"I think Ghost's point is that we don't benefit from the trade agreements anywhere near as much as we could and as such this is not a viable reason for membership"

That trade does not hinge on being an EU member, yes.

""On a purely practical level, as someone who travels regularly around Europe*, it is SO much easier to do that without changing currency, or needing a visa or to stand in a long line at an immmigration post. I can order stuff from another country knowing exactly what the cost is (and that it is cheaper than my local store)."

This is a stupid argument, the minor inconvenience of travelling without the mechanisms of the EU does not justify the vast economic cost of the quango.

""The idea of a centralised EU goes against sound economics: it is well documented that local government is more efficient than centralised government" - how local? a pure free market system where each individual makes their own decisions?"

The point I was citing was that county councils do the same for less than Whitehall, and that Whitehall can do the same for less than the EU. This is undeniably true no matter whether you are left-wing or right-wing. In order to justify an EU, there must be something that can only be done on a continent-wide basis that justifies the enormous cost of the EU.

"...there must be something that can only be done on a continent-wide basis that justifies the enormous cost of the EU": peace.

@Urel

Are you suggesting that without the EU the likes of France, Germany, Italy etc would have been unable to resist going to war with each other? As much as European governments often baffle me with the choices they make, even I don't think they're that idiotic.

@Cham: the UK is a religious state as the Queen is both head of state and head of the Churh of England, neither of which has much power and a few privileges for some senior bishops. For all practical purposes it is secular.

@Ghost:
Of course I do not advocate the existence of the EU purely to make it easier for me to travel around, but it is definitely an advantage.

I wholly agree that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical point (the principle of subsidiarity in EU speak). If we are to have a single currency without the kind of sovereign debt problem we have seen recently then I think economic policy must be centralised, along with trade policies to ensure a free market and a common foreign & defence policy. Below that states can manage most of the rest, including supplementary tax powers.

@Urel: +1

@Octavious: 1792-1815, 1870-1, 1914-18, 1939-45 plus numerous smaller conflicts tend to suggest a poor track record in making good choices.

"re you serrious, Religious persecution [in france]?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4395934.stm

what other country has allowed banned freedom of expression in what people can wear by banning a piece of religious clothing?

oh yeah, Switzerland also banned architecture, right?

It is still an extreme secular state persecuting a religious minority.

@TGM ""The idea of a centralised EU goes against sound economics: it is well documented that local government is more efficient than centralised government" - how local? a pure free market system where each individual makes their own decisions?"

"The point I was citing was that county councils do the same for less than Whitehall, and that Whitehall can do the same for less than the EU. This is undeniably true no matter whether you are left-wing or right-wing. In order to justify an EU, there must be something that can only be done on a continent-wide basis that justifies the enormous cost of the EU."

- ok, and you might be right, and i am entirely in favour of local government (in Ireland local county councils are severly limited in what they can do) but that doesn't mean some things are beeter done across the board.

Standardized Road signs help everyone. Investment in cross border transport links is worthwhile imho, to enhance links between countries rather than just having local governments concentrating on their own problems.

apart from peace, the common travel area and common market are both worthwhile achievements and wouldn't be possible without a standing body of law which requires that the sovereign nations obey EU level directives.

Now i would be a massive fan of the principle of subsidiarity, and i would be happy to see it applied more broadly, even to things which the Union has exclusive competence at present.

However we know from previous experience (of the UN and the US federal government) that power tends to acumulate and strech out to touch everything it can possible get its hands on.

This is clearly happen in the case of the EU aswell, but it is not 'uncontstitutional' because we've renegotiated the treaties at each stage. Taht doesn't mean it is good or useful.

I just suggest that it would have been much harder to keep peace on a continent that had no such long period of peace for more than 1000 years. The basic idea of EU and all of its predecessors was an is, that if we bind our economys, our societys, our people together in a union that can't be split up without enormous side effects for all actors - europe has to stick together in peace.
The EU itself, as any other state-like entities, might be far away from beeing perfect but, if we like it or not, by now, we are all in the same boat and NOONE can laeve this boat without struggeling or even drowning. I personally like this idea, although its far from perfect. But maybe, from time to time, we will have to remind ourselfes that we are by now bound together in a alliance of destiny and that breaking up this alliance would be much worse than trying to improve it and make it work.

I wish that the EU constitution had been a short, simple, statement of principles that could have been easily communicated and then voted on. After that, sherpas could handle the details on individual subjects.

Clearly that wouldn't work diplomat, there are too many politicians who'd use the fine print to change the meaning.

the problem was that the EU is not simple, because each and every government is sovereign, and the EU's powers are derived only from what those governments choose to give up - they don't want a directly elected president, or power to the elected parliment because that would add legitimacy to the whole procedure and they want to be the sole legitimate source of power, imho.

a whole series of compromises not principles is what makes up the current EU system.

@Figs: that is the risk, but the US seems to manage on the same basis.

@Orathaic: yep, that is what is wrong

@ Diplomat

If I thought for one moment that the only thing keeping our fellow European nations from going to war was membership of the EU I'd be outside parliament everyday protesting about us being a member of such an organisation and insisting that our military spending is doubled. Harking back to a bygone age when most European nations were dictatorships or new and unstable democracies for evidence of our will to kill each other simply doesn't cut mustard. The EU is made up of established democracies, and taking the EU away would not result in an outbreak of wars by any stretch of the imagination.

"The EU is made up of established democracies, and taking the EU away would not result in an outbreak of wars by any stretch of the imagination. "

And why is it that way, contrary to the past ? Think about it :-)

That would have taken place whether the EU existed or not, and happened because of the will of the people of Europe to never let such acts of destruction happen again combined with strong post war assistance from the US. The EU is a good thing, but to suggest it stopped another wave of European wars is laughable.

The will of the British people was unable to stop war in Iraq

If major war in Europe is now unimaginable or laughable then it shows it's success because the founding members were very concerned about that happening.

it´s laughable to predict an alternativ past, octavius :-)

Many EU members (Spain, Portugal, much of Eastern Europe, the Balkans) have become democracies during the last 50 years. No doubt some would have done so anyway but the requirement for a functioning democracy has surely accelerated/encouraged the process.

“I wholly agree that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical point (the principle of subsidiarity in EU speak). If we are to have a single currency without the kind of sovereign debt problem we have seen recently then I think economic policy must be centralised, along with trade policies to ensure a free market and a common foreign & defence policy. Below that states can manage most of the rest, including supplementary tax powers”

A very strong argument against having a single currency, there

“@Octavious: 1792-1815, 1870-1, 1914-18, 1939-45 plus numerous smaller conflicts tend to suggest a poor track record in making good choices.”

Are you seriously suggesting that without the EU Europe would go to war?

Furthermore, an agreement similar to NATO would be perfectly possible without the political baggage of the EU.

Even if it was once an argument for an EU, it no longer holds as a continued justification.

“Standardized Road signs help everyone. Investment in cross border transport links is worthwhile imho, to enhance links between countries rather than just having local governments concentrating on their own problems.

apart from peace, the common travel area and common market are both worthwhile achievements and wouldn't be possible without a standing body of law which requires that the sovereign nations obey EU level directives.”

This is simply not the case. Standardisation in many industries occurs without any government involvement. With free trade and non-intervention in the economy, all of this would happen anyway. A private company is not interested by borders in a truly free market across nations.

The way I see it, Ghostmaker, is that the EU infrastructure goes a long way in preventing sectarian nastiness and nationalist tendencies from influencing public policy. Things like protectionism, regional disputes, etc. are ever so much easier to resolve in the context of the EU superstructure. Furthermore, the EU helps to incalculate identities that go beyond national units. That, in addition to the economic and political ties, is precisely WHY war is unthinkable and laughable now.

Sure, the EU is wasteful in a lot of ways. But when it comes to a lot of European co-operation, a body that regulates and provides an effective and accountable conduit to that co-operation is much better than individual states hashing it out on thier own.

Remember always that the probable alternative to the EU is not some peaceful, happy, secure, sectarian-free, free market enterprise paradise. If that were the case, I'd say 'hell, scrap it all!'. But it just isn't, unfortunately. At least not yet.

Oh, and two things I would like to add.

#1 With regards to Turkey, I think the benefits of membership will outweigh the harms to both Europe UNion and Turkey, assuming the Parliament gets better control over the frigging army and the Cyprus thing is resolved. Apart from those two issues, it's a pretty good Democracy by the standard of recent EU entries.

#2 Obviously the EU is not currently in an ideal state. There is far too much bureaucracy, far too little oversight, and far too little Democracy. The point however, is that it appears to have had a positive effect on Europe, and still has the potential to reform for the better while still providing the good effects that make it worthwhile (despite being bloated and icky at times).

@Friendly Sword, the EU explicitly prohibits any smattering of a free market from developing, as it regulates at break-neck speed. It would be far better to have individual sovereign states. That way France can do whatever they like regulating, Spain, Portugal and Greece can spend their way to an early grave, but Germany and England don't suffer the consequences.

The alternative to EU membership is demonstrated by Switzerland and Norway, and I know which is preferable.

Perhaps the European Union is not a true free trade area, but do you honestly believe that a renewal of sovereign and distinct economic areas would improve free trade, increase inter-state trade whilst avoiding the potential negative consequences of all of losing a unified currency, a unified interpol, a consistent approach to environmental and dispute issues?

Switzerland and Norway benefit from thier interactions with the EU without having to pay the price of membership. Not everyone can be small in population, immensely rich, mountainous, and secure. The Swiss model would not work if applied elsewhere.

@Ghost; have you been reading the Daily Fail again? Why do you think the EU prevents free markets? I can buy camera gear from half a dozen places, most of them quoting prices in the same currency, knowing that I will pay no customs duty whilst benefiting from different VAT rates.

"Switzerland and Norway benefit from thier interactions with the EU without having to pay the price of membership." - they also suffer from being bound by regulations on trade which they have no say in making.

With the option only of leaving the free trade area or putting up with it.

Oh and there is a difference between a free market and a free trade area.
Regulation means free the market is not, but no import/export levies means a free trade area it is - though differences in the levels of taxation can in effect by applied to favour some products.

diplomat61

120,000 separate regulations != free markets.

Guess these mistakes happen when you read the grauniad.

The benefits Norway and Switzerland have do not require the standing bureaucracies of the EU.

These cost industry throughout Europe an arm and a leg. Part of the reason why Norway and Switzerland can prosper so is that they can write their own laws largely

I will accede the point Ghostmaker about free markets, (mostly because I don't know the full effects of the regulations) but I still don't think you have demonstrated overall that Europe without the EU would be better off. (Assuming that is your contention)

Additionally, I don't think it is fair to characterize all these regulations as nasty viruses that exist only hurt private enterprise and provide no benefits. I mean, look at all the clean rivers across Europe (eg. Thames, Rhine, etc.) Didn't they used to be filthy and disgusting before stringent environmental regulations came along to prevent factories from polluting the water up? Similarly, I am sure a lot of the EU regulations, though hurting the ability of private enterprise to achieve unfettered profits with reckless abandon, do achieve effects we would consider positive.

Speaking as an American, if you Europeans are done with your regulations, can we have some of them. Because watching my country descend into a third world kleptocracy hasn't been fun.

Why does the cleanliness of the Thames have to be decided at Brussels at a great additional expense?

The reason for rivers becoming cleaner is primarily that it becomes more worthwhile to keep waterways clean as you become wealthier.

Environmental issues are better dealt with by strong court systems. If a factory is polluting a river, and this causes harm to someone else, then the factory ought to be sued for damages by that someone. It is not sound for regulations to be written.

To give some examples of stupid regulations beyond CAP and CFP (both of which are so clearly absurd, and yet persist):

-there has been EU-level legislation on the permitted curvature of bananas, cucumbers, and even leeks. (This is "harmonisation")
-Eurocode 8 building regulations, which require earthquake resistance in buildings in areas that *are not earthquake zones*
-“an EU strategy for the Danube area” has been called for, not, notably, a "Danube area strategy for the Danube area"
-The working hours directive means that doctors aren't allowed to work overtime if there is a shortage.
-The EU landfill directive is responsible for the fact that the UK now has fortnightly rather than weekly bin collection.

etc.