from one parliamentary term to another.
Drug dealing is a despicable crime, but... is any less despicable if the dealer was born in Surrey (for example)?
The crux of the matter is, Brown proposal was unfair and discriminatory, and I for one am very glad the EU defends equality in Spain, Great Britain and anywhere else.
I've lived in France for the last ten years now, and it's good to know that i can hit a copper on the head over here (which some of them do deserve now and then) without fear of a train ticket to the Netherlands,(a depressing enough word, reminding me of netherworld etc). And right too, as everyone of us has the unalienable right of doing stupid things once and a while. But when immigrants arrive aged five and derail as the murderer in the article society has had a good enough chance of turning the lad to good and has obviously failed and pose the appropriate questions.
And where Marcel's superstate in Brussels is concerned... Nothing is implemented without British government approval, although of course, if they want to turn back, they need to convince equally thickheaded governments as for example the one in Warsaw.
Reading the first two comments I am (again) stuck between incredulity and despair.
Has it occurred to both of them that Britain is not exactly invaded by EU's criminals that should be send forthwith to a home country? I am quite at a loss to understand why the best things and laws that the EU has brought to the UK are never recognised as such while some others are unjustifiably screamed about by scaremongers.
About this particular idea by Mr Brown, does it also apply to British nationals committing crimes abroad?
"In the world of simulated politics, image is what is assiduously cultivated and protected. Here, it is irrelevant to compare campaign promises with actual results. Conventional measures of performance such as the improvement in the quality of life of the people, or the expansion of economic activity, or the narrowing of income gaps, are set aside. What counts are the photo opportunities with the adoring masses, the sound bites of presidential bravura, and televison clips of instant and decisive action. Plus the surveys, of course, for these are measurements not of performance but of percieved performance (Randy David, Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 2000)" Quoted in "The Erap Tragedy: Tales From the Snake Pit" by Aprodicio A. Laquian, Eleanor R. Laquian -ISBN 971-27-1184-6 (NP) (p 156) -regarding the fall of president Estrada.
But you are right -the only real way to deal with criminals in a globalized world is to shoot them off into outer space......
....So just who does the Galactic Federation think it is -trying to tell us earthlings how to behave in a so-called "universal system" of "truth" and "justice".
I'm an expat Brit living in an EU country,I have spent most of my life outside the UK. If I committed a crime, should I be returned to the UK to be jailed at British tax-payers expence, or should I be punished in the society I grew up in?
What comes around goes around.
As usual with this government: all mouth and no trousers.
If New Labour is serious it really ought to be campaigning for a referendum on the EU (membership - not just the new treaty) so that they, as a national government, can not only propose and 'legislate' laws, but also actually implement them.
British politicians might like to think a bit more about the implications of such comments for their own citizens living in another EU Member State.
That the UK would attract a lot of undesirables was obvious from the moment the EU promised membership of the Union to the countries of central and eastern Europe back in 1995. Why? Virtually all EU aid was based on projects with English as the working language. Legal texts, language learning, everything was centred on English. English became the most useful language that anyone could learn - even at rudimentary levels. This, coupled with the UK's generous social security system, open economy and low profile police and enforcement agencies, made the UK the obvous destination for desirables and undesirables alike. And, yes, under current law, we cannot get rid of the undesirables - a further cost for the crime-weary population to bear. No wonder there is anti-EU sentiment.
Mark,
Good blog, mate. And also Marcel & Stuart Coster's contributions. Our most senior government is now in Brussels, rather than Whitehall. And yet our politicians either don't realize it - or do, but don't want to admit it.
This process must be reversed, & the current PM has it in his power to do so now. How? By allowing British people to have a REFERENDUM on the currently re-hashed EU constitution, now called the EU Reform Treaty. Or to make this un-democratic (what the EU calls "post-democratic") situation even worse, by resisting this referendum! Go on, Gordon. Be a genuine democrat, & not an EU lackey - & give us our rightful REFERENDUM!
I'm not sure I agree that there's no "popular mandate" at all for the gradual change in the balance between National Government and the EU. It is a condition for membership of the Union that each national government is democratically elected.
The fact that in Britain governments can be constituted wit majorities on 40% (or less) of the popular vote is a different matter.
Let's not also forget that in 1975 the UK held a referendum on whether to remain inside the then EEC and 67% of people voted "yes".
And yes, while there has been a change in the balance between national governments and the EU it's also important to remember that all members of the EU are in precisely the same position that we're in when in comes to deportation. That's what happens when sovereignty is shared between 27 Member States.
And there are benefits from the free movement of people and capital, too. Just ask those people who've acquired farms in France, retirement villas in Spain, and are investing in the Eastern European property boom.
The final thing to note is that, as Mark has written of before, the Union is developing its own democratic checks and balances: the Parliament and the ECJ are growing stronger to check the Commission and to protect citizens' interests too. A case in point is the fuss the ECJ and the Parliament made over the USA demanding access to 16 pieces of information about every transatlantic passenger.
There are many shades of grey in this debate.
Europe does seem to be entering a 'post-democratic era', although Mark is reluctant to acknowledge this. He presumably closed his eyes to the full implications of the no votes in the Netherlands and in France---the little people simply refused to do what the big people (the 'Regenten') told them to do. Perhaps the EU could dissolve the population of Europe and elect another, more docile population.
This may be a sign of taking power away from democratically elected politicians, but isn't that the reason most countries have codified consitutions and supreme courts and the like; so that we have a system that can protect people from the vindictive acts of populist politicians? I can picture a 21st-century Hitler complaining about Brussels preventing him from wiping out the Jews, against the wishes of the sovereign German state.
After all, the horror we're actually discussing here is that people who have been convicted of a crime and then served their sentence are subsequently released. I always thought that was the way it was supposed to work.
Would this be a member of the same government that believes the EU Reform treaty is of no constitutional significance because they claim that Constitutions are about flags, anthems and the titles of unelected officials, but not the rules under which the supreme law of this land is determined?
The same applies at the other end of the spectrum. Honest, highly-skilled immigrants who have learned English and become British citizens are elbowed aside by a cynical Government. New arrivals from other EU states have more rights from day one than long-established UK citizens.
This is because professional qualifications (e.g. medicine, dentistry) are not assessed fairly on merit. Those from the EU are rubber-stamped (even those not complying with EU Directives). Others are rejected.
Gordon Brown's "British Values" speech was pure spin. He insults new British citizens by discriminating against them, ignoring them while spending millions on overseas recruits. His words are weapons of mass deception.
Marcel,
before you act hastily, consider what trouble it would be to go through a visa application process each time you want to take the train to Dover to get your installment of wine and fags!
I know, a Macedonian friend of mine was offered a Visa appointment mid-October for a conference in Gatwick mid-September. Needless to say, one meeting cancelled, a few nights, meals football tickets not sold.
Having closed borders is not good for the majority, and we should not make laws based on such exceptional cases as that of the 'italian' killer.
It would be interesting to see how most European states would go about expelling a person under these rules, since under the Schengen Agreement they don't have routine border controls between states. Thus presumably a German national who was expelled from France could just wait a few days and get on the train back to France, with the French authorities knowing nothing about it.
Maybe states are willing to accept this as a side effect of the benefits they get from Schengen through cheaper travel, increased productivity and so on.
Mark, a few ways out of the conundrum, 1. only non-EU citizens subject to the promise. 2. EU-Azkaban, only EU citizens who violate British laws are sent there. 3. Bring back transportation, to anywhere suffering a skills shortage e.g. Brussels.
Am I missing something, or has there been proof that a disproportionate number of EU foreigners are involved in gun-crime and drug-dealing (to children no less)? Because if they are non-EU foreigners doing something illegal, surely you can throw them out without a problem?
I for one am glad the EU has made expulsion so difficult. In Ireland our Minister for Justice has recently had the oh so bright idea of deporting non-EU nationals married to EU nationals. This ridiculously prejudiced situation has left hundreds of couples in legal limbo.
The right to the freedom of movement is fundamental to the EU simply because all EU citizens are equal and to place ridiculous prerequisites on that free movement, as the UK and Ireland are attempting to do, is a way of saying all "EU citizens are equal except the ones we believe to be less equal than us"
This entirely absurd. Sorry to break it to you, but vast majority of criminals are British and are released back into the communities in which they live. This is normal so people cope with it. When a tiny percentage of criminals aren't sent across an imaginary line some people feel sad.
It's worth mentioning that a person could commit a crime in Dover and be deported to Calais and this is "good" despite the fact they're 30mins away by train.
"Yet again, I would accept it if there was a popular mandate (and there isn't until EU-philes can prove otherwise)."
This is the same old tired cliche. Again, my tired answer : Try the fact every state that has entered the european club has held a referendum and every party in every country, for decades, that has won national election has done so on a platform of remaining part of the EU. The EU, in addition to its directly elected parliament and indirectly elected commisioners and ministers, has an overwhelming democrat mandate, it seems ridiculous to keep on with easily disproven idea that the EU can claim no democratic legitimacy (at least in the way any other democracy can).
Here's an idea. Given that Britian has never voted on whether it wants the British government (in fact the British government consolidated in powers and realm largely through violence and intimidation), perhaps it should dispand because it has no legitamacy (but wait, I hear the cries of "but we vote in elections, things can be changed if we want", well guess what,they can at the EU level too). In fact, I'm rather sick of this artificial body that gets in the way of me having a relationship with my legitimate (there was a referendum after all, and no coercion) European leaders.
Sounds rather silly hey? Yes, but only slightly more silly than stating the same about the EU. The fact is we all have a vote and if people want change they should either vote for it or run themselves. Europhobes will have to accept that until they can convince majorities of the electorate to vote for them, then it is simply they who have no legitamacy when they claim to speak for the people. Election are election has shown they represent a noisy minority interest.
Maybe we should resort to that old British trick and simply send them across the other side of the globe. Give it a few hundred years and we suppose we ought to end up with some sort less brutish version of Australia or New Zealand we suppose.
Well it was certainly nice to find that I not only got something posted here, but a mention from Mark as well. Hopefully this post will achieve the same.
As others have pointed out, with some of the European directives there are two sides to the coin.
Yes it does make it harder to deport someone who commits a crime in the UK if they're from another EU country. On the other hand anyone from the UK who goes and works, thinks about working/retiring in Europe, might also like to believe that after 10-20 something years there they're not going to find themselves one day being threatened that the Police are going to come round and they'll be escorted to Bruxelles Midi/Brussel Zuid and be on the next Eurostar back to Blighty simply because said state decides so.
Unfortunately this sort of thing has been all too common. Yes, welcome to the 'heart of Europe', one of the usual suspects.
The directive you mention (2004/38/EC) for many people, myself included, has it's plus side. It closes, or attempts to close, a lot of the abuses which have been used by various member states, e.g. people working, paying taxes, being registered in a country, but still being 'sans papiers'. Someone living 25 years in a country and their husband dies and they're told they have to leave. Have a baby and wish to stay at home a few months, sorry you have to leave. Husband works fulltime, you part-time...sorry not good enough, you have to leave.
Besides my suggestion on getting out a bit more I will ask the question of why such things as this never seem to be reported?
How do they ignore it?, well the answer's in the question I guess...
To Oliver (27): The EU has barely begun to use some of its existing powers. For example the treaty of Nice has only been in effect for 4 years, but already the EU wants additional powers in 50+ areas via the 鈥楻eform鈥 treaty with the most federalist MEPs (e.g. Andrew Duff, etc.) already talking about further 鈥榟istoric鈥 changes to the EU treaties to come ~2015. Every new EU law means one less law that can be changed by the representatives we elect to Westminster. The long-term result of this process can only be that the Westminster Parliament will eventually be unable to change any of the laws we live under because its hand will be tied by the swelling body of superior EU law created under the terms of these treaties. Our national elections will be reduced to deciding which party sends representatives to the EU Council of Ministers with all backbench MPs and the entire opposition being reduced to impotence because no vote in Westminster can alter anything decided in Brussels due to the supremacy of EU law. This process is also leading to excessive concentration of power in the executive with potentially very serious consequences. The one real power of Parliament that will endure will be the single question of whether we stay in this EU system or not, and unless the EU is seriously reformed you should fully expect that a major British party will sooner or later run on a ticket to take us out because ultimately that will be the only way it can implement a program of government desired by the British people.
Your argument that the EU is legitimate because of the 1975 referendum on the common market and because we have not yet reached this ultimate point of collapse ignores that the EU Constitution was rejection by referendum in France & the Netherlands in 2005 and would likely be rejected in the UK if the Labour manifesto commitment to a UK referendum were honoured. There is no sustainable alternative for pro-Europeans but to recognise that Europe consists of multiple nations each comprising a sovereign people and that any power exercised by the EU is only legitimate if it enjoys the consent of all those peoples. Once the EU elites decide to ignore referendum results or violate election promises to hold referendums (whose sole purpose is to legitimate the constitutional arrangements under which the supreme law of our countries is decided) then they are engaging is a naked usurpation of power that rightfully belongs to the people.
This issue is merely a symptom of how the process of European integration has chipped away at the power and ability of the individual voter, and future national governments, to affect change.
Michael Howard discovered this at the previous election regarding immigration controls. David Cameron also seems to have discovered it when he posited the idea of trying to regain the opt-out regarding the social chapter. William Hague too. He seems to have put to bed the implausable "In Europe, not run by Europe" mantra. They, and Hazel Blears, all seem to have finally stumbled across the technicality that changes to the treaties require unanimous agreement of 27 members.
Unless they indulge in a little horsetrading here and there to bring about a desired change, they can gaze at the CAP and the Strasbourg parliament to look and learn how matters at EU level can quickly ossify. However much voters in country X might demand a change, they have to contend themselves with the inertia of this entrenched bureaucracy built around the political classes. It's virtually a one-way street that can become impenetrable to change.
The Reform treaty tries to assuage and appease this by allowing a yellow-card parliamentary warning system. But in continues in the same vain as its predeccessors; a further transfer of decision-making to EU level and a further reduction in the ability of the voter to bring about a change within the current system.
Some of the comments particularly coming from British europhobes on this blog are rather bemusing. First of all, as far as EU versus national powers are concerned, the Commission's spokesman stated, accurately, that any expulsions would have to be decided by British courts case by case. In European democracies, governments pass legislation, but they don't implement it, right? The UK is still a state that abides by the rule of law, I hope!
Secondly, the same right that assists me as a Portuguese/EU national to live in the UK, if I wished, also applies to the many UK/EU nationals who chose to live in Portugal, Spain, France and Italy, just to mention the obvious few, on a permanent basis, or for long periods of time during the year (and some of them commit crimes too). Without EU global agreements on the movement of goods and people in Europe, the UK would just have to do it bilaterally with all of these countries (not very efficient I would think).
Thirdly, EU legislation is not imposed on anybody. It is negotiated by 27 states' representatives at ministerial level, based on proposals, I would like to underline the word proposals in case it goes missing, made by the Commission. And in most areas pertaining to Justice and Home Affairs, EU member states have veto rights.
But all this is really a question of principle. Xenophobes, europhobes, racists, ultra-conservatives, etc. will never be happy with the fact that their world is not a bubble, and will blame all social evils on "foreigners", even those that share a common European heritage with them. I just wished they would stay inside their bubble and let the rest of us lead productive lives!
Of course, those in favour of the expulsion measures announced by the UK PM, should not forget that the same type of crimes, and some even worse in nature, are also committed by UK nationals living in other EU states... A "beautiful" example to follow, isn't it so?
I live in Slovenia, where I - a Brit - immigrated after many years in Hong Kong. I rather feel that most respondents are missing the point here. It's like winning a court case on a technicality; no-one really makes their point, it's just that the goal-posts move around. Forget the rule-book and look at the playing-field. Is it green? Is it fairly level? It doesn't matter whether the EU rules restrict individual cases of fairness so much if the general political process creates a harmonious home for the masses and spreads a civilised ethic around the place - and whether you like it or loathe it few could argue the EU's success in this area.
Actually, EU law does not stand in the way of "foreigners" being expelled from the UK. Quite the contrary: Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 provides that non-Member State nationals may be expelled where they represent a threat to "public security" or "public policy". This would cover the scenarios of drug-dealing to children and carrying guns to which you refer.
The article proves that the genes of the "empire" refuse to recede. Hey, kick that guy back to the hell hole he comes from. He cant even speak our language as badly as we do ! And he's got the guts to sell weeds to our kids and spoil them !
Ok, UK or any other country can do without expat criminals. But a criminal, irrespective of his passport, is just that. Adding a pinch of racial discrimination to the way society views criminals only seems to make some criminals less evil than others, even for committing the same crime. Social equity should apply to criminals in the same way it applies to non-criminals.
No, I'm not suggesting the creation of a space-age Australia, where her majesty's criminals can all be safely banished to. On the contrary, the policies for re-integration of criminals should apply, irrespective of the passport of a criminal.
Will we wakeup one fine day to hear a politician announcing similar intolerance policies for dealing with other kinds of immigrants ? for example, immigrant prostitutes to be deported, immigrant elders needing medical aid go next, and then immigrant gays, and followed by immigrant religious leaders and then immigrant kids...
Another scorcher, Mr Mardell ! I must admit the first two words I thought when I heard Brown 'siarad fras' [Welsh for 'big talk' ] were Learco Chindamo.
Who on earth is this guy trying to kid?
Although I have to admit that a terrifying aspect of reading Euroblog is finding out about laws which have been passed which I am totally ignorant of, which have had little coverage in the newspapers and haven't been fully debated in Parliament.
How much more of this awful legislation is in the woodwork ? The 'nation state' as we understand it appears already to be dead, to all practical purposes. We're sleepwalking to a superstate. A UKIP candidate is at this precise moment getting a good kicking over on 'Iain Dale', but I find it hard not to have some sympathy with him over some of this undemocratic nonsense.
Much as I dislike Gordon Brown pandering to the Daily Mailograph, at least if he puts forward policies I don't like, I can vote for the Tories [unless it is in one of the areas where they have nicked each others policies]...
Keep up the good work, Mark, before the EU military junta shuts down your internet connection for daring to share the truth with us plebeians..
Hi John,
"Every new EU law means one less law that can be changed by the representatives we elect to Westminster."
Good, I don't want my national parliament legislating in most of the areas the EU is currently legislating. I fail to see why parliament should waste it's time and mine by debating topics over which it is ill suited to deal with and which, by nature of being a national parliament, it holds hollow sovereignty over. I sincerely hope there will be further changes to the treaty in 2015, as I would be amazed if (e)utopia had been founded by that time, in fact, I'd be amazed if any country or entity had got to that point by 2015. Politics is change.
As for every law being moved to EU level, I fail to see why this will happen or how. I don't find it desirable or likely. The beauty of the European project had been to move powers away from their current artificial concentration at national state level, put there not because they do better there, but simply because in the past europeans were too primitive in their views of each other to do any better. The movement of power up and down is healthy, and exercising power at a level which is not most productive seems rather pointless. I view the national level parliament as having a strong role in future decision making, both at its own level and at European level through it's appointments, ability to query EU legislation and as the ultimate custodian of all sovereignty within the EU.
You state that parliament will be able to withdraw from the EU, and that this will happen in the future at some point. Well fine, voters might one day choose to do any number of things but until they actually do, it seems a little bit presumptuous to decide for them. For the time being voters everywhere seem to be more than happy enjoy the fruits of the EU and returning governments to office on that understanding.
Strong economic growth, tackling global warming and ensuring Europe's voice is not swept aside (any more than it already is) at a global level are sustainable policies. Ignoring reality and wishing we still lived in an era of powerful European nation states are not. We can do this the easy way (on our terms) or the hard way (having this imposed from the outside by cold reality). I know which one I'd prefer.
I think it's right that each member that joins offers it's people(s) the opportunity to vote on joining, but after that to have referendums on each time treaties are amended and changed seems a lot like sour grapes from those groups who have failed for decades in hundreds of national elections, across Europe, to convince Europe's peoples that leaving the EU is a reasonable and sensible choice.
大象传媒 News: 'I was sold for 2,000 euros'
"Eventually Anna was rescued during a police raid on the brothel. By that stage, she was covered in scars and bruises, and permanently felt sick. "I have got a scar, I was burned with an iron on my leg and I was beaten." From there, she was sent to Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre before being taken in by the Poppy Project which looks after trafficked women and children who have been forced into prostitution. She told the 大象传媒 she was recently refused the right to stay in the UK and is currently fighting extradition. Now aged 20, she does not want to return to Albania for fear of being found and forced back into prostitution. However, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said she could not give any guarantees that victims would not be deported after being rescued."
If Anna was a dog -wouldn't we try to give her a safe and happy home? So how can we claim to be civilized when we treat people worse than dogs?
Is this really the national state that some people want to preserve -against the wishes of the evil EU?
Marcel, you've asked numerous times for the pro-Europe folks to prove that they are right. Why don't you just prove yourselve that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits?
Looks like many people want to return to the dark ages of isolation driven by the fear campaigns of right-wing parties. Obviously very clever for them, they get elected into well paid jobs without ever having to take any responsibility.
As far as Gordon Brown's promise, well he's getting prepared for elections, isn't it? Just a shame that he's using such themes in order to compete with the populists. How many cases a year? Doesn't he have more important things to do?
@ignace (40): speaking of well paid jobs (without ever having to pay normal rates of taxes), look no further than Brussels. There are plenty about.
Dark ages of isolation? No my friend we look at the entire world, unlike the EU-philes who are inward looking and look to fortress EU to protect their interests (even if it causes devastation amongst African farmers and fishermen). It should be interesting to see what happens when EUphiles realize they are the inward looking ones with narrow minds.
The CAP and CFP are proof of the fact that the EU is unbeneficial to the globe. Any organization (and its hangers on, the EU-philes) who defend and keep this programmes in existance does not deserve the light of day. How can you just stand idly by while CAP and CFP devastate the lives of African farmers and fishermen? Yes, it's true, CAP and CFP exist only to protect French farmers and Spanish fishermen from African competition. Shame on you!
People like me think globally and in terms of sovereignty, EU-philes think locally (EU) and in terms of superpowers. Myself, I don't like the idea of yet another superpower, I am not on a 'superpower' trip.
Another reason (as if CAP and CFP are not enough in itself) for opposing the EU is the great deception that has been taking place. Just think of the 1975 British EEC referendum. Politician everywhere, when asked, flat out denied that the EEC was to become political. Remember Heath's admission of the 1990s that "of course he bloody knew" that the EEC was primarily about political integration?
Even now, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people like Brown and Balkenende (dutch PM) lie through their teeth when they suggest the 'new' treaty is fundamentally different from the 'old' treaty (which Giscard called constitution for some reason).
It's the endless lies, spin and deception I cannot stand. I wish they came out and point blank admitted the EU was about some form of federation (as per the Schuman/Monnet declaration of may 9, 1950).
Let's do it out in the open. There must be discussion and debate about a federation. And then, any European country can join provided they meet strict criteria (and only after a popular referendum).
I would accept it if it happened that way.
The government can still kick non-EU citizens out of the EU...
...EU citizens are free to move and come back anyway so this is a waste of time - as others have pointed out, this freedom benefits ALL of us and only a very few criminals...
...finally, released prisoners have usually been assessed by a parole board that has decided they are no longer a threat.
Mark says, 'it always surprises me when senior politicians make bold announcements with no idea of how they are going to turn them into reality', but isn't this what we call 'vision' and I thought we wanted MORE of that!
Marcel,
are you really thinking globally? The one thing I remember from one of your postings is your suggestion to close off the Western Schelt in order to let Rotterdam continue to flourish. I call that the provincialism of the dark ages.
But I do agree with you on the immorality of the farm subsidies and export subsidies of excesses, indeed destroying argriculture in developing countries, and I have said exactly that in one of my previous postings.
Back to the essence of the article: The UK has more agressively than any other countries leveraged the free movement of people, especially Eastern European recently, and all economist agree that the influx of people from Eastern Europe recently provided a major boom to the UK economy, plus filling critical position in hospitals and other for which ther were insufficient candidates. One must know what they want, and the UK clearly wants economic progress, but then should also accept to deal with the consequences if a very neglegible percentile of the immigrants misbehave.
I repeat, the UK would not have had the economic development it enjoyed without the free movement of people for which the EU provided the framework. I call that a real benefit that the EU has created.
Oliver (38): 80% of new laws each year in every EU country come from Brussels. Every one of these laws replaces not just a national law, but also (due to the supremacy of EU law) the ability of our national parliaments to legislate again in the area covered by each new EU law. Ask yourself what the cumulative effect of this will be year after year for decades. You say you don鈥檛 find it 鈥榙esirable or likely鈥 that national parliaments will end up scarcely being able to change any laws at all but this is exactly what Monnet intended. The self-aggrandizing institutions he created are fulfilling their role. What is not happening is the transfer of the peoples鈥 allegiances to these EU institutions which is why they are suffering from a deep legitimacy crisis.
This process is absolutely not about 鈥渄eciding things at the most appropriate level鈥. What is appropriate for example about deciding agricultural subsidies at supranational level? Are these cross-border farmers? The process is an unrelenting drive to transfer as much decision-making power as possible away from national parliaments to form a new government in Brussels irrespective of the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions or their effectiveness. Under the 鈥榗ommunity method鈥 only the Commission is entitled to set the legislative & policy agenda and this monopoly allows it to pursue objectives of political integration and self-aggrandizement while pretending to solve specific policy problems. This is what is meant by the 鈥淢onnet method鈥 (or 鈥榠ntegration by stealth鈥). You say that having the EU solve problems is 鈥榩roductive鈥 but the EU institutions consider actual policy outcomes to be of secondary importance to their primary mission of European integration which is why so much EU decision-making is incredibly unproductive. Once they get a power they do not sit down and figure out how best to use it; they focus on the next power they would like. Already the most federalist of MEPs like Andrew Duff are talking about the next 鈥榟istoric鈥 EU treaty changes which they target for ~2015.