EU

8 July. LOTS OF UPDATES COMING IN HERE THIS WEEKEND.
Inc quotes / perspectives from local people 


And real life facts that the (to quote Lord Putnam a few days ago in respect of their attempts at journalism in lead up to the vote) 'criminaly negligent' BBC failed to direct people to. For example although of course it is not to be encouraged, so many will cheer, West Herefordshire being  relatively low income and relatively high proportion of those liking a smoke with their cider, those in the know know full well probably half the tobacco purchased locally is off the back of the 'white van' back and forth Calais at a good third cheaper - hence affordable for the poorer folk.  ....  who according to most well informed research did vote in higher rates for out..... and in many months following the so called 'debate' we did not here that fact once mentioned.


But in the interim - and we are not in any way on the side of the elite or ists, and we understand entirely the concerns of those in Post-Industrial West Midlands for example where there is great concern for work oppourtunities, one theme has arisen which must surely be forefront: Many in this region 50-something are relatively comfortable, often semi retiring or downsizing from well paid professional lives elsewhere; obviously comfortable and futures relatively secure. And it is said that many elderly voted to leave the EU.  Our 50-something lives are these days perhaps quite busy with providing for families etc., just surviving; and the truth is our mindsets were  developed in earlier formative years. But take the average 18 year old - the whole of their seminal decades prior 40 will be defined by this act of separation. British society has changed the last few years maybe for the better in that the previously meeker folk of these lands may not so wonderfully  bubble as someone said today  ' as the French do get the tractors out and give the government a damn good kicking when they deserve it'.  The parents we have spoken with do identify with the notion that if this doesn't go quite to New-Jerusalem plan  our children may well be asking us in a decade or so 'well what did YOU do mum/dad to work on that need for us remaining properly outward looking?'


5th July 2016

WE ARE BUILDING ON THIS PAGE SOME 
POINTS TO NOTE ON THE EU

Mainly it will be from the perspective of environmental law and reality of the current state of affairs. Also from the perspective of protecting small scale agriculture. 

DRAFT - this will be developed over the next few months

 IF you would like to help develop a small local group over the rest of the summer - meetings perhaps at our base, discussing EU matters with a specific focus on developing a better message for future national questions on the thing, then  call the MOBILE listed on the home page or email.




Why We Should Remain in the European Union
David Olivier

Feb. 2016


My Own Experience

In my youth, I voted NO in Harold Wilson’s EU referendum of 1975. I was influenced by the argument that membership of the EU/EEC made it impossible for a nation state to manage its own economic affairs using, for instance, exchange and import controls.

The anti-EEC arguments didn't just come from the Left. Enoch Powell put forward much the same reasons as Tony Benn and Michael Foot for voting NO. But fast forward to today and after learning a lot more history i I have totally changed my mind. I think that leaving the EU would be a disaster.


The Way Forward

It was obvious in 1975 that the road led towards free movement of capital and labour and ‘ever closer union’. It’s all there in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The NO campaign loudly pointed this out.

Prime Minister Edward Heath had signed the papers and the UK officially joined the EU in 1973. Surely, this major constitutional step really needed more than a simple Commons majority?

But by virtue of the 1974 General Election, in which Enoch Powell urged people to vote Labour, it got it. A referendum which ratified the 1973 decision by a 67/33% majority of the British people seemed utterly decisive to me, even though I was in the NO camp at the time.

67/33% is more decisive than any UK General Election result. Few UK governments since the Second World War have been elected on more than 40% of the popular vote.


Reasons for No

I regret the EU’s apparent 'democratic deficit'. In the process of Treaty negotiation since 1975, the EU has acquired some powers that are normally left devolved, even within single countries; i.e., USA, Canada, Australia. This seems distinctly questionable because the EU isn't yet a single country.

But the Treaties of Maastricht, Lisbon, Nice, Amsterdam et al weren't imposed on us by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. Our elected Ministers negotiated and signed up to all of them. Surely, these politicians should explain themselves and not blame EU bureaucrats?

I agree with Euro-sceptics' concerns on some points. The EU's overall legal system is an alien one, the European arrest warrant seems particularly dubious, and so on. But I think that differences could be settled by opt-outs while staying in the EU ii.


Reasons for Yes

Nothing is perfect. But we should give the EU in its present form a resounding YES in the forthcoming referendum. In the environmental and energy field, the EU has repeatedly forced the UK to ‘clean up its act’. For all its faults, the EU has been ‘less bad’ in governing us than Whitehall, complete with its ‘Yes Minister’ mentality.

In 2013, the UK contributed £17 billion to the EU's budget. Our own central and local government spending was £750 billion. Our contribution to the EU budget is 2.3% of what we spend on local and national government services. Given what the EU does for us, 2.3% seems quite a good deal.

The examples below suggest that the UK's environment would be in a markedly worse state if we were not an EU member. The EU seems to do a decent job of looking after the health and safety of its citizens.

In particular, EU Directives have greatly encouraged the UK to move forward. Directives constitute EU law and are binding on all 28 member states.

Once a directive is issued, it is up to a member state's own government and parliament to draft their own national legislation to implement the goals set by the directive. But if a member state does nothing, the Commission is likely to take that member state to the European Court of Justice.

The EU’s 1998 Drinking Water Directive has had spectacular benefits to UK water quality. Without it, visitors to the seaside would still be bathing in raw sewage. The EU's allowed pesticide levels in tapwater are as much as 20x stricter than the World Health Organisation limits.

The EU's 2004 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Directive 2004/8/EC obliges member states to analyse the state of CHP in their country. They must promote CHP, demonstrate what is being done, report on and remove barriers and track the progress of high-efficiency CHP systems in their energy market iii.

The EU's 2009 Renewables Directive requires the EU as a whole to obtain 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Every member state has signed up to a target. The UK's is 15%.

The UK is likely to meet the 15% figure for electricity by 2020. It may not meet 15% for heat or road transport fuel. But without a Renewables directive, it would not have met a 15% target for anything.

The EU's 2010 Energy Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU requires medium and large electric appliances on sale to be labelled to show their energy consumption. The plan was that consumers would compare the efficiency of one model with that of another and buy the more energy-efficient appliances. Less efficient ones would slowly be withdrawn from the market.

This has happened and it continues to happen. The Energy Labelling directive has worked. It is imperfect but it is far better than nothing. 'Nothing' sums up what the UK would probably have if it was outside the EU.

To meet the EU's Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU, member states must construct ‘almost net zero energy buildings’ from 2018-20 onwards. First come new public buildings from late 2018, then new homes from 2020 onwards.

The UK government scrapped its Zero Carbon Homes 2016 (ZC-2016) programme after the General Election of May 2015. There was a deafening chorus of disapproval from the ‘green lobby’. In the guise of the Energy Performance of Buildings directive, the EU seems set to impose a similar policy on us, five years after the UK killed its own scheme off.

Perhaps better late than never? The Energy Performance of Buildings directive seems like another benefit of belonging to the EU.


Analogy?

There may be an analogy between EU environmental legislation in the late 20th and 21st. centuries and the 1960s race relations legislation of the US Federal government. Both sets of legislation secured significant and far-reaching improvements. Progress would have been much slower and more limited if decisions had been left to individual states.

There is probably a means for the EU to move forward even more rapidly than it does now iv. This is by giving member states the freedom to set higher standards than the EU minimum, if they wish, but not to set lower ones.


Notes

i

In 1975, I followed UK politics closely but due to a lack of history lessons did not fully appreciate the post-War arguments for a ‘United Europe’, supported by Winston Churchill among others. The idea was put forward in the late 17th. C by the Quaker William Penn: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law.
ii

The UK is not alone. Denmark also joined the EU in 1973. Like us, it has four opt-outs. (The UK and Denmark are unique in their opt outs. No other EU member state has more than one.)

iii
Privately, many observers doubt that the UK is meeting the spirit of this directive. Its very loose wording is a concern.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)