The Labservative Party

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But what are the big objections, the regulations imposed by the central authority, or are more related to the obvious drawbacks of a large bureaucracy?

[Sibling DavidH]

Simply that the obvious objective is, and has always been, to impose political union by stealth.  This will not bring harmony, already it is causing a lot of dissent, suspicion and bad feeling.  Hatred of the French and the Germans is very real here, and IMO is growing.
So many Europeans don't want an undemocratic political union imposed on them.  A good EU would grow gradually by persuasion and the demonstration of real benefits.  OK, nations like the Irish loved it as long as they were being showered with money, but look how they voted on the treaty.  Like Denmark before them they were forced to vote again and come up with the 'right' answer.  This kind of stuff is scary.
In the USA the sudden union of very disparate states led to a bitter war in 1861; the bad feeling is not fully erased even now.  I believe that there is a real danger that that could happen in the EU if public feeling in a state or states were to rise to fever-pitch.

[beagle]

But what are the big objections, the regulations imposed by the central authority, or are more related to the obvious drawbacks of a large bureaucracy?

Exactly what DavidH says. Imposition by deceit has always been at the heart of the project.  Underlying that is the scary Jacobin view that the "intelligentsia" know best, and the electorate are there to follow.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Let me be the devil's advocate for a moment.

The main problem here is globalization, and by that I don't mean that evil corporations are trying to take over the world*, but the fact that for about a months salary a person can go to the other side of the world and back, that shipping merchandise from the other side of the world is cheap enough to be done massively, and that communication with any part of the world is incredibly cheap for almost everyone. Those conditions allow manufacturing in China, India, Thailand, Perú, etc, to be cheaper than that of the 1st world, and then the realities of the world kick in; when the majority of the world is poor and willing to work for a small salary, companies move to those places because it is cheaper to have things done there even with the inherent problems of doing business in the 3rd world. The end result is that jobs are lost in the 1st world and moved to the 3rd and precious little can be done to ameliorate that. Only a devastating pandemic/nuclear war big enough to set us back 200+ years would be able to stop it.

More to the point, when the world is global the only way to play is to have enough leverage. One of the things that has been painfully obvious is the lack of influence of Europe in the world scene, from trade, to human rights, to war, to the last failure at Copenhagen the current EU has been more a collection of small interests than a unified power broker, and I'm positive that the views of those in the higher echelons in London, Paris and Berlin would love to represent the interests of 500+ million, rather than 60+ from a "small" country in the world arena. The EADS, Daimlers and BAEs of the world can obviously see the benefits of one set of regulation instead of 30 and the politicians can see the benefits of standing together against the US, Russia, China and India. In general terms they do see the necessity of a large federation with a single head moving forward.

The other side of the coin is not only the how (as you guys have clearly pointed out) but the why the backlash against the EU project, which is where I do see things differently. I haven't heard a really good reason to stop the project beyond the emotional backlash against a pushy elite. Elements like unemployment or a cultural dilution seem to be closer to the root of the anxiety but those aren't so much the EU's fault but the effect of globalization on Europe. In fact I would go so far to make the analogy with the current backlash against Obama in the US which seems utterly irrational given the current conditions and the IMO reasonable form of government employed. People are angry because unemployment is high, and because the government has been useless to protect them. On this side of the Atlantic the narrative has been hijacked by the extreme right, and no too surprisingly, a number of nationalistic parties have used the same dissatisfaction in Europe making the EU a perfect target.

Mind you, I'm not trying to minimize the feelings against a common Europe nation, and you are perfectly right that not only the way it has been implemented has many things to be desired much less the speed of the integration, but it's my perception that the pushy elites have perfectly valid reasons to be pushy. There is a sense of urgency, not only due to looming energy and environmental crisis but because there is a feeling of a lost opportunity and that arriving late to the party will be detrimental for Europe as a whole. Of course they (and I in my interpretation) may be wrong but I do see a logic behind it.

Edit: There is one more thing that I believe should be said, and it's my selfish reason for the EU: it is my belief that a united Europe is better for the world than the alternative. All the other power brokers in the world including the US are more authoritarian, and less willing to work with others. A united Europe would be a counterweight to the late unilateralism, and a better example to follow.

*well, they are trying, but that's not the issue in question.

[beagle]

The other side of the coin is not only the how (as you guys have clearly pointed out) but the why the backlash against the EU project, which is where I do see things differently. I haven't heard a really good reason to stop the project beyond the emotional backlash against a pushy elite.

Because a "goverment" that mandates directives from an unelected commission, and ignores constitutional referenda is a throwback to divine rule. A unified Europe does not justify the means, any more than for a Hitler or Stalin. And this is how it behaves before it has absolute power.

Because an organisation whose auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for more than a decade is terminally corrupt.

Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.

Because government by the unelected from several countries distance went out of fashion a hundred years ago. Your big is beautiful argument would work just as well for resurrecting the British Empire. and you guys didn't like that, despite the trade and defence advantages.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.

That is something I don't understand well, the UK is not part of the Euro zone which means that is free to manage it's currency as fit as necessary, if the Greeks cry foul to the Germans (or viceversa) how does it affect the UK? Apart from some Polish construction workers (going back home for lack of work IIRC) what is the big practical downside for the UK?

As for the Imperial Europe, while there is always a risk, it think there is a bit of hyperbole right now. There is an EU parliament already, so there is representation although the level of participation from voters has been lacking according to the articles I read. Ironically it would seem that precisely the euroskeptics are more keen to vote, which would bring some balance, all things considered.

[beagle]

Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.

That is something I don't understand well, the UK is not part of the Euro zone which means that is free to manage it's currency as fit as necessary, if the Greeks cry foul to the Germans (or viceversa) how does it affect the UK? Apart from some Polish construction workers (going back home for lack of work IIRC) what is the big practical downside for the UK?

It wouldn't directly, if the status quo was preserved. However the EU works by acquiring ever more control, and never ceding powers back. The suspicion is that ultimately it will find a way to force to the UK into the Eurozone.
Fortunately so far even our maddest chancellors realize that it would be a recipe for economic impotence and home electoral disaster.

So see what I mean look at the case of Ireland. During the Celtic tiger years it desperately needed higher interest rates to contain the property boom, but was stuck with the rates needed by France and Germany. The Irish government tried every other trick they could think of to contain the damage, but ultimately they had handed over the control of the only usable mechanism to another country, with resulting financial disaster.

Even without the Euro though, the UK is a huge net contributor to the EU (after Germany). France has always benefited hugely
because the Common Agricultural policy subsidises its inefficient small farmers. Mrs T got rebate to correct for that but Bliar/Brown traded it away in return for nebulous promises about CAP reform that France had no intention of keeping.
I've never seen an adequate explanation of why a Glasgow high rise flat dweller's taxes should be funding an inefficient French farmers bucolic rural idyll.

As for the Imperial Europe, while there is always a risk, it think there is a bit of hyperbole right now. There is an EU parliament already, so there is representation although the level of participation from voters has been lacking according to the articles I read. Ironically it would seem that precisely the euroskeptics are more keen to vote, which would bring some balance, all things considered.

The European Parliament is a bad joke; everything of consequence that happens in the name of the EU is decided by the commission or by leaders behind closed doors. It is the definition of that joke that starts "If voting could change anything...".

[Griffin NoName]

What happens if GB does not call an election?

[beagle]

Fortunately there's a teensy weensy constitutional safeguard in the armed forces being loyal to the Crown. It would brighten my declining years to see his premiership terminated by a 15" naval gun.

[Griffin NoName]

mmmm I thought there'd be some solution but isn't armed force OTT?  Couldn't they try persuasion first; like getting HM to have a quiet word.............. it would liven things up.

[pieces o nine]

Question from across the pond, on actual verbal language usage:

Do all y'all call her 'Her Maj' or 'HRH' or what?

Thank you.

(Over here, I'm profoundly enjoying saying 'Preznit' again, in place of 'Dubya'.)

[Sibling DavidH]

We generally say 'The Queen', I think.  Formally, 'Her Majesty The Queen'. When you meet her, you have to say 'Your Majesty' once, then 'Ma'am' is OK after that.  So they say.

What happens if Broon doesn't call the election?  I suspect the answer is that he'll get  put in a straitjacket and locked up.  Not before time.  But indeed, the process will be intersting.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Can he do the same/similar dirty tricks like Harper in Canada?

[Griffin NoName]

Question from across the pond, on actual verbal language usage:

Do all y'all call her 'Her Maj' or 'HRH' or what?

Generally called Her Madge

When I met her I didn't call her anything. Just did the curtsey thing. We had a list of "what to do and what not to do" sent to us beforehand, of which the not going to the Ladies toilets** in case she did was the most difficult to follow.

We are about to enter a period of silly language of which one of the first things to happen is Parliament being prorogued*. I think it means clearing out those who cheated on expenses

*ought to be in the Word Definition game

**note for Beagle.... this was probably the only time in history that the ADC toilets got painted

[beagle]

mmmm I thought there'd be some solution but isn't armed force OTT?  Couldn't they try persuasion first; like getting HM to have a quiet word.............. it would liven things up.

Well she does have the whip hand (an image to conjure with).  She can dissolve Parliament, take the mace back to the Tower (not an anti-mugging device, for our colonial cousins) and refuse to sign any new laws.  Presumably if she invited someone else to form a government until a new election, then had the Household Cavalry escort them to Downing Street it would be case of "Good choice Ma'am".
Years ago there was a TV series called "Knights of God" on where military allegiance would ultimately go if the government went mad(der).

Actually there is an apparent danger we might be lumbered with GB if there is a hung parliament, while the parties squabble as to who might be in a coalition.