So... the EU

So... the EU
This seems to be an obvious place to start. What does the continuing Liberal Party have against the European Union? Is it not common sense that issues which are above the national level must be solved above the national level? Of course, the EU has plenty of powers it shouldn't have (vide the Common Agricultural Policy) but equally there are other powers we should seriously consider sharing, including elements of foreign policy and some elements of defence. Britain and France have worked closely together on defence and foreign policy in the past. Now the opportunity arises to recreate some aspects of that, but under the scrutiny of a democratic body (the European Parliament). Can we at least agree that the EU is not a matter of sovereignty, and that even if it were it would be illiberal (even by the continuing Liberal Party's slightly looser definition) to reject it on such grounds alone.

Yes, this is a good place to start. After all, the European Commission now makes many of the laws which affect our everyday lives. There is no point in some party having a wonderful clear-sighted policy on X if in government the EU would force them to adopt some other policy instead. Liberals (like LibDems) obviously have a range of views on the EU, but tend on the whole to be more sceptical than LibDems. Official Liberal policy is to try to radically reform the working of the EU, and return many powers to national level, but to be prepared to pull out altogether if reform turns out to be unachievable. So I suppose that would be options (3), (4) and potentially (5) on your poll! Personally, in the past I would have unhesitatingly answered that we should leave the EU. Recently I've actually warmed towards it very slightly. I do believe we should co-operate across Europe on some things (free trade, environmental rules, space research, some trade rules) and it might make sense to do so through some sort of pan-national institution rather than simply through a treaty on each different issue. This also provides a framework for settling disputes as they arise. Therefore I might support staying in the EU if it was massively reformed. However, I think it is extremely unlikely that our partners will agree to reform on that kind of scale, so therefore in your poll I've still answered that we should leave. As to what is wrong with the EU at the mo, I'd say my main worry is that it is so deeply undemocratic. Laws are proposed by an unelected Commission, and approved by a Parliament which has only minutes to vote on each one and is very restricted in what changes it can propose, and the whole structure is much further away from the citizen than lawmaking at national level. It's a scandal against democracy, and I can't imagine why the LibDems are prepared to tolerate it, let alone actively support it. Also, the workings of the EU are often wasteful and even corrupt on a huge scale. I realise that in principle this could be fixed, but given that its auditors haven't felt able to sign off its annual accounts for more than ten years in a row now, I think we can safely say it would be a huge job!

There's no option on the poll for irrelevancy. :( I'm pro-EU but only by default. I couldn't care less, because humanity as a whole is so much more important than any national or supranational organisation.

Re: So... the EU
Can we at least agree that the EU is not a matter of sovereignty, and that even if it were it would be illiberal (even by the continuing Liberal Party's slightly looser definition) to reject it on such grounds alone. Can you say what you mean by sovereignty, here?

I'm pro-EU but only by default. I couldn't care less, because humanity as a whole is so much more important than any national or supranational organisation. Yes, I agree that humanity as a whole is more important. But therefore the way laws are made which affect individual human lives must also be important.

The EU is a talking shop, nothing more, as are all supranational organisations. It can make laws, but do we really need to obey them? They're just words. All international treaties are nothing more than words, words agreed upon between the parties but nevertheless words. There is nothing to stop you actually ignoring them except perhaps the threat of retaliation, but then what retaliation? Economic sanctions? Who will force other nations to obey them, and on what basis? The basis once again is words, of course. Force? Who will send an army to invade? Why does the army fight for its country? Mere words, yet again. There is a moral code shared by the vast majority of society which states that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that abuse of children is wrong. There is a moral code shared by the vast majority of society which states that we should all have the best possible life, and that we should all be fundamentally equal, although capitalism should reign. This moral code is so much more important than the law, any law, and ultimately it should be obeyed. The law should not take precedence over morality, and the only factor in determining what to do should be this moral code. People are so much more important than nations, which are merely arbitrary divisions of land and peoples designed to make governance easier and more efficient.

There is a moral code shared by the vast majority of society which states that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that abuse of children is wrong. There is a moral code shared by the vast majority of society which states that we should all have the best possible life, and that we should all be fundamentally equal, although capitalism should reign. This moral code is so much more important than the law, any law, and ultimately it should be obeyed. The law should not take precedence over morality, and the only factor in determining what to do should be this moral code. People are so much more important than nations, which are merely arbitrary divisions of land and peoples designed to make governance easier and more efficient. Morality's great but it's fundamentally unenforceable because people have different views about it. Some things are common ground - but not everything. That is why we have a system of laws. Sometimes morality should not take precedence over anything, in fact - this is basic liberalism (people are free to do what they like as long as they don't harm others). In summary, individuals can obey morality but there are huge restrictions - moral restrictions! - on how it can be enforced.

Yes, this is a good place to start. After all, the European Commission now makes many of the laws which affect our everyday lives. There is no point in some party having a wonderful clear-sighted policy on X if in government the EU would force them to adopt some other policy instead. 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). Liberals (like LibDems) obviously have a range of views on the EU, but tend on the whole to be more sceptical than LibDems. Official Liberal policy is to try to radically reform the working of the EU, and return many powers to national level, but to be prepared to pull out altogether if reform turns out to be unachievable. So I suppose that would be options (3), (4) and potentially (5) on your poll! 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. Incidentally, the EU's budget it about the size of the NHS's, apparently. Incidentally, it's the CAP which is causing the accounting problems - member governments aren't following proper procedures in implementing it, so money is potentially going astray. 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. Personally, in the past I would have unhesitatingly answered that we should leave the EU. Recently I've actually warmed towards it very slightly. I do believe we should co-operate across Europe on some things (free trade, environmental rules, space research, some trade rules) and it might make sense to do so through some sort of pan-national institution rather than simply through a treaty on each different issue. This also provides a framework for settling disputes as they arise. Therefore I might support staying in the EU if it was massively reformed. However, I think it is extremely unlikely that our partners will agree to reform on that kind of scale, so therefore in your poll I've still answered that we should leave. If I understand you right then you're really on option 3, but never mind. It's about principles, not implementation. Suffice to say, though, that I do not share your bleak interpretation. The Reform Treaty implements many necessary reforms, though nowhere near as well as the Constitution would have done (a cursory glance at the two treaties should show that - one can be understood alone, the other requires an in-depth understanding, pretty much point-by-point, of previous treaties. The Constitution, of course, is the former. As to what is wrong with the EU at the mo, I'd say my main worry is that it is so deeply undemocratic. Laws are proposed by an unelected Commission, and approved by a Parliament which has only minutes to vote on each one and is very restricted in what changes it can propose, and the whole structure is much further away from the citizen than lawmaking at national level. It's a scandal against democracy, and I can't imagine why the LibDems are prepared to tolerate it, let alone actively support it. Also, the workings of the EU are often wasteful and even corrupt on a huge scale. I realise that in principle this could be fixed, but given that its auditors haven't felt able to sign off its annual accounts for more than ten years in a row now, I think we can safely say it would be a huge job! The Commission's democratic credentials are similar to those of the House of Lords I suppose - insufficient. 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. The only powers that should be held by the EU are those which are best held there - powers such as trade. The EU is the only economic setup which can hope to make a significant splash on the world stage dominated by the USA and, increasingly, China and India. The Liberal Democrats oppose powers such as those behind the CAP because it is not helpful to have these held at EU level. The CAP itself is an abomination, of course. The workings of the EU aren't as bad as you think. Don't believe everything you read in the press - indeed, sometimes it's better not to believe anything you read there. It has some problems, mostly in its scrutiny of what member governments do with its money. Most implementation is done by member states, including the CAP and structural funds, which is what the auditors have raised questions about. So actually, no - it wouldn't be a huge job. Making the power shifts that the Lib Dems want would very likely eliminate the audit problem! Don't forget what I pointed out above - there are Whitehall departments with poorer records with the auditors. And it's plural, I gather.

Re: So... the EU
Can we at least agree that the EU is not a matter of sovereignty, and that even if it were it would be illiberal (even by the continuing Liberal Party's slightly looser definition) to reject it on such grounds alone. Can you say what you mean by sovereignty, here? To be honest, I can't. It is not I who means it, but those who make the argument. My understanding is that it's based on the belief that we should at all costs refuse to share power with other countries for mutual benefit. I don't claim to understand that position. Perhaps other can enlighten me.

We should enforce the common values as normal and then allow each individual to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another individual, society or set a bad example for the future. And I support the law - if it is moral. I am saying that the law should not be held above the common moral standard. If there is a law preventing you from doing something which it is clearly moral to do then you should ignore the law. The same basic thought of morality above all also applies to my ideas of how nations should be run. Keep them, as though they are merely arbitrary divisions they are also essential, but screw any thoughts of nationalism. Do what is good for the whole rather than your nation if the two conflict. Give a lot but don't demand even a little in return; in the end, everyone will benefit.

We should enforce the common values as normal and then allow each individual to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another individual, society or set a bad example for the future. And I support the law - if it is moral. 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. Example: murder is wrong because it harms others, NOT because most people think it is. It may seem like a small and unnecessary distinction but it's necessary to prevent the dicatorship of the majority. That's liberalism. I am saying that the law should not be held above the common moral standard. If there is a law preventing you from doing something which it is clearly moral to do then you should ignore the law. If you exchange "moral" for "the harm principle" then I'm with you, except that I do not believe we should ignore the law. If necessary it is justifiable to break it, however we should always weight the consequences. We also have a duty - this one is moral - to campaign against the law. It does, after all, harm people by unnecessarily restricting their liberty to do as they please. The same basic thought of morality above all also applies to my ideas of how nations should be run. Keep them, as though they are merely arbitrary divisions they are also essential, but screw any thoughts of nationalism. Do what is good for the whole rather than your nation if the two conflict. Give a lot but don't demand even a little in return; in the end, everyone will benefit. I used to think like that. To some extent I still do. However, I think that actually we should demand something in return if there is another wrong that can be righted by that. Naturally, it no such wrong exists to be righted then there is nothing to be done. We are also not always bound to help people. Sometimes it is genuinely better than people help themselves. However, I do believe that in such cases it is often possible to help them to do this - clearing obstacles from their path, one might say. Sometimes someone's immediate needs prevent them from engineering their own betterment, and in those circumstances we are perfectly justified in helping them if they are prepared to accept the help. I know it sounds harsh. It's not really as harsh as it sounds - I'm just spectacularly bad at putting it into words. I'm talking about helping people to help themselves, rather than just wrapping them in cotton wool. This applies right up to government level and right down to individuals.

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.

The harm principle is a useful starting point but it is not without its difficulties, as would be evident from any discussion of moral and social issues (e.g., drugs, alcohol, pornography etc). I have heard many of a libertarian persuasion treat it as if harm is only something that you actively do to others. I think that a failure to act to prevent harm is also an important consideration, and this is where perhaps Akria's point comes in. Sometimes we have a moral obligation to help our neighbour or - from an international perspective, since this is an EU thread - to intervene to prevent human rights abuses and other major problems. But this is to get too far into the underlying philosophical issues rather than the subject of the thread. I'll post my thoughts on the EU separately.

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?

The harm principle is a useful starting point but it is not without its difficulties, as would be evident from any discussion of moral and social issues (e.g., drugs, alcohol, pornography etc). As a poster on the LDYS forums, on which such issues have been discussed at some length, I must disagree. The harm principle applies perfectly well. It's only if you refuse to accept that answers that you run into problems. I do accept that answers on the topics mentioned. I have yet to find a topic where I can not. I do not believe that such a topic exists. I have heard many of a libertarian persuasion treat it as if harm is only something that you actively do to others. I think that a failure to act to prevent harm is also an important consideration, and this is where perhaps Akria's point comes in. Sometimes we have a moral obligation to help our neighbour or - from an international perspective, since this is an EU thread - to intervene to prevent human rights abuses and other major problems. Indeed. There are both positive and negative freedoms (this also is discussed on LDYS). Negative freedoms are freedoms from state interference. Positive freedoms concern the ability to do something. Both can apply on an internationalist platform as well as a domestic one, and both are championed, incidentally, by the Liberal Democrats. Before someone points out the LD policy on Iraq, that was a special case because it was being done in violation of international law, which basically meant that the coalition (such as it was) was on its own. And overstretched because of the Afghanistan campaign (supported by the LD Party, inter alia). In other words, it was a bad idea because it was beyond our capabilities, as has been shown. The current situation, improving though it may be, is not what was envisaged. Note that the LDs did not dispute that the former Iraqi regime was abominable, just the means of change (which have made Iraq a more dangerous place to live in than it was). Anyway, that's waaaaaay off topic!

View Full Version: So... the EU