Apparently you don't need to be worry about the possibility of Britain being sold into Euro Serfdom

From The Economist print addition:

Critics of the European Union often warn that it is ain danger of mutating into a "superstate" which gobbles up the power os the 15 coutries that belong to it. Rather than being alarmist, this warning is in some ways curiously behind the times. In most EU countries more than half the new laws are already drafted in Brussels and then simply translated into national law.
[...]
The rule of thumb is that an EU role is demanded whenever a faintly plausable case can be made that an issue needs to be dealt with "on a cross border basis". But even this rule can be ditched, particularly if a peice of legislation can be sold as socially progressive.

I looked around to try and compare this with the US. I compared the Arizona State Senate with the US federal Sentate in 2001. The Arizona senate seems to have passed 204 bills, the US federal sentate passed 136 public laws, I think these two things are fairly comparable. So in Arizona 40% of new laws are passed at the federal level, whereas in Britain 50% of laws are passed at the EU level. Therefore the Britain in the European Union is already more federalist than the Arizona in the US.

Della

With respect, many of us would be scared stiff if Blair bamboozled the voters into the massive lack of economic - and therefore political - sovereignty that would result from joining the Euro.

This issue could yet become an election-winner for the Tories.

... members a 'freer reign' to push...

Does this amount to a freudian slip or a reporter's predictable error, given that current "education" systems can't teach?

Good Grief !!

The Arizona senate seems to have passed 204 bills, the US federal sentate passed 136 public laws, I think these two things are fairly comparable. So in Arizona 40% of new laws are passed at the federal level,

Not sure I understand your reasoning here. How did you get 40%, and how do bills passed in the Arizona senate equate to bills passed in the Federal Senate?

As an American, my concern about Britain entering the EU is, does this spell the inevitable end of our close political and military ties? Fifty years from now, will Britain be more likely to side with the Eu on matters similar to Iraq?

There is nothing ethical about selling out the people of England to a European leadership dominated by people who would not and do not have the best interest of the people of the UK in mind or at heart.

Is joining in the euro camp another step to giving in to the entire concept of the EU, and EU constitution, as well as losing free speech (not being allowed to criticize the EU, etc)? It seems eerily like "Nazi'ism" revisited on face value.

Liberation at the price of bombs.

elizabeth:

is there anything ethical about selling out the people of scotland/wales/n ireland to a European leadership dominated by people who would not and do not have the best interest of the people of the UK in mind or at heart?

Is joining in the euro camp another step to giving in to the entire concept of the EU, and EU constitution, as well as losing free speech (not being allowed to criticize the EU, etc)? It seems eerily like "Nazi'ism" revisited on face value.

With respect, many of us would be scared stiff if Blair bamboozled the voters into the massive lack of economic - and therefore political - sovereignty that would result from joining the Euro.

I do not rate the chances of succesfully opposing this move to the Euro at the moment, there are, as I see it 2 key problems:

1. People see it as inevitable
2. People think it will be good for them.

You can't tackle one without the tackling the other. These two problems have come about because of sloganering and political campaigning over many years. It doesn't really matter if it is inevitable or good for them, this is what people believe, this is what will influence their decision.

The most important thing to counter is the inevitablity, if people think it'll be somewhat bad for them but inevitable they will shrug their shoulders and say to themseves that sooner or later it's going to happen, and they might as well get it over with now. If you don't tackle the idea that it is inevitable then all other arguments are pointless.

To tackle this idea you have to construct a story of an alternate future. This is a future that does not include the euro, or EU, and has these qualities:

1) It is plausable
2) It is attractive
3) It's a place people want to live.
4) It is not just going back to a version of the past.
5) It needs to be very resistant to criticism.

The EU people have their vision of the future, a future of unity and wealth of European peoples. It is not going to happen, it is not what the EU is really about, but that's their story and a lot of people see it as having attractive qualities.

Alternativly you could create a version if a european distopia story that follows from EU policies, but people prefer hearing happy stories, and you have to, in any case, offer up some alternative after they hear the sad story.

This issue could yet become an election-winner for the Tories.

I don't see the Tories as being a safe pair of hands on this issue. They could very well take us into the Euro in the fullness of time, it is inevitable after all.

Not sure I understand your reasoning here. How did you get 40%, and how do bills passed in the Arizona senate equate to bills passed in the Federal Senate?

Federal and Arizona state law affect Arizona, a state I picked at random. I divided the total public laws created by the federal Sentate by the total of the public laws and bills passed by the two senates. Each law passed exerts influence over the people of the affected territory and I felt that the numer of laws created by each level of goverment illistrated who really controls that territory. So in Britain it is about 50-50 EU and national control, and in Arizona it is about 40-60 federal and state control.

As an American, my concern about Britain entering the EU is, does this spell the inevitable end of our close political and military ties? Fifty years from now, will Britain be more likely to side with the Eu on matters similar to Iraq?

Britain entered the EEC as it was called then over 30 years ago. I think that the current direction of EU policy will affect political and military ties as the EU tries to replace the British national defense forces with an EU one. This might be brought to a head if it tries to take the nuclear weapons as we share the missles these rely on with the US, and it would be viewed as a massive loss in sovereignty. I addition if the EU takes over intelligence gathering the extremely close link between US and UK intelligence services will have to be severed since European intelligence services leak.

Byron

"As an American, my concern about Britain entering the EU is, does this spell the inevitable end of our close political and military ties? Fifty years from now, will Britain be more likely to side with the Eu on matters similar to Iraq?"

When Britain joined the Common Market (as was) there was no stated aim of creating a common foreign policy so each memeber nation retained its own.

This was because the long-term political aim of the EU was the creation of a Superstate and it is only recently that this ambition has been expressed overtly. The French and Germans desperately want to develop a common European foreign policy as a part of this process. If that succeeds, then it does mean the end of our 'special relationship'.

Ho, ho, ho. Britain would be a plum catch for the EU because:

1. They're the only European country with a decent military. In other words, the EU gets its Rapid Deployment Force without having to pay a euro for it -- and expect the bulk of future EU "peace missions" etc. to be primarily British in content. And the cost, incidentally, will be borne by Brit taxpayers. Anyone who thinks the French would subsize the British Armed Forces needs to go into a detox program.

2. The pesky pound disappears. This has been a goal of the Euros since the Kaiser.

3. A dumping ground for asylum-seekers (oh wait, that's already happening). Once the AS get into Dover, expect their direction of travel to become abruptly one-way -- away from Europe.

Save this post, and look at it in five years time, if Blair sells Britain to Europe.

David,

This was because the long-term political aim of the EU was the creation of a Superstate and it is only recently that this ambition has been expressed overtly.

I think if anyone had been paying attention they would have noticed that that was the aim pretty much from the begining. I read about the history of the creation of the European flag:

"Europe should have an Emblem, connected with its flag, to serve as an instrument of propoganda - as the Soviet-Star serves bolshevism and the Svastica served hitlerism."

Memorandum presented to the Council of Europe by the Secretry General of the European Parlimentry Union 27 July 1950

In his conclusion he made it pretty clear what the idea was at the time:

"Our flag will, under all circumstances, continue to be the symbol of the struggle for a European Federation - up to the birthday of the United States of Europe."

Memorandum presented to the Council of Europe by the Secretry General of the European Parlimentry Union 27 July 1950

If politicians missed that large of a red flag then they were willfully blind.

I hate all this talk about "joining" the euro, as if it were some cosy club you could join, and then, if you don't like it, leave at some time in the future.

People, it ain't like that. This is the END of our country, that we are looking at now.

Can someone come up with a catchy, simple word that covers the essence of "be taken over by", "be submerged in", "be overwhelmed and conquered by", "be irreversibly subsumed into, for ever", or something equally powerful.

THAT is what they mean by "joining".

It is not yet too late, but it is getting closer to that all the time.

"Can someone come up with a catchy, simple word that covers the essence of "be taken over by", "be submerged in", "be overwhelmed and conquered by", "be irreversibly subsumed into, for ever", or something equally powerful."

Hmm. Howsabout: "resistance is futile. you will be assimilated."

Seriously, I could see a very effective little ad campaign built around a dystopian "blade runner" vision of the EU future, with this as the slogan.

Here’s an interesting “failing relationship” story I thought up. It turns the “inevitability” of European integration on its head by using the narrative that the relationship is inevitably failing and they are doing all the usual things that break up normal relationships. All the things in the story are true, so it will stand up to criticism, it has persuasive power, and I think it could catch on.

“It's inevitable that we are going to have to leave the EU, they are being too controlling and trying to turn us into people we're not. They take our money, they take out fish but we never see where it goes, certainly not on us. The EU suffers from a huge amount of fraud losing billions every year, the entire EU commission resigned recently in a corruption scandal, but then most of them were immediately reappointed to the same jobs, and both Chirac and Berlusconi are facing corruption charges.

We put up with all this stuff for a long time, but eventually we've got to say we like our lives, we like doing things our way, we're tired of the lies, we’re tired of them pouring our money down the drain. We're going to break up, I am sure of that. There will be bitterness and recrimination when we part, but we'll get over it, and we'll both be better off because we were just not suited for each other. It's going to happen, everyone can see it can’t last, and I don't see why we should put off the inevitable for too long.”

Another thing that could be put in the story is “they are being rude to my family and I don’t like it” (anti-Americanism), or any other thing that tends to break up normal relationships. I think it needs a little polishing to make it truly infections, but it's a start. The object of this is to cancel out the idea that the EU is inevitable, that is one of their most powerful weapons at the moment.

Richard - you got me - IMO taking on the euro is not good for the people of England - obviously - the whole of UK as well.

Della, This was a telling post and its aim was sharp and true.

Uhm, is everyone here aware that Tony Blair is a vice-president of Socialist International?

I'm just asking.

You guys are more than welcome over here in America. I know it's not the same and can never replace your home, but us Yanks wouldn't mind having you :)