So... the EU

By the very fact that we are all people and we are all alive are we bound to help one another. Life is so precious, so rare, that even if the Universe was teeming with it we should still do everything possible to preserve it and to better it. Liberty is a fine and desirable thing, but it is based on the falsity that is self-ownership. You do not own yourself, you are not entitled to do what you want with your body; you are accountable to society and that must come first. To think otherwise is selfishness in the extreme. I think we have a moral obligation to help even if the help is unwanted. Are you in favour of banning suicide? Its legality is one clear example of society recognising the right of individuals to refuse help. I can accept that we should offer help to those who genuinely need it (which is plenty of people - I don't imagine most people would take issue with my definition). I cannot concede that we should force them to accept it. People have a right to do things their own way if they choose - even if it kills them. There may still be some measures we can take to reduce the chance of that without giving direct help. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not want to end state welfare payments or anything like that. I do want to ensure they're not exploited unjustly, but then I imagine we can agree on that. Self-ownership is not false. However, my suspicion is that this position is purely axiomatic. Either you will accept it or you will not. It will not be possible to form a decent argument either for or against it (I think). Lastly, it is not selfish. It is liberal. And liberalism is the supreme form of generosity - it lays the state at the feet of the individual, rather than forcing the individual to worship the state. Incidentally, do you consider yourself a continuing Liberal (big L)? Or are you, like myself, here on the continuing Liberal forums just for the debate? If it kills them then it also does harm to society. A valuable resource is lost, it causes emotional harm to relatives, friends and even acquaintances and, of course, it is the loss of a life, more precious than anything else. I would not make it illegal or ban it, but I would certainly force the person to accept help first. If they turn out after this to be beyond help and feel that suicide is the only way out then there is little I can do to stop it; I would still attempt to the best of my ability to discourage the person from such a course of action and stop it, though. I didn't believe that you wanted to end State welfare payments; it is the libertarian position which seeks to achieve that, and libertarianism does not match up well to the Liberal Democrat viewpoint. I have a strong dislike of libertarianism, as you might be able to guess. The concept of self-ownership is a very much real thing, and I agree with many of the freedoms associated with the concept. But it is a concept only and must remain so if society is to function. Self-ownership would make you unaccountable to society; you would own yourself and thus have no responsibility or obligation towards others. I have no responsibility or obligation to give my laptop to a beggar, for example, as it is my own property. If I owned myself then I would have no obligation not to murder; yes, the person I murdered would have the right to not be murdered, but I would be under no obligation to respect that right. Holding oneself above society is an inherently selfish thing to do and very much egocentric. As I said, we are all accountable to society; if this were not the case then there would be no crime and no punishment, because the concept of crime would be meaningless and thus too the concept of punishment. This doesn't mean that things which we consider to be bad wouldn't happen; they would happen, and probably more frequently. They just wouldn't be crimes. If the concept of self-ownership is cast aside, however, then I would be obliged not to murder by the very fact that I belong to society as it were; I would be accountable to society. I would be obliged not to murder both by society's moral code and by the State's law ultimately based on this moral code. Another important thing which would stop me from killing would be the thought of the punishment that society and State would then heap upon me. However, despite all this, I do support some of the freedoms associated with self-ownership to a limited degree. One example amongst others, we should certainly allow one to be whatever sexual orientation one wishes. I consider myself relatively free from political parties in that I don't think any current one matches my views very well. Labour, however, is the one which I would likely vote for at the moment. I'm not a Liberal, merely a liberal. And perhaps a different type of liberal to your liberal, come to think of it. I suspect that part of the reason we don't agree may be that we're not speaking the same language as such. I am used to discussing the ideas of and arguing with libertarians, who I feel take the idea of State and societal non-intervention/regulation too far. In this case, our individual concepts of self-ownership and so on may be different from one another. Another may be that I am very bad at putting things down in words. Even I cannot fully understand all that which I wrote above. ;) And I suppose this is not helped by the fact that we are discussing the philosophy and morality of political issues, very much abstract concepts, in a language which evolved purely for practical reasons. Edit: I might still be unclear about what stance I take... This thread also shows my viewpoint, although I have evolved somewhat even in the short time since I posted.

If it kills them then it also does harm to society. A valuable resource is lost, it causes emotional harm to relatives, friends and even acquaintances and, of course, it is the loss of a life, more precious than anything else. I would not make it illegal or ban it, but I would certainly force the person to accept help first. If they turn out after this to be beyond help and feel that suicide is the only way out then there is little I can do to stop it; I would still attempt to the best of my ability to discourage the person from such a course of action and stop it, though. So what you're saying is that you would attempt to dissuade them but that ultimately it is their choice? Great - that's what I'm saying too. I didn't believe that you wanted to end State welfare payments; it is the libertarian position which seeks to achieve that, and libertarianism does not match up well to the Liberal Democrat viewpoint. I have a strong dislike of libertarianism, as you might be able to guess. Libertarianism has different forms. That is one of them; there are others which are less harsh. The concept of self-ownership is a very much real thing, and I agree with many of the freedoms associated with the concept. But it is a concept only and must remain so if society is to function. Self-ownership would make you unaccountable to society; you would own yourself and thus have no responsibility or obligation towards others. I have no responsibility or obligation to give my laptop to a beggar, for example, as it is my own property. If I owned myself then I would have no obligation not to murder; yes, the person I murdered would have the right to not be murdered, but I would be under no obligation to respect that right. No. It doesn't make individuals unaccountable. As the harm principle sets out, an individual is accountable to society in so far as his or her actions (or, sometimes, inactions) harm others. Each individual owns himself or herself. However, each individual is bound to recognise that this has equal applicability to others and to act accordingly. Holding oneself above society is an inherently selfish thing to do and very much egocentric. As I said, we are all accountable to society; if this were not the case then there would be no crime and no punishment, because the concept of crime would be meaningless and thus too the concept of punishment. This doesn't mean that things which we consider to be bad wouldn't happen; they would happen, and probably more frequently. They just wouldn't be crimes. There is a difference between being "sovereign" (different sense to the EU debate) and holding oneself above society. Liberalism clearly sets out, through the harm principle, the sorts of activities for which an individual can be held accountable - those that cause undue and direct harm to others. Note that the word "direct" is important - this prevents us from completely banning smoking on the grounds that we have an NHS which spreads the effects slightly through funding decisions. Considering something to be bad is insufficient to justify banning it. It must be shown to cause clear and direct harm to people other than the actor. If it doesn't then banning it would simply be an attempt to impose the will of the majority - which is every bit as dictatorial as it is with the will of one person. If the concept of self-ownership is cast aside, however, then I would be obliged not to murder by the very fact that I belong to society as it were; I would be accountable to society. I would be obliged not to murder both by society's moral code and by the State's law ultimately based on this moral code. Another important thing which would stop me from killing would be the thought of the punishment that society and State would then heap upon me. Why cast it aside, though, since, as I've demonstrated, it does not allow people to go out and kill each other. I deny that it can be legitimately cast aside. People do own themselves. If the state says otherwise then the state is wrong and must be opposed. However, despite all this, I do support some of the freedoms associated with self-ownership to a limited degree. One example amongst others, we should certainly allow one to be whatever sexual orientation one wishes. I suppose it's better than nothing. Might I advise you to read John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (if you haven't already)? It sets out many of the key principles. It's not exactly easy reading and it was written well over 100 years ago but the basic principles are the same, though some of his conclusions have been reassessed. I consider myself relatively free from political parties in that I don't think any current one matches my views very well. Labour, however, is the one which I would likely vote for at the moment. I'm not a Liberal, merely a liberal. And perhaps a different type of liberal to your liberal, come to think of it. Based on what you have been saying you are unlike any liberal I have ever encountered before (that's not necessarily a bad thing - liberalism embraces individualism!) but it does make me wonder whether you're a liberal in any way I find meaningful. You, of course, may have your own definition which excludes me. (I feel confident in mine since it's supported by encyclopaedic definitions better than yours!) I do not have much experience of American liberalism, which is different (and, from what I do know, less liberal in my understanding). Maybe that's where you fit in? I don't know. I suspect that part of the reason we don't agree may be that we're not speaking the same language as such. I am used to discussing the ideas of and arguing with libertarians, who I feel take the idea of State and societal non-intervention/regulation too far. In this case, our individual concepts of self-ownership and so on may be different from one another. Perhaps. I would like to point out that I believe that regulation has an important economic role in potecting free markets from monopolies and other unfair practices which compromise the freedom of the market. Another may be that I am very bad at putting things down in words. Even I cannot fully understand all that which I wrote above. ;) And I suppose this is not helped by the fact that we are discussing the philosophy and morality of political issues, very much abstract concepts, in a language which evolved purely for practical reasons. Edit: I might still be unclear about what stance I take... This thread also shows my viewpoint, although I have evolved somewhat even in the short time since I posted. No, it probably isn't heped by that, although I'm not sure how much it is hindered - language has adapted to more abstract tasks in many ways...

You wait ages for a good discussion, then two come along together - and both in the same thread. I'll stick with the EU one for now but might join in the liberalism/harm principle/morality one later. Misconception about the EU #1: it forces us to do things. All to often it's the other way around. Labour seems to be using it as a means of enacting policies without justifying them to the public - they blame the EU, despite the fact that they are guilty. At present they have a veto (which is wrong, but that's another argument). I expect that's true, but remember: Misconception about the EU #2: it doesn't force us to do things. As well as UK politicians blaming the EU for things which are their own fault, there are also plenty of cases of UK politicians claiming that policies are their own idea when really they are being forced to do them by the EU. No government likes to look powerless, I suppose. There are multiple examples of this, from big ones like setting the VAT rate on fuel (the Tories once claimed they would reduce it if elected, but they could only have done so by leaving the EU!) right down to relatively trivial ones like Gordon Brown claiming that he will phase out non-energy saving lightbulbs (sorry Gordon, that was a EU directive!) or the Post Office introducing different charges for different sized letters (EU directive too, apparently.) There are also innumerable examples of people being forced to do things by UK law, but the law in question was a EU directive of the kind that the Commons is obliged by treaty to pass into UK law without discussion. Is that an example of the UK govt forcing people to do something, or of the EU forcing people to do something? The latter, I would have thought. Official Liberal Democrat policy, despite the propaganda smears on the continuing Liberal Party's website (yes, I'm afraid it's true), is option 3 - radical reform. Some powers need to be brought back, some should be passed up. On the whole the balance is likely to tip to the former because of things like the Common Agricultural Policy, which takes up almost half of the EU budget. I've been told this by LibDem supporters before, but all I can say is that I see no sign of any reform effort by LibDem MPs or MEPs, so I judge from this that it isn't exactly a high priority! After all, there are 11 LibDem MEPs, and you never hear a squeak out of them about the EU's undemocratic nature, even though they are in a group called the "European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party". Just as a side note, apparently the Department for Work and Pensions has been unable to get sign off from the auditors for far longer than the EU has had that problem. Didn't know that! Thanks for the interesting information. The Commision's democratic credentials are similar to those of the House of Lords I suppose - insufficient. True. But (a) the House of Lords is finally facing reform to make it more democratic, and (b) the House of Lords can't initiate legislation, while the Commission can and continually does. The Europarl does have some powers to reject the Commission. I'm think it once forced it to resign, though whether that was by actual use of power or just by pressure I'm not sure. This is an excellent example of the way the institutions are designed to give the illusion of democratic accountability without the reality. The Euro parliament does indeed have the power to sack the entire commission en masse, which makes it sound like a mighty force in the land. However, it doesn't have the much more significant power to sack or even reject the appointment of individual Commissioners. So if a Commissioner turns out to be useless or corrupt, the parliament can complain but it can't do anything unless it wants to take the 'nuclear option' of sacking the whole Commission, thus triggering a huge crisis and paralysing the entire EU. And apart from that it has no control over the Commission at all. But you are right that in 1999 the evidence of widespread corruption in the Commission headed by Jacques Santer was so overwhelming that the Euro Parliament eventually did threaten to sack the whole Commission unless they resigned, which forced them to step down. A mere seven years later, one of the Commissioners was finally put on trial, but as Wikipedia puts it - "Édith Cresson went before the European Court of Justice and, in July 2006, was found guilty but was not stripped of her pension.<9>" Which says it all, really! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission Making the power shifts that the Lib Dems want would very likely eliminate the audit problem! Can you tell me what power shifts the LibDems would like to see, and whether you think the EU Reform Treaty embodies them?

I expect that's true, but remember: Misconception about the EU #2: it doesn't force us to do things. As well as UK politicians blaming the EU for things which are their own fault, there are also plenty of cases of UK politicians claiming that policies are their own idea when really they are being forced to do them by the EU. No government likes to look powerless, I suppose. There are multiple examples of this, from big ones like setting the VAT rate on fuel (the Tories once claimed they would reduce it if elected, but they could only have done so by leaving the EU!) right down to relatively trivial ones like Gordon Brown claiming that he will phase out non-energy saving lightbulbs (sorry Gordon, that was a EU directive!) or the Post Office introducing different charges for different sized letters (EU directive too, apparently.) Hardly the fault of the EU. There are also innumerable examples of people being forced to do things by UK law, but the law in question was a EU directive of the kind that the Commons is obliged by treaty to pass into UK law without discussion. Is that an example of the UK govt forcing people to do something, or of the EU forcing people to do something? The latter, I would have thought. The EU is presently incapable of forcing Britain to do anything. Under the reform treaty that would change to some extent. However, the general trend (of Britain bullying other EU members into doing things) is certain to continue. We have far more European influence through the EU than we could ever have without it, for minimal traffic the other way. I've been told this by LibDem supporters before, but all I can say is that I see no sign of any reform effort by LibDem MPs or MEPs, so I judge from this that it isn't exactly a high priority! After all, there are 11 LibDem MEPs, and you never hear a squeak out of them about the EU's undemocratic nature, even though they are in a group called the "European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party". We have higher priorities, but it's there. We're the only major party prepared to stick our collective head above the parapet on the Reform Treaty, which implements many necessary changes. Reporting of European politics is minimal in the British press. When did you last hear something from them about anything? Yet they do make speeches, they do release papers... and are ignored by the UK press. True. But (a) the House of Lords is finally facing reform to make it more democratic, and (b) the House of Lords can't initiate legislation, while the Commission can and continually does. The House of Lords and the European Commission are different sorts of entity. Lords can produce Private Member's Bills just like MPs. Indeed, any type of bill (possibly not Finance Bills, because those have special constitutional status with regard to the House of Lords) can be introduced in either House. The Commission does need to be able to initiate legislation, but I agree that is needs reform. It should at the very least have a commissioner-by-commissioner approval by the Parliament. It might be possible to justify having it as an executive formed from the Parliament, but that might conflict with its functions as the regulator of the single market. It could be split, I suppose, into seperate bodies for each role. This is an excellent example of the way the institutions are designed to give the illusion of democratic accountability without the reality. The Euro parliament does indeed have the power to sack the entire commission en masse, which makes it sound like a mighty force in the land. However, it doesn't have the much more significant power to sack or even reject the appointment of individual Commissioners. So if a Commissioner turns out to be useless or corrupt, the parliament can complain but it can't do anything unless it wants to take the 'nuclear option' of sacking the whole Commission, thus triggering a huge crisis and paralysing the entire EU. And apart from that it has no control over the Commission at all. But you are right that in 1999 the evidence of widespread corruption in the Commission headed by Jacques Santer was so overwhelming that the Euro Parliament eventually did threaten to sack the whole Commission unless they resigned, which forced them to step down. A mere seven years later, one of the Commissioners was finally put on trial, but as Wikipedia puts it - "Édith Cresson went before the European Court of Justice and, in July 2006, was found guilty but was not stripped of her pension.<9>" Like I said, we need reform. I'm not bothered that she kept her pension. It's quite possible that she still deserved it. She had, after all, done the job, albeit not correctly. I don't know the details of the case. Making the power shifts that the Lib Dems want would very likely eliminate the audit problem! Can you tell me what power shifts the LibDems would like to see, and whether you think the EU Reform Treaty embodies them? I do not actually know what the precise party policy is on this. However, I can tell you about what is said in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, written by a group of leading Liberal Democrats in 2004. The relevant chapter was written by Nick Clegg. It talks about abolishing the CAP, returning its powers to the members states. That in itself saves almost half of the EU Budget as well as being in keeping with subsidiarity. It talks about reviewing the whole scope of EU powers to see what can be relinquished or partially relinquished. It also recognises that there are some areas where more power is needed. More details than that I can't remember off the top of my head, but the emphasis is very much on reviewing and decentralising where possible. There are other specific examples. I just can't remember what they are! :D

I regard the law as a necessary evil. I do not accept that we should enforce the common values of morality, however. We should enforce only the harm principle of liberalism - that is, we can only prevent, by law, someone from doing something that directly and unduly harms others. Nicely put, I feel the same way.

Regarding the EU, then, I think the overall message of this thread is that it is, as a stand-alone issue, pretty much a non-issue. As far as I am concerned I do not think the EU is compatible with a truly liberal or libertarian vision of how the world should become, therefore I oppose it. The reasons for that opposition are numerous but these reasons are not exclusive to the EU, they could and do apply to other organisations. I'll go into those reasons in a new thread when I have time.

Regarding the EU, then, I think the overall message of this thread is that it is, as a stand-alone issue, pretty much a non-issue. As far as I am concerned I do not think the EU is compatible with a truly liberal or libertarian vision of how the world should become, therefore I oppose it. The reasons for that opposition are numerous but these reasons are not exclusive to the EU, they could and do apply to other organisations. I'll go into those reasons in a new thread when I have time. Obviously I'll have to wait before I can present a proper response, but the most obvious way to oppose the EU on liberal grounds is that power is further away from the people. That's perfectly true. That's why, as a Lib Dem, I support the principle of subsidiarity: power shouldn't be given to the EU if it can be held as effectively at lower levels. HOWEVER, some powers can't be. Trade powers, for example, are held at EU level because the EU can use them more effectively than the member governments could, even if they all pulled in the same direction! Look at how the EU has successfully taken on Microsoft on monopolising. No European member would have done that alone. It would be too much of a risk. However, Microsoft couldn't afford restrictions on their products in the whole EU market. United we stand, divided we fall.

It is not quite what you are saying because you would not force help on them first; you would merely offer it. I would force it upon them first. If you can provide an example of libertarianism which is not inherently selfish (read: concerned with the self above society; not necessarily greedy) then go ahead. I might review my viewpoint on libertarianism. Yes, but if they truly own their body then they need not recognise this! There is no real reason for them to do so, and this is why I reject self-ownership in favour of what we might, if we wanted to be over-dramatic, call the slavery of morality. Taking away a person's freedoms is not a bad thing if the freedoms taken away are those which are wrong themselves; the freedom to commit murder, the freedom to commit rape, etc. Look at it this way: if self-ownership is upheld then you are entirely your own property. And I don't think many people would limit what you could do with your own property. Thus the concept of self-ownership emphasises the self above society, which is fundamentally immoral. I support individual freedom, but it must be limited by a basic moral code and the individual must be accountable to society. It is in this way that I reject self-ownership; we should be accountable first to society and only secondly to ourselves. I haven't read it, no; I shall attempt to find it to read, though. I consider myself a liberal because it is a convenient pigeonhole; the closest thing to my views, I feel. However, I am in no doubt that it does not match very well with definitions by other people; I am currently trying to think of a new name for the position whilst I attempt to lay down my viewpoints in a written form. If we consider the Democrats as examples of American liberalism then no, I am not a liberal in the American style either. Monopolies are part of the freedom of the market; any attempt to prevent them from forming is a limiting of the free market, an embracement of some of the more desirable and slightly more practical socialist ideals. I suspect that you mean the freedom of the consumer, which is slightly different.

It is not quite what you are saying because you would not force help on them first; you would merely offer it. I would force it upon them first. If you can provide an example of libertarianism which is not inherently selfish (read: concerned with the self above society; not necessarily greedy) then go ahead. I might review my viewpoint on libertarianism. I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I personally find true libertarianism slightly disconcerting because it is fiercely anti-interventionist. I recognise that intervention can be necessary. Libertarianism certainly can be selfish, but, in common with liberalism, it is far more concerned with setting people free than what people then do with it. I'm not going to defend libertarianism any further than that - you'll have to find someone else to do that. Yes, but if they truly own their body then they need not recognise this! There is no real reason for them to do so, and this is why I reject self-ownership in favour of what we might, if we wanted to be over-dramatic, call the slavery of morality. Taking away a person's freedoms is not a bad thing if the freedoms taken away are those which are wrong themselves; the freedom to commit murder, the freedom to commit rape, etc. It's a bit hard to follow you when you don't quote the relevant passage above your response. However... Ownership doesn't mean complete freedom. People may not use their property to cause undue direct harm to others. At a stroke we sort out the problem actions (those which hurt others) without restricting the freedom of individuals to do what they like in all other ways. Look at it this way: if self-ownership is upheld then you are entirely your own property. And I don't think many people would limit what you could do with your own property. Thus the concept of self-ownership emphasises the self above society, which is fundamentally immoral. I support individual freedom, but it must be limited by a basic moral code and the individual must be accountable to society. It is in this way that I reject self-ownership; we should be accountable first to society and only secondly to ourselves. Actually, no - plenty of people are prepared to limit what people can do with their own property. The ham principle defines a minimum restriction, which is all that is required and hence is the maximum justifiable as well. The individual is accountable first and foremost to himself or herself. Where this fails to prevent him or her from harming others the law can step in. In the vast majority of cases the law doesn't need to step in. If all laws regarding murder were repealed how many people do you think would take advantage of it? Not many. I consider myself a liberal because it is a convenient pigeonhole; the closest thing to my views, I feel. However, I am in no doubt that it does not match very well with definitions by other people; I am currently trying to think of a new name for the position whilst I attempt to lay down my viewpoints in a written form. Permissive socialist? Expresses your general inclination towards giving people freedoms whilest also emphasising your beliefs about society. I don't know much about your economics. Monopolies are part of the freedom of the market; any attempt to prevent them from forming is a limiting of the free market, an embracement of some of the more desirable and slightly more practical socialist ideals. I suspect that you mean the freedom of the consumer, which is slightly different. It's a balance. Liberalism is full of them. It's a version of the harm principle, actually - monopolies harm both the consumer (as you note) and also other businesses. Firstly, because businesses can be consumers of services (e.g. the post). Secondly, because monopolies act to repel possible competition. Between the two it's possible to justify preventing monopolies in the interests of the free market.

My economic position is capitalist but recognising that some aspects of socialism are desirable. The free market is good but not perfect. I wouldn't describe this as socialist both due to the relatively small extent of the aspects taken and because it is applying some of the more desirable and beneficial aspects of socialism to capitalism, rather than vice versa. More later.

I am all for free trade, which is what the EEC was supposed to be for. But the current EU seems intent on political union which is something that I oppose strongly. As it stands the current EU needs massive reforms, but few (if any) have the stomach for this. The EU has not published its accounts for years and is reluctant to give more power to the European Parliament. If (and it is a VERY big if), they were to reform and to give power to the Parliament, then I would reconsider my position. But as it stands I cannot support this bloated, self-serving organisation.

I am all for free trade, which is what the EEC was supposed to be for. But the current EU seems intent on political union which is something that I oppose strongly. As it stands the current EU needs massive reforms, but few (if any) have the stomach for this. The EU has not published its accounts for years and is reluctant to give more power to the European Parliament. If (and it is a VERY big if), they were to reform and to give power to the Parliament, then I would reconsider my position. But as it stands I cannot support this bloated, self-serving organisation. I assume, therefore, that you are backing the Treaty of Lisbon, which increases the powers of the European Parliament by extending co-decision to new policy areas? The EU Budget: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm There's nothing wrong with political union as long as powers held at higher levels are assessed to determine whether they are significantly better held there than at lower levels. For example, trade powers are manifestly better held at EU level because the EU is a trading superpower (bigger than NAFTA!), whereas its constituent member states are not. These trading powers go beyond just the free trade area, by the way. Some of them are essential for that, others less so.

I am all for free trade, which is what the EEC was supposed to be for. But the current EU seems intent on political union which is something that I oppose strongly. As it stands the current EU needs massive reforms, but few (if any) have the stomach for this. The EU has not published its accounts for years and is reluctant to give more power to the European Parliament. If (and it is a VERY big if), they were to reform and to give power to the Parliament, then I would reconsider my position. But as it stands I cannot support this bloated, self-serving organisation. I assume, therefore, that you are backing the Treaty of Lisbon, which increases the powers of the European Parliament by extending co-decision to new policy areas? The EU Budget: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm There's nothing wrong with political union as long as powers held at higher levels are assessed to determine whether they are significantly better held there than at lower levels. For example, trade powers are manifestly better held at EU level because the EU is a trading superpower (bigger than NAFTA!), whereas its constituent member states are not. These trading powers go beyond just the free trade area, by the way. Some of them are essential for that, others less so. I am not supporting the Lisbon Treaty because it is the EU Constitution in all but name. And political union was not the reason the UK joined the EEC.

I am not supporting the Lisbon Treaty because it is the EU Constitution in all but name. And political union was not the reason the UK joined the EEC. Oh dear. Another victim of the Europhobe propaganda... The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe completely replaced all previous treaties with a new constitution. The Treaty of Lisbon merely makes a few changes to the existing treaties. It doesn't even make the same ones. Continental authorities are divided on how similar it is - the ones that we hear about most say it is near-identical but others say otherwise. In any case, Britain has a whole range of opt-outs which mean that for us it is actually a significantly different document. Isn't opposing it just because you think it's the same as the Constitution (even though you're mistaken) a bit silly? Even if it were that wouldn't be a reason to oppose it - certainly not in this country anyway. Perhaps in France but not in Britain. It is true to some extent that Britain joined for economic reasons not for political reasons. However, the elected representatives of the British people have seen fit to ratify a whole load of subsequent treaties without referenda which have created a political element. This, of course, is why the Lib Dem position on a referendum on Lisbon was that there wasn't much point, all things considered: we'd ratified so many without referenda that it made more sense just to ratify it and then hold an in/out referendum.

I don't listen to Europhope propaganda as you put it. I am in favour of Europe and a free trade area, just not the political union we have now. I am quite intelligent enough to check the facts for myself, unlike many Lib Dems who seem to take at face value the `wonder` of the EU... :wink:

View Full Version: So... the EU