http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/09/eu-europe-less-panic/

This case shows that diversity, and not integration, is the future of the EU. We can't ask the British to give more and more money to an institute that so badly screwed up its financial politics. "The EU will be just fine." That's what it will have in common with the City then.

I'm all for diversity; the UK will not leave the EU (unless the government gives a a straight yes/no choice) but if it did The republic of Ireland would have some difficulties - we originally waited until the UK joined because we had a major trading relationship with the UK... We are not member of the schengen zone because the British decided to not to join (we already had a common travel area with Britian, and joining schengen would have meant leaving it) i can't help but assume a UK exit will lead to an Irish exit, and i don't think that would be good.

The more members of the EEA who are bound be EU trade rules without any say in how they are created, the worse the EU becomes... And even the most anti-EU citizens in Britian want to keep access to the common market.

I'm scratching my head about the claim that more diversity would have led to better outcomes. How, exactly? If the problem was countries ignoring the 3% borrowing rule, how would less integration helped that? How would less integration helped the problem of huge private debt being wracked up by private business and mortgage borrowers who used that debt to fuel the housing bubble, among other things? How would less integration have helped in the fight against speculation?

Bashing the EU is good populism, bad policy.

For people who think joining the EFTA and being separate from the EU Is a good idea, ask the Norwegians and Swiss if they stopped paying for the EU budget or having to abide by EU rules to gain access to the common market. And ask them if it's fun having to do that with no vote in the process because of their refusal to join the union.

Putin, I'm glad you've raised the point about how would it feel having to abide by EU rules without helping shape those rules. I'm generally pro-European but I don't get this line of arguement. At the moment we export to the rest of the world without having an input into their regulations and we do just fine. Sure there may be times when we disagree a with new dictate, for example say all our new cars had to meet tougher emissions tests, we might not like that, but the chances are the same rules would've been introduced anyway but without us having to subsidise the process.

Many people in the UK think rules are dictated by Europe and that we don't have any joy trying to limit their effect. Whilst this continues the UK will remain euro-sceptic. Another increase in the budget whilst every other budget is being cut and the failure of the UK government to grant a yes/no referendum just adds to people's frustration.

You don't have any joy because the UK has never been a serious partner with the EU. The more the UK complains about the EU and demands opt-outs without participating or contributing, the less influence it has. Look at how the UK behaves now, complaining bitterly about relatively minor social policy directives. Complaining about "giving away the rebate" (because making poor East European countries subsidize the UK makes perfect sense). How can anybody in Europe take the UK seriously about reforms it wants when it did not contribute a dime to the EU's rescue fund (when even Sweden & Poland did), does not participate in the Schengen, does not abide by EU rules on justice policy, continually undermines EU foreign policy, etc, etc.

It makes little sense to me that so-called Euroskeptics want the UK to remove itself from the EU while keeping itself in the market, giving it even less of a voice than it already has on a lot of the policies it routinely complains about (if they're not a big deal why the complaints?). It is rather shocking that with Cleggy in the coalition there has been pretty much no complaining about the Coalition's farcical European policy until the backbencher revolt. And Labour is going along with it as well.

Or maybe they want to go the Swiss route and negotiate sector-by-sector trade deals with Europe. Even more ridiculous.

I don't agree with the Coalition's policies towards Europe and I would welcome the UK joining the common travel area. I also don't agree with the UK undermining justice rulings - for example we are trying to undermine the EU's ruling on allowing prisoners to vote. That said, I realise that I'm in a minority over these issues and this is where the EU suffers in my view. How can it be right that the vast majority of uk citizens and almost all their MPs are against prisoners votes and yet we may end up with it because of Europe?

The UK are not the only country to have opt-outs in certain policy areas and I imagine more opt outs will be negotiated by various countries in the future.

I agree entirely that the UK may become isolated because of its attitude. I also agree that we should make fair contributions to its budget, but we also need to have some control over expenditure and if expenditure carries on growing out of control, we are quite right to seek to curtail it.

"How can it be right that the vast majority of uk citizens and almost all their MPs are against prisoners votes and yet we may end up with it because of Europe? "

How can it be right that the UK expects European cooperation and information pertaining to the prosecution of international crimes affecting the UK while opting out of the rules on policing and justice policy? Why should the EU hand over prisoners who have committed crimes in the UK when the UK doesn't believe in EU human rights law?

The whole notion of give-and-take and picking your battles is completely lost on UK euroskeptics.

"Or maybe they want to go the Swiss route and negotiate sector-by-sector trade deals with Europe. Even more ridiculous."

Yeah, cause it's ridiculous what the Swiss do. Remaining neutral during both world wars, while pretty much every country on its boarder was fighting every other country at its boarder. To retain an independent and neutral attitude in the world, sometimes allowing countries that normally don't talk to each other such as NK and the US to have a means of discussing. To be the absolute best organized country I ever set foot on. No real euro-troubles. This country has absolutely no clue as to what it's doing. :S

Just because Switzerland has done some things well doesn't mean its current byzantine set up with the EU is working. The Swiss franc is too strong to be competitive exports-wise. Recent polls show Switzerland's appeal as a business location losing ground. EU partners are quite fed up with how complicated trade relations are with Switzerland due to having to negotiate everything separately (over 120 deals in all). I thought EU haters hated the EU because of it being overly bureaucratic. If so, how is there anything to like about Switzerland's approach to the EU?

"EU partners are quite fed up with how complicated trade relations are with Switzerland due to having to negotiate everything separately (over 120 deals in all)."

I'm all down for simple coherent trade agreements. But what you don't want to be a part of as a country is the billions of agricultural subsidies that go to super-rich French champagne farmers. Or the traveling circus that calls itself the European Parliament with the insane member count of 736 (you could do this with 100 people easily). Or the bizarre rule that Reding recently proposed threadID=946575. You don't want to be a part of all that. You do want to have easy trade with the 500.000.000 people strong union. That's why diversity is so important.

A population of 500 million represented by 100 people? This is how we're going to deal with the democratic deficit, by cutting back representation? Italy has less representatives in its two houses of parliament than the EU Parliament has. It's hardly an insane number. You cannot claim to be for trade simplificity while also proposing a bigger diversity of rules & regulations to sift through in order to get anything done in Europe.

The EU cuts its export subsidies for ag products from billions to 140 million Euros for 2012. The ag budget has seen no increase despite the fact that 1 - ag policy is the only policy entirely covered by the EU as opposed to national govts, and 2 - an increase in East European members who are dependent on agriculture (doubling the farming population). It is now only 40% of the EU's budget.

France gets a large amount of the subsidies for the simple fact that France is the EU's agricultural export powerhouse and is only behind in the US in terms of ag production.
Considering how much less the average European farmer gets in subsidies than the US does, you're doing just fine on that front.

A population of 500 million represented by 100 people? This is how we're going to deal with the democratic deficit, by cutting back representation?

-One sweeps the stairs starting from the top

"Italy has less representatives in its two houses of parliament than the EU Parliament has."

-I'm sorry Putin, but Italy is a corrupt, dysfunctional state, for the last decade it was ran by an absolute clown of a person (who was also a criminal) so I don't think it's a reasonable comparison.

"The EU cuts its export subsidies for ag products from billions to 140 million Euros for 2012. The ag budget has seen no increase despite the fact that 1 - ag policy is the only policy entirely covered by the EU as opposed to national govts, and 2 - an increase in East European members who are dependent on agriculture (doubling the farming population). It is now only 40% of the EU's budget. "
Here's what's wrong with it: if you subsidize food, people eat more meat, because crops are cheap and animals eat crops. I think given how much greenhouse gases animals emit, how much space they take up and how unhealthy eating a lot of meat is, we should revise that policy completely. Also, 40% of the EU's budget is a handsome sum of money. Last, what do you mean by export subsidies? I'm not aware of this.

"Considering how much less the average European farmer gets in subsidies than the US does, you're doing just fine on that front."
-I don't believe the US economy is an example for Europe in all its aspects.

Cheer up, Redhouse, the world is not all that bleak.

Fine, if Italy doesn't impress you, how about Germany. They have about 690 members of parliament all told. That's almost as many as the EU. Germany has a population of 80 million, the EU 500 million.

Also, 40% of the EU's budget is a handsome sum of money."

It amounts to something like 55 billion per year. The Dutch budget for a population of 17 million is something like 425 billion. Considering how important ag is for French & European growth in general I don't think it's a high price.

"Last, what do you mean by export subsidies? I'm not aware of this."

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/export_refunds/index_en.htm
http://capreform.eu/end-the-use-of-export-subsidies-in-the-2013-cap-review/

"Here's what's wrong with it: if you subsidize food, people eat more meat, because crops are cheap and animals eat crops."

And if you don't subsidize food, you have no farmers because agriculture is so subject to the changes of market prices and is more often than not, unsustainable without subsidy support.

If you want to be totally reliant on foreign suppliers of food, go for it.

"-I don't believe the US economy is an example for Europe in all its aspects."

The point is your policy is quite rational despite all of your complaining.

"Fine, if Italy doesn't impress you, how about Germany. They have about 690 members of parliament all told. That's almost as many as the EU. Germany has a population of 80 million, the EU 500 million. "

-Alright, but I simply disagree that the EU should think of itself that way. Representation should be modest, in a fixed parliament and not a traveling one (I don't care where it is. Put it in Switzerland, then everybody's happy, I say).

"The Dutch budget for a population of 17 million is something like 425 billion. Considering how important ag is for French & European growth in general I don't think it's a high price. "

-I checked it and it's 260.9 billion. And I think it's too high a price, since I believe our current system skews our food to include too much meat.

"http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/export_refunds/index_en.htm
http://capreform.eu/end-the-use-of-export-subsidies-in-the-2013-cap-review/"
-Thanks, I'll check this out, sounds interesting

"If you want to be totally reliant on foreign suppliers of food, go for it. "
I think it would be fairer to African/South American countries (this must sound like music to your ears) to be able to compete with European farmers, if they want to export stuff (not the staple that they need so hard themselves of course). And I also believe that if the number of animals would be reduced from our food cycle, we could free up a lot of land in Europe for more useful stuff (housing, economic production, natural parks).

"The point is your policy is quite rational despite all of your complaining. "
As a Dutchman, I'm supposed to spend most of my day complaining about little things. Like you, as an American, must spew megalomanous ideas on the forum. Cultural deformation: I embrace it as a gift from above.

PS I do believe in creating strategic reserves of food, so we're not dependent.

100 people is absolutely inadequate for representing 27 countries. That would cut one aspect of your beloved diversity into two coalitions of biggest left-wing and biggest right-wing parties from each country. No liberals, no greens, no communists, no xenophobes, just social democrats and liberal-conservatives everywhere. The bigger countries would be shafted even more then they are now. You would transform the European Parliament into US Senate. Your less-Europe colleagues would be purged from the legislative process and there would be no actual opposition to more-Europe anywhere in the EU politics.

Good point, ulytau. Still, the number can be cut drastically without losing these factions.

Putin "How can it be right that the UK expects European cooperation and information pertaining to the prosecution of international crimes affecting the UK while opting out of the rules on policing and justice policy? Why should the EU hand over prisoners who have committed crimes in the UK when the UK doesn't believe in EU human rights law?"

I don't get this arguement. Are our european friends really sat there saying ' I don't think people accused of murder in the UK should face trail unless they get the vote if proved guilty?'

I've already said that I want prisoners to get the vote, but I think the UK population have the sense and right to decide if that's what we want. Imposing rules just alienates people.

Defying the court is a flagrant breach of the European Convention on Human Rights which obligates signatories to implement court decisions. Second of all, this law was hardly imposed upon the UK, since the UK was one of the primary initiators of it. But while it was all well and good when it served Cold War propaganda purposes, or when it could be used to strong arm new applicants into the EU into making judicial reforms, when big countries don't want to follow the same rules as anybody else, then all of a sudden it is 'alienating'.

Surely politicians in the UK are clever enough and have enough common sense to change the blanket ban on the prisoner vote to make it more compliant with the court while also keeping the substance of their domestic law.

What's the topic of discussion now? prisoner votes? The UK doesn't want its prisoners to have voting rights while the EU does, is that it?

Prisoner's votes issue in a nutshell.

The UK is a party to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights); The UK also has a clause in the Representation of the People Act that bars prisoners fron voting. When some prisoners took the UK government to European Court, the court decided the ban ran contray to the ECHR Act and in effect instructed the UK to modify their laws. Putin is correct that a small modification, say giving the vote to prisoners who are serving 6 months or less may square the circle.

Whilst I agree with the ECHR, my point is that people perceive this as Europe interferring with a nation's right to make their own laws. I don't think there is any clammer the people of Europe to insist that we change our laws. Do the people of the Netherlands discuss this in their cafes?

This is one example where people appear to be getting what no one voted wants, and no one voted for. If this is the future of European democracy then is it any wonder some people are sceptical.

I haven't recently discussed this in a café, admittedly, although I believe the British are right and prisoners should have their voting rights withdrawn: you can't co-decide on laws if you don't respect the law itself.

And anyone who spends 6 months or less in prison is a waste of time, really. If you did something that's stupid enough to get you in prison but not intelligent enough to be worth more than a 6 month sentence you're not intelligent enough to vote IMO.

@putin - i agree with your statement - "Defying the court is a flagrant breach of the European Convention on Human Rights which obligates signatories to implement court decisions." I also agree that the law wasn't imposed on the UK Government as they signed up to it; what I meant was the law seems to be imposed on a population that neither wanted or voted or signed up to it.

I really do hope that the UK doesn't breach UK law, but more than anything I hope that such cases don't allienate the public to the degree that they demand their politicians withdraw from the ECHR and or Europe.

@redhouse this isn't so much a discussion about prisoners' rights. More about who should decide what their rights are. I think the nation states should be left to decide,

For info....at the moment there are 14 European countries where prisoners are allowed to vote, including Ireland, Spain, Sweden and Denmark; there are 16 where prisoners have limited voting rights, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Prisoners are banned from voting in 6 countries including the UK, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Liechtenstein and Georgia. In the US some prisoners are banned from voting even after they have left jail.

I know, I know. But that's what I'm saying: not only should you have the right to decide it, but also you are right about this issue IMHO and the EU is wrong :D