How to run a market
Barroso has made challenging Britain to properly engage in Europe.
He says: "I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent.
"I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK. With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe."
He argues nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that European integration leads inexorably to a superstate. All the EU is doing is building up the confidence and capacity for countries to work together when there is a common interest, he says.
He adds: "This paints a very different picture from the caricature of the European Union as a distant elite trampling on diversity with endless diktats on harmonisation."
He also defends the role of the European Commission in a way that I often hear in Brussels but I rarely see debated in the British media . So I will quote him at some length:
"Some of my friends, including here in Britain, say that they can live with the idea of Europe, but think Europe is obsessed with institutions. The key to Europe, they say, is the market. Well, there can be no markets without institutions. Markets need rules. It's as simple as that. And to run a market, across 27 countries, you of course need effective institutions. Those who want to reduce the EU to a market don't even understand markets. You can't run a market stall without rules.
"Let's be frank - it would be impossible to run a single market in Europe without a strong commission, without a strong Court of Justice. And you can forget free and fair competition as well. That is why, let's be clear, we need a legal framework which allows Europe to function properly. And that's what the institutional debate was all about. We needed to ensure that a system created for six member states is capable of functioning more effectively for a Europe of 27 member states and more."
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Are we really expected to believe anything Barroso says about the EU? This is the man that told FPM Blair that there wouldn't have to be a referendum on the Constitution because he knew better than the British people. If the EU wants the people of Europe to trust the EU then they need to strive to make all EU Institutions far, far more transparent; signing off the accounts eventually might help that. Whilst Barroso and his gravy train friends continue to work in secret, assuming that they know better than the people the majority of them were never elected to oppress, they will never be trusted. Europe is founded on democracy, so why is it so defunct within the EU? Our ancestors fought to protect our democratic values, it is the very reason the EU exists. The EU has a great opportunity to demonstrate its use to the people of Europe through a continent wide referendum on the "Reform Treaty", stating its case for greater cooperation and integration, but instead it chooses to ignore its democratic roots and move further down its new draconian super state manifestation. The people of Europe are not fools, stop treating them like it. If you serve a purpose then prove it to us, don't patronise us by telling us to trust you because you know better.
But Mark, I got a letter yesterday saying that my ISA managers are having to change their rules AGAIN because they are meant to bring legislation into line with some mythical need to create a 'Single European Market in Financial Services'. Er, Why ? When did we vote for that, eh ? When is all this going to stop ? Will this centralisation and removal of powers / laws decided at our local DEMOCRATIC parliament by our ELECTED Chancellor of the Exchequer ever going to stop ?
Why do want to 'centralise' or 'harmonise' our legislation on Financial Services with the EU ? It is hard enough to keep tabs on 'who does what' [e.g. in respect of the Northern Rock debacle] with a regime run in the UK. If it is delegated to the Eurocrats we may never know to whom the buck is being passed !
What exactly does setting up a position of an EU Foreign Minister (which the treaty calls for) have to do with a common market supported by some institutions? None so far I see. Either Barroso thinks people are too stupid to understand what is at play, or he doesn't fully understand the treaty himself (which is possible considering how long the text is). If the EU Commission President has to advocate a Treaty by trying to argue it provides a minimalist yet necessary support to a common market, then yes, indeed, the EU is in trouble. Beyond the symbolism of a peaceful and cooperative Europe, exemplified by the growing economies of Ireland, Greece and the new Eastern European additions, the EU has created a bureaucratic bastion with little or no transparency or oversight, let alone connection with the people of Europe. I don't see how signing a treaty is going to fundamentally alter any of this, unless of course, the aim of the treaty is to expand the tentacles of the EU even further, without any meaningless debate by the people of Europe. We'd have an even bigger organization and yet be even further removed from it. Now is the time for transparency and debate, not spin and posturing. The future of Europe is at stake. I wish someone like Mr. Milliband would truly make the case for why Britian should support the EU Treaty fully.
Very well for Barroso to concentrate on the market when speaking to a British audience but he reinforces the wrong idea that the EU is simply a larger EFTA. What the founding fathers had in mind was "an ever closer union", not subservbient to a foreign power and not having one of its members spying on the others for the benefit of that foreign power
I was rather intrigued to read that Mr. Barroso make references in his speech today to John Stuart Mill, a man I regard as one of the greatest Englishmen ever to live. Barrossoβs host today at St. Anthonyβs College, Oxford was Timothy Garton-Ash who holds the Isaah Berlin Fellowship at that college. 50 years ago Isaah Berlin delivered a speech in Oxford entitled βTwo concepts of libertyβ which goes to the heart I feel of the UK / Continental divide as to how best to run a market (or even society). Berlin contrasted a British tradition of βnegative libertyβ (for example John Locke or Adam Smith) that perceives liberty as the absence of constraints with a Continental school (e.g. Rousseau, Kant or Marx) who believe freedom is mastery of oneβs destiny and requires strong political disciplines and constraints on markets. Berlin believed this 2nd concept of liberty was dangerous because it could lead to political abuses. Mr. Barosso may have quoted J.S. Mill today but when he says the single market needs rules and is impossible without strong EU political institutions he shows he is firmly grounded in the Continental approach.
While the Franco/German dominated EU has focussed on self-aggrandizing political institutions the GATT/WTO has focussed on reducing constraints on world trade. While we have not yet reached the nirvana of global free trade we are not so far from it with the EUβs common external tariff now 0% for services, ~1.9% for manufactures and ~10.9% for agricultural products. With ever more people working in the tariff-free service sector, with ever more manufacturing being off-shored to low-cost Asian countries and with ever fewer Westerners working the land we can for the 1st time in history talk of the emergence of a genuine global common market in which all nations β large and small β can prosper equally. And this is being achieved without the WTO sacrificing the rule of unanimity that preserves legitimacy at the supranational level and without any of the overarching political institutions that Barroso believes are essential.
Furthermore the history of the EU since 1992 has been to take institutions and decision-making rules (the βcommunity-methodβ) designed for the common market and apply them increasingly to politically sensitive areas that have nothing to do with the common market. The EU is therefore being undermined by two trends β the development of a global market that is causing the earlier benefits of being inside the EU customs union to evaporate like an autumn mist, and excessive interference by the EU in politically sensitive areas that can only be decided within the nation-state because it remains (by virtue of its βdemosβ) the only arena within which democratic politics is possible.
Mr. Barrosso has held yet another speech in the UK. The indications are that he talks a lot but never listens. After the NOs in France and Holland there was a lot of talk of the "EU" listening. It never happened. It was just more bullfeathers.
LISTEN BARROSO! LISTEN!
WE WANT A REFERENDUM
I would say Mark has gone native but being a fully fledged ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔacrat he was already there.
Let me just quote my mate in full... No comment, no come back. No, El Presidento must be listened to as though it were gospel. Well it may be in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ but hey! not in the rest of the not-allowed-to-vote-for-it world.
I'll tell you what Mark, why don't we just stop paying our licence fee and so deny this state sponsored puff job for Europe. Make your case from the internet pages of the Guardian or Independant.
Not here, dear. Is that clear, dear?
John's comment proves that he has not understood what the basic purpose of the EEC and later the EU is. It is not a super-EFTA and if the past Tory governments sold it as such, they were misrepresenting it
Is it really true John, that politically sensitive areas have nothing to do with free market? Is environmental protection not related to trade? And public health? Labour laws? Migration? It is a bit shortsighted to look at the common market as existin in vacuum, as being simply about the free movement of people, services, goods and capital. These things, when they move freely, have an impact on people's lives and the environment in so many ways. Moreover, if these things ARE indeed to move freely, without coverted trade barriers raised by Member States in the form of national regulatory measures (eg for consumer protection, protection of public health or the environment) it goes without saying that the Community must have competence to regulate these as well.
Of course, if all politicians in all the Member States could see the benefits of free trade, one could argue, they would not erect barriers to trade for no good reason. But, of course, politicians need to get re-elected and often yield to political pressure from strong groups within their countries. Moreover, a second argument would go, the market will always correct itself, however, perfect competition presupposes perfect information, and we still do not have that.
john is confusing EU and EFTA. Whatever previous British goverments may have said, the aim is "ever closer union" and not simply "a single market"
Well done Barroso!
It's time for Europe to take back the agenda lost in the past 10 years. Despite highlights such as the expansion and the introduction of the Euro the British press don't want to see past their eurobashing and the politicians like to pander to public opinion from created by that press. To Joe Public in the streets it's hard to understand Europe when all they see is a diet of endless negativity.
Time for European policitians, press and institutions to start advertising themselves and explain what they do far more. Reach the people, bypass the jounalists who know little more than a headline and explain why the EU is such a sucess and countries are queing up to join!
He's right to say that any market requires rules. Of course it does.
It requires rules on how the shop manager acquires his goods, the prices he charges customers compared to other markets, and so on.
It doesn't require rules on how the shop manager lives at home, or how the customers spend their money, to stretch the analogy a little.
If John believes that the WTO is doing a useful job then he really is espousing 'negative liberty'. Well-developed countries have sound infrastructure, well-functioning (and generally incorrupt) production/ export/import administrations. To think that third-world countries (lacking such necessities) can compete openly in an unchecked market is jungle economics.
The major problem is that the UK prefers to stand on the sidelines and whinge about the EU rather than getting in there and helping to sort out these institutions. Yes, there are other countries who want things to change, but they have to waste so much time in caring for the whingeing Brits.
I can't help thinking that Mr Barroso is right about the way the EU is presented in the British media. I was struck by the phraseology used on this morning's Radio 4 "Today" programme, in which the newsreader described rules on the trading of meat from the UK (after recent Foot-and-Mouth and Blue-Tongue outbreaks) as being "imposed" by the European Union. The use of this word implies, of course, that these rules had been drawn up by European institutions without any consultation or engagement with the UK, its government, or its representation in Brussels. This cannot possibly be true, but these sorts of basic misunderstandings about how the EU functions and how it reaches decisions is fundamental to the way it is perceived in the UK - as something with which we must have a relationship of occasional epic battles but upon which we have no day-to-day influence (because we are above such things).
The truth, of course, is rather different. A significant proportion of the British Diplomatic Service (and a good number of officials from other government departments) is posted in Brussels at any one time precisely in order to exercise this day-to-day influence and engage in debating the minutiae of EU policy, though you'd be hard-pressed to find any mention or awareness of this in the UK. So Mr Barroso is also right that the people who have to start explaining these things to the British media and population are its politicians.
I find the argument that the (EU)market requires the current institutions bordering on the ridiculous.
NAFTA has a free trade market. Can you imagine the USA, Canada and Mexico putting up with the scale, cost and political interference that the EU institutions have created?
John,
It may have escaped your notice but the GATT/WTO agreements are negotiated on behalf of all EU member countries by the European Commissioner for Trade (currently Peter Mandelson). It's unlikely that trade talks would have progressed as fast as they have had Europe not had the institutions and processes to agree common positions and wield power as the world's biggest single trading bloc.
Furthermore, the institutions of globalisation - G8, WTO, IMF, etc - have much less democratic legitimacy than the EU and are held in even more suspicion by the public. I think there is strong evidence to suggest that much anti-EU feeling in the UK is fueled by a more general sense of loss of power and identity which in turn is caused by the radical changes brought on by globalisation.
Apart from the libertarian/free-market ideologues, most British people also believe in strong regulation to reduce the negative effects of the market. I also believe they would prefer to be 'masters of their own destiny' than merely granted 'an absence of constraints' at the discretion of a sovereign parliament with no constitutional restraints on its power.
Referring to John's last point above, the Community Method (usually associated with Directives) can only apply to other 'politically sensitive' areas if the Treaty so allows. Whilst some areas of Justice and ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Affairs have become subject to this, other areas such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy, have not. It would be erroneous to suggest that these are simply used without any political or legal authority to do so. If authority is granted in the Treaty, then that means the Member States must have agreed to it. The UK government, despite what it claims about red lines and so on, has decided to opt-in to many of the measures taken within the fields of Justice and ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Affairs.
I think that Commission President Barroso understands and respects the UK and its people, and given his emphasis on the important of the market and free trade etc. would like the UK to take more of a lead. He, like many people in the UK and the rest of the EU, is continuously dumbfounded by the ability of large parts of the UK to see the benefits of EU membership and why we perceive our relationship with the EU and the rest of Europe as 'us and them'.
What a friendly man Mr Barroso is. I would have found much harsher words for the venom and malice poured over the EU by the delusional little Englanders.
And I am again reading similar stuff in the post by John (1) who doesn't even get the difference between free trade and a common market and who has a rather primitive understanding of democracy when he claims that only the nation state can deliver. What an utter lack of creative thinking.
J.S. Mill may himself have been a rather innocent philosopher, but people using his utilitarisic thinking have brought huge misery to the world. Not working on the basis of principles opens the door to all kinds of abuse of power. Guantanamo is one of those obvious results of utilitaristic thinking.
It all reminds me of the words of a French ambassador whose name I have forgotten. He told his British counterpart that the British are a great people, but one thing they will never understand: What a vision is.
"No markets without institutions" is fair enough, but those institutions must be effective, and work in the common interest. That France is re-writing the definition of competition, that Britain requires specific opt-outs on the working times, Schengen .. and so on, shows the basic weakness of the Commission's position. Extend this to foreign policy and the mess would multiply beyond comprehension. To expand the roles of the European instituions to cover more "competences" as they are euphamistically known, as the Union is enlarged, is courting disaster and invites dissent. KISS - keep it simple stupid!
What's so fantastic about British democracy, John? (#1, as usual)
True, there is a vibrant House of Commons. But what about a two-chamber parliament, one House of which is an unelected hotbed of privilege? And the absence of a separation of powers between the judiciary and the House of Lords? And laws that concern only England being passed against a majority of English MPs? And the sprawling monarchy? Not to mention increasing social inequalities?
Thomas Paine would not be happy about this state of affairs.
"He argues nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that European integration leads inexorably to a superstate"
So what need of an EC Foregn Minister, common laws or common currency?
The words "cow excrement" come to mind.
John says look at the WTO as an organisation for emulation. Have you seen just how big this (unelected) organisation is; and how rule-bound it is? And, since all Agreements (when achieved) have to be by concensus (ie lots of behind-the-scenes pressure) they're often quite as flimsy as anything the EU produces, by the same process.
A key problem for most citizens of most countries in the EU is that their govern,ents are unwilling to tell them exactly what's going on. The UK isn't the only country where a biased press filters, distorts and often makes up stories designed to upset the locals - it's what sells newspapers (good news isn't news).
@ John (1):
I applaud you. And of course, I fully agree.
For a socalled common market one does not need overarching institutions.
But then, Barroso knows this. The institutions do not exist for the common market, but exist to aid the EU in it's desire to be the supergovernment of Europe.
Well done Barroso!
It's time for Europe to take back the agenda lost in the past 10 years. Despite highlights such as the expansion and the introduction of the Euro the British press don't want to see past their eurobashing and the politicians like to pander to public opinion from created by that press. To Joe Public in the streets it's hard to understand Europe when all they see is a diet of endless negativity.
Time for European policitians, press and institutions to start advertising themselves and explain what they do far more. Reach the people, bypass the jounalists who know little more than a headline and explain why the EU is such a sucess and countries are queing up to join!
Could someone ask Mr Barroso why a 'customs union' needs an army?
I thought the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ was supposed to be 'balanced'...
Which means you need to quote somebody else to say that all Barroso's propaganda above is claptrap...
Barroso yet again over-simplifies the analysis in his favour. His statement "I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe." is wrong. Our hearts and minds are open to the peoples and countries of Europe but we oppose the Europe of Barroso. The Europe of Barroso makes diktats such as those on forced metrication that have no consideration of the poor people (us) who are on the receiving end. Such rules are (a) stupid (b) highlight the democratic illegitimacy of the EU and build resentment against it.
Another example is the diktat on energy-saving light-bulbs. The EU has demonised the metal mercury and declared it so dangerous that it has just banned its use in the manufacture of barometers. Russell Scientific Instruments of Dereham with customers across the world and employing 12 staff is just one firm threatened with closure by this new rule. In the UK this industry uses about 32kg of mercury per year. In order to save the planet, the EU has just rammed through another edict to say that ordinary household (incandescent) light-bulbs will be banned from 2009 and we will have to buy 'low-energy' Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) instead. What do these CFLs use to create their luminescence? Mercury powder. The UK CFL industry already consumes 4 tonnes of mercury per year and when 2009 arrives there will be hundreds of tonnes in use, on the market or on its way to landfill. This will be entirely legal because in an earlier directive on banning various metals such as lead and mercury the EU made sure that there was an exemption for mercury in CFL manufacture.
So for the sake of 32kg, a small, valuable and harmless craft industry is to be closed down. At the same time, in return for not being allowed to light our homes in the way that we want to, we will be exposed to vast quantities of a a substance that the EU otherwise deems too dangerous to be allowed. And those responsible congratulate themselves.
How crass.
And, just to rub it in, whatever our elected representatives in Parliament had to say on the subject was null and void because they had no power to overrule the EU on this matter.
Mr. Barroso, your organisation is incompetent and unelected. Don't try to impose any more of your second-rate government on us. We can handle world-wide markets and govern ourselves very successfully without you.
I find the part of the speech addressing Britain's attitude towards Europe rather an odd premise. So is Barroso, as the head of the Commission, making an official claim that the UK is not engaged in Europe enough?
If I, as a politics student, were to make such a claim, I'd have to defend my case before presenting such an argument. Speaking on behalf of the Commission I would think he has even more reason to do the same. Having written essays about the topic, read books about, I'd say the argument can go either way, depending on your own bias. Barroso seems inclined to think UK detached from Europe/EU. Not what I would claim a welcoming approach.
I think JosΓ© Manuel Barroso identifies Britonβs perceived problems with Europe, albeit after he identifies the information supplied to him from his friends he does no more than pay it lip service.
"β¦Some of my friends, including here in Britain, say that they can live with the idea of Europe, but think Europe is obsessed with institutionsβ¦β
He also defends the role of the European Commission in a way that he often hear in Brussels but he rarely see debated in the British media; this is because Brussels and those on the Gravy Train that is the European Administration set up are displaying no more than their own self interest.
I feel that opinions from JosΓ© Manuel Barroso cannot be viewed as objective; this does not mean that I am anti European, just an individual who preserves the froth and hype stripped away in order that I can assess what is on offer, not what we are told is on offer.
"He [Barroso] argues nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that European integration leads inexorably to a superstate."
If it weren't many member-states would have been quite satisfied with European Common Market.
'Success' stories of of European Galileo system, Airbus A-380 and 350 and French Google are the best proof what happens if one attempts to regulate market with bureaucratic legislation.
EU leaders would be much better off if they read Milton Friedman than Karl Marx (lower taxes leading to higher economic growth and revenues for a ...state) and post over their beds a sign with Ronald Reagan's
constatation:
"The scarriest words in English language are: 'I'm from the government aned I came to help you'".
To follow on from what John said in an earlier comment, there may be philosophical types of liberty but they are both liberal. At the moment the British government does not care about liberty in any form. Indeed, most governments find liberty a problem to be overcome. If strong European institutions can counteract this force then it is beneficial to liberty (negative or otherwise).
On your point about a demos, the UK is a parliamentary system based around local constituencies. There is no genuine national demos in the UK, especially with different institutions governing England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and various local and regional authorities. Does this mean we should dissolve the UK? I am not saying we should, but it is the same logic...
Not for the first time, I find myself compelled to wonder whether Mr Barroso is living in the same EU as the rest of us. In my experience of life in both east and west of the continent, it is apparent that what he dismisses as a caricature is actually much closer to most people's experience.
Mr Barroso stikes me as potentially the best EU leader to date, but he does need to spend more time with people at the other end of the European socio-economic spectrum.
"Mr. Barroso may have quoted J.S. Mill today but when he says the single market needs rules and is impossible without strong EU political institutions he shows he is firmly grounded in the Continental approach."
What exactly is meant by this? Are you suggesting the markets do not need regulation to function efficiently? In regulating trade the EU does exactly what regulators do in any market anywhere in the world, be it the US, UK, France or Germany. The difference is that they replace what would otherwise be 27 different sets of rules. One of the EU's key strengths is that it reduces the total number of rules and bureaucracy. The people of the EU, and indeed the rest of the world, undoubtedly demand that lead paint be kept from toys, fire safety standards be maintained in electronics etc... If they are institutions you consider to be an EU way-of-doing-things I think you are mistaken. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, especially free marketeers who say the market needs no rules. The fact that monopolies and competition regulation is essential to maintain the benefits of a free and competitive market tells you exactly why Barroso addresses the needs for institutions. He is not alone here, and indeed the EU has clashed with the French, Spanish, Italians and Germans recently precisely on these issues. This is why Barroso stated the EU and the UK are not nearly so far a part as glib tabloids would have us believe.
I agree pursuing GATTS/WTO talks are important but to hold them up as a guiding light seems bizarre. Are these possibly the same talks which have been stalled for years with little movement likely any time soon? Tariffs and quotas still exist outside of Europe. Barriers to entry can be massive. The number of different regulations and rules that change by country are overwhelming. Try moving labour around. All of these things require institutions in order to allow us and the market the freedom to function effectively. The WTO is a joke in terms of dispute settlement, 5 to 10 years is the norm (whist businesses being wronged suffer everyday with no means of redress afterwards) and even when there is a ruling there are no means to enforce it, only the vague chance of retaliation, perhaps available to some of the large players, if the specifics of the case aren't too delicate or if they themselves don't want to risk further retaliation. Institutions are not in themselves a reflection of negative or positive liberty, rather they are the tools by which governments pursue whatever they want to pursue. If you want freedom within a market, Mr.Barroso is right, a market must be regulated to functions well.
I see no problem with the EU having a political as well as economic purpose. If the government of Europe feel that some objectives are best achieved by working together, to stop the EU from being able to assist in achieving the aims of its members seems bizarre is ultimately only going to hurt the people in that the goals and desires they have laid out from for their leaders will be less effectively achieved.
John is maybe right that one day the benefits of EU economic intergration will have poeticly evaporated, slightly dependent on the WTO talks eliminating tariffs, amongst other things. In the mean time (a good 30 years at least I should think) where will the people of europe get zero tariffs, quoatas, artificials barriers to entry, free labour movement, free capital movement, dispute settlement procedure, a single set of saftey regulations, single currency and acess to the world's largest market? It seems strange to talk about the vitues of negative liberty and then seek to destroy the instituion that through its existance has sought to remove barriers to trade, duplicate regulations and other forms of goverment intervention that run counter to the notion of freemarkets. Perhaps this is why 42 out of 50 of the bosses of the UKs top companies sya it is essential that the UK remains in the EU.
I fail to see how the democratically elected parliament of the EU, the directly elected (though indirectly appointed) ministers of each state and the indirectly elected commission, are not a reflection of rule by the people. If you feel that the EU "interferes" then that is only because your government has decided it can. If you don't like it change your government, if you can't, then maybe you have something to learn about democracy. You can't always have what you want, but rather than then try to bring down the whole system, why not seek change within the system? I don't like everything that comes from Westminster, it doesn't mean I enter into a kind of fatalistic view of UK democracy, rather, I fight to change things and convince other people. You point, through your posts, to rules you dislike, structures you dislike and political figures you dislike, but you have yet to effectively argue what is inherently wrong with the idea of a pan European body. In which case, why not seek to change the EU rather than constantly try to undermine it and bring it down.
The people who obstruct demcratic decision-making in the EU should not complain about its "democracy deficit". The EEC's founding fathers always said the common market was only a frst stage in the "ever closer union", it's onlyt Britain that pines for an "ever more fossilized EFTA"
the example of mercury being forbidden for use in scientific instruments (barometers, mainly) while its use in Fluorescent Lighting is promoted at the same time, is a bit strange indeed. However, it still makes sense, when you look closely.
The Mercury in instrument applications is much more concentrated than in TL lighting, so that the exposure in case of accident is totally different.
My father has a clock shop, and he has had a client in his shop who brought a broken barometer, with occasional droplets of mercury still running out of it. Just an example to prove accidents DO happen, and are not always treated correctly.
To get the same amount of mercury exposure by breaking TL lights, you would need to break thousands and thousands of them. Especially since technical evolutions since WWII have reduced the amount of mercury in those lamps enourmously, the danger of the mercury emission by a few broken TL's is negligable.
For the environment, it is not a big problem either. Mercury and its oxides are materials that occur naturally. The concentration in lamps is so low its almost impossible to regenerate mercury from them through recycling.
Mr Barroso makes a plausible, but intellectually dishonest case. If the European project were to be strictly confined to economic matters, I suspect the need for "rules" would be accepted; even welcomed. But in arguing that this is solely what "the institutional debate was all about" is a very refined, disingenuous description of events for a British audience. Indeed, why the need for an EU Foreign Secretary or further powers regarding justice and home affairs? Were they not part of what the institutional debate was all about?
His argument that "nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that European integration leads inexorably to a superstate" would also seem to be in conflict with some of the pioneers of this project, notably Monnet and Salter. If a genuine "EU free-trade" agreement were on the table I suspect it would be endorsed and embraced, as is the case with the EU/Switzerland & Mexico arrangements. However, this has always been rejected in favour of a more restrictive customs union precisely because it provides an effective vehicle for centralization and further integration. This is something Salter articulates in his 1931 book on the subject, and something that also proved very useful in the unification of modern Germany via another customs union, the zollverein.
Once a single market customs union is in place, the chain reaction upon ever greater swathes of law is there for all to see. So whilst Mr Barroso eulogizes about the βinstitutionsβ underpinning the market, it should not disguise the impact the foundation of the market has had in expanding the roles of such institutions. What drives this project is, and remains, overwhelmingly political in my opinion.
Further to Oliver's (33) point that "one of the EU's key strengths is that it reduces the total number of rules and bureaucracy" I would contend its kingpin role is being positioned as the nexus of many international bureaucracies. The EU is not the exclusive fountain of trade standards and specs, nor the sole arbiter of these matters. There are several; UNECE and CODEX to name two.
Taking the 56-member (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) for instance, it cites among its objectives that of being "to promote pan-European economic integration" and "set out norms, standards and conventions to facilitate international cooperation within and outside the region". One example from the website of this, concerning light diodes, is a FAQ asking: "Why does the EU consider this measure to be necessary?"; Answer: "To align with UNECE Regulation 24, introduced on 18 July 2001". Iβd argue itβs not so much the EU βreplacing what would otherwise be 27 different sets of rulesβ but the EU (and its members) being one part of an international nexus of trade regulators. The main bugbear, certainly with the BCC and others, would seem to relate more to the excessive internal customs union red-tape concerning labour laws.
Mark,
Some interesting feedback here - any chance that Mr Barroso will get to read it?
John (now #5) provides a fine historical theoretical and philosophical argument. Unfortunately, despite these theories, the world runs in more material and practical ways.
What is more important: The question of how Britain has traditionally viewed the world; by colonizing it and manipulating it, to its own selfish advantage -or the consequences (for itself and others) of this approach? Doesn't freedom involve "choice" -so how can we choose if we don't understand the practical effects of the various alternative approaches as much as possible?
It's true, "management" can lead to political abuse -but so can a "lawless", laissez-faire, system too. In my youth the British Conservative Party were always warning of the dangers of "anarchy" -now it has become their main policy it seems. Is John arguing for the abandonment of "management" in commerce and industry -or only in the social systems in which these systems operate? Is he claiming that there is no political abuse in America -that it is a society truly free of prejudice and inequality -a "fair" society where everybody truly has an equal opportunity in a level (socio-economic) playing field?
Platonicism lies at the heart of European culture. Europeans have a tendency to "believe" in the existence of abstract ideas which then manifest themselves in the "real" world. Even a scientist such as Penrose (in his book "The Road to Reality") talks about mathematics as a "platonic" reality. As a result -the discussion tends to focus around the rhetoric and historical (academic) validity of these ideas as expressed by the speaker/writer. Despite the fact that some of Europe's best philosophers (Wittgenstein, Goedel, etc.) have seriously challenged this view -it is still widely held by many intellectuals -especially in the humanities.
Perhaps instead of discussing the history of ideas -it would be a better practice to investigate how these ideas affect people's lives around the globe. British (and now American) imperialism has brought much profit to Britain and America. Maybe it has brought some (perhaps dubious) advantages to others -but it has also brought a lot of suffering to many parts of the world. Indeed, it is debatable how much of this suffering is inherent in the local context and how much of it has been caused by the disruption through commercial and cultural colonization' -so perhaps such questions are worth answering as they may give practical insight into the consequences (for everybody) of the assumptions upon which our current (in many ways destructive) socio-economic system is based.
Looking at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ web-site on the UK page -I see almost nothing but the symptoms of the collapse of a society that has been falling apart economically ever since I was born shortly after WWII. I have lived in mainland Europe -and felt as if I was visiting a third world country when visiting Britain. Now I live in a "third world" country -so I have experienced first hand the effects of the global (historical) system that Britain defends so bravely -but in my view so horribly mistakenly.
Don't sit on your little island, pontificating on how the world should be run (thanks to your collaboration with big Brother America). Go out into the world and actually look to see what is happening -but don't stay in luxury hotels that give the illusion of western normality. Or perhaps stay at home and look at the ghettos of poverty in Britain -the rising levels of drugs and violence -of trafficking of humans. Of the collapse of the National Health Service, of the fears that people have for their homes and their pensions. Take these things into account and then perhaps others will listen to your valued opinion. Forget the realities -and I'm afraid your words become meaningless propaganda.
I am all for "cultural inheritance" -but it should be a conceptual tool for moving forward -not a mental fortress to defend the indefensible. Maybe the US and the UK appear to be strong -but so does the playground bully. However, I do not see anything admirable in selfish bullying -no matter how well founded in British culture this may be.
Unfortunately Sean it is the EU which is driving many of those illiberal, authoritarian ideas which are being pursued so enthusiastically by the current British government.
ID cards and the erosion of Jury trials are just two of a number of illiberal ideas which originate with the EU and which are now being forced upon us.
The idea that the EU is in any way interested in individual freedoms is laughable.
39 - Richard Tyndall wrote:
... it is the EU which is driving many of those illiberal, authoritarian ideas which are being pursued so enthusiastically by the current British government.
ID cards and the erosion of Jury trials are ... ideas which originate with the EU and which are now being forced upon us.
YOU DECLARE IT - NOW PROVE IT !
john somer wrote:
The people who obstruct demcratic decision-making in the EU should not complain about its "democracy deficit". The EEC's founding fathers always said the common market was only a frst stage in the "ever closer union", it's onlyt Britain that pines for an "ever more fossilized EFTA"
Fine. Now, 50 years on, let's demonstrate our democratic credentials and have a referendum on whether or not we (the British that is, unlike others I don't wish to speak for other sovereign countries) want to continue up this one-way street called 'ever closer union'.
Richard,
actually the EU has created the individual freedoms to travel freely throughout the EU, study abroad, transfer goods and money, as well as live, work and retire anywhere in the EU while preserving health/social security coverage.
ID cards are a scheme cooked up by this and previous UK governments for their own reasons. While they are commonplace in other European countries, they are uncontroversial since citizens' rights are enshrined in their constitutions - the UK has no such constitution. The only inalienable rights we have are those in EU charters and legislation.
Surely the whole debate about ID cards is too late. We already have de facto ID cards.
You cannot now open a Bank account, borrow money, obtain foreign currency, instruct a solicitor, an accountant or an IFA, or even board a domestic flight in the UK without first producing a valid passport or photocard driving licence and a utility bill as evidence of residence.
Even my local DVD hire store wanted to see ID before I could join!
The current situation is just thoroughly inconvenient for those who do not have a passport or driving licence, and are likely to be denied these services.
The days of being able to live without ID in the UK are long gone, but how the politicians love to pretend that there is still a debate to be had...
My wife who was b orn American (where they hate ID cards even more than in the UK) can't understand what the whole fuss is about; it's an easy way to identify yoyrself. In dthe US, they have had to creatge the "non-driver driving licence" to give people a way to identify themselves. You might call it a "non-ID card document"....
As far as that referendum that Max Sceptic so desesperately wants, it's not here that he has to shout but at his MP.My impression is that it won't have much effect as British MP's seem to follow the orders of their whips more than those of their constituents. As for me, I'll badger my MEP for a referemdum on Turkey's accession
David (16) says βThe institutions of globalisation - G8, WTO, IMF, etc - have much less democratic legitimacy than the EUβ. I cannot accept this because none of those other supranational bodies use QMV to impose law superior to national law on nations against the will of their elected governments. This inappropriate combination of decision-making method and powers is unique to the EU and lies at the heart of the deep legitimacy crisis that it alone is suffering.
John Somer (4, 8, 10, 34) says essentially that the views of the living are irrelevant because men now dead decided in the 1950s the form of governance we will live under and their wisdom should not be questioned. Derek Tunnicliffe (13) essentially makes the same point in dismissing legitimate criticism of the EU (which he does not even attempt to rebut) as βwhingingβ. Paul (17) suggests the previous ratification of EU treaties rammed through Parliament legitimises current EU powers ignoring that those treaties were ratified in the face of widespread public opposition. All of these posts make the same mistake of prioritising EU integration over democracy itself.
Edward (28) refers to Thomas Paine when making some points about constitutional flaws in the UK. I would agree with him on some of these British deficiencies, but an independent UK Supreme Court and an elected House of Lords are planned. Thomas Paine said (in βThe Rights of Manβ) that there are only two kinds of government in the world; (i) those which draw their legitimate power from a people and (ii) those which can trace their origin back to a usurpation of power (e.g. 1066 in this country). At the time he wrote this there were just two countries in the world (the USA and France) in the former category but over the last two centuries peoples everywhere have succeeded in clawing back their power from the arbitrary rule of kings and emperors. But which of Paineβs two forms of government would an EU state be when there is no EU people from which it may draw legitimacy and when our political elites defy the results of referendums to impose the transfer of powers to EU councils on which they sit and from where they can decree law that cannot be opposed by the democratic checks (national parliaments) on their executive power at home?
Oliver (33) points out some benefits of the EU and says I should seek to change the EU rather than undermine it. The question is not the benefits alone but whether the balance of advantage remains positive. It is my judgement that (due to the two trends I mentioned in my earlier post) EU costs have outweighed benefits for a decade or more already. I have myself made a systematic effort to propose real reform to the EU to make it democracy-compatible but following the June 2007 EU summit who can believe that real EU reform is possible? Following two years of reflection the only βreformβ on the table is the forced imposition of the same old βmore EUβ agenda that has resulted in the existing legitimacy crisis. Once politicians cross the Rubicon of ignoring the verdict of referendums or march their MPs through the Westminster lobby to vote against their manifesto commitments people everywhere must oppose what is being done. The time has come for Britons to lead Europe in the only way that counts β by example β in refusing the slow coup against democracy that is being perpetrated by the political class.
"ID cards are a scheme cooked up by this and previous UK governments for their own reasons. While they are commonplace in other European countries, they are uncontroversial since citizens' rights are enshrined in their constitutions - the UK has no such constitution." [#42]
US has a constitution, but it still doesn't have ID cards and nobody in their right mind proposes to introduce them despite a terrorist threat.
BTW: US doesn't have VAT either. :-)
@John (45) touches upon an important point. Most EU-philes indeed seem to believe that 'the project' (EU) cannot be questioned. Seem to believe that the EU is the only possible 'flavor' of cooperation. And most of the EU-philes casually dismiss or ignore our arguments.
Dear EU-philes, we are not in any way against cooperation, trade, holidays, friendship, peace etc...
We are against the new system of government that is the EU. The soon to be supreme government of Europe which isn't accountable to any electorate. This we find utterly unacceptable.
And no, the 'elected' parliament (not a real parliament to begin with) and the council of government ministers do not in any way make the EU 'democratic'. They exist only to give the EU a veneer of democracy.
The real decisionmaking powers lie with the combination Commission/Council. Both of which are outside democratic control. National parliaments and governments cannot do anything to stop those directives/regulations, even if they see such a law is detrimental to their country.
We advocate intergovernmental cooperation, so that no country has laws imposed upon it by qualified majorities from ministers from other countries. We advocate every country to control its own fishing waters. And most importantly, we advocate that national sovereignty cannot be surrendered without an explicit mandate/permission from the electorate.
The utter arrogance of the EU-philes that after 2 years of 'reflection' they come up with essential the same treaty (though differently worded and only referring to old treaties rather than incorporating them) and arrogantly declare they will have no referendums if they can help it.
The EU is like a one party state. The EU-philes don't tolerate opposition to the project itself. Politicians seem to think it more important to suck up to their friends in Brussels than to cater to their electorates.
Thanks to John #45 for his thoughtful reply to my post. As I have said before, I agree that Britain should have a referendum on the reform treaty. But that is largely because I support direct democracy (referendums, initiatives, recalls) in general, alongside representative and consultative democracy. I am aware of certain flaws in direct democracy, but am generally supportive because it is appreciated by people where it exists as an institution (Switzerland, certain US states) and where people are given an opportunity to exercise it from time to time. I tend to believe, however, that, for a referendum result to be binding on parliament, a fairly high voter turnout should be required, say 75% of the electorate. At lower turnouts, the result should be considered to be advisory. One has to avoid undemocratic outcomes, where a parliamentary majority is reversed by a small minority of the electorate.
Basically, my disagreement with John on democracy in the EU is twofold. John writes: βOur political elites β¦ impose the transfer of powers to EU councils on which they sit and from where they can decree law that cannot be opposed by the democratic checks (national parliaments) on their executive power at home.β βOur political elitesβ are essentially the Council of Ministers, who, in the EU (unlike in the IFIs and the WTO) are ALL members of democratically elected governments, accountable to the parliaments of their countries. That is a key point, though I do agree that the Council of Ministers should be more open, and act more like a Senate.
John writes: ββ¦ there is no EU people from which it [an EU state] may draw legitimacy.β From this assertion (the absence of a EU demos), he draws the conclusion that EU institutions cannot be made genuinely more democratic. I believe, on the other hand, that the existing level of demos within the EU is sufficient to allow some increase in the powers of the European Parliament, and that some EU countries could together go even further in that direction. There is also room for some direct democracy at EU level, as was proposed in the constitutional treaty. Such practices would perhaps foster the development of an EU demos, as would giving EU citizens greater voting rights in each otherβs countries.
To respond to Mr Tyndall (39) I would like to know where he gets his information regarding the EU. The identity card scheme is a pet project of the UK government and has nothing to do with the EU. In 2005 the UK Presidency of the EU brought a proposal to the Council of Ministers for an EU-wide id card. This has not happened due to the majority of other Member States who do not have a compulsory id card schemes voicing their objections. The UK government would have loved to create the idea that an unpopular policy was the result of an EU dictat, but they could not manage with this one.
I do concede that there are some areas where the EU has taken an illiberal approach. This has been almost exclusively in non-Community legislation, i.e. legislation which is only agreed between the Member States in ministerial negotiations. The use of legislation which is "classified for security reasons" to ban liquid aboard airlines is an example. The European Parliament has been vociferous about the need to stop this type of legislation. Fortunately, for those who espouse liberty, the balance of power in the European Parliament between the left and the right, and no majority party, means that the liberal group (ALDE) occupies the middle-ground and often has the deciding votes to reach a majority.
Over the past century nation-states became increasingly powerful. Before World War One individuals could move more or less freely throughout Europe and live wherever they wanted. The EU provides a bit of a poisoned chalice to nation-states. It gives them increasing ability to remain relevant actors but it has also compelled states to accept that certain areas of individual liberty are fundamental and cannot be curtailed.
I am not messianic about the EU being perfect and creating a utopian world order. However, it does provide a counterbalance to state power and more often than not works to protect the individual liberty of European Citizens. This is surely something worthy of praise.
John Somer,
You'll be please to know that I sounded out my MP and he's in favour of a referendum and will vote in Parliament against the EU treaty as it currently stands.
Conversely, I'm all in favour of Turkey joining the EU as it will help to tear apart the notion of 'ever closer [political] union'. Cynical? you bet!
First briefly, Mirak Kondracki is wrong. The US does have ID cards and most US states have sales tax, a VAT equivalent.
I live most of my time in Germany but am English. I agree with Barroso's view of the British view of Europe.
For me, the UK's half hearted membership of the EU is a real pain, meaning long immigration queues whenever travelling to or from the UK.
Not only that, but I must hand over a proportion of my earnings to banks in order to spend my own money in the UK. As far as I am concerned, only because of British suspicions over anything 'foreign'.
Who cares whether we have Pounds, Euros, Dollars, Yen or whatever. So long as the money I earn is my own and I can spend it how I like wherever I want. The less I have to give away for irrational reasons to banks who are rich enough anyway, the better.
Before VAT, the UK had purchase tax, no real difference.
Why not have ID cards? Everyone carries a driving license or credit cards, etc. However I do completely disagree with the current policy of making the ID cards so technologically complex that even now, there is no genuine idea of how much the whole scheme and the cards themselves will cost. The ID card should be just that. It should simply uniquely identify the holder - nothing more. Furthermore, it should do it using tried and tested technology. Newer technologies can be introduced as and when they are tested, but not in a scheme which will be difficult enough to implement even with the simplest of card types.
First briefly, Mirak Kondracki is wrong. The US does have ID cards and most US states have sales tax, a VAT equivalent.
I live most of my time in Germany but am English. [#49]
That's perhaps, why you don't know American realities.
There is not and never has been such a thing as an ID card in the United States.
1. The only thing you have (and need) is a DRIVER's LICENCE.
[If you're old/senile or can't drive for medical reasons you can ask MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT for an ID without driving priviledges]
2.Until quite recently most Americans didn't even have/need passports since the said driver's licence was enough to travel freely to Mexico, Canada and Carribean countries.
[That has just changed because of a terorist threat and the US State Dept. has a huge backlog of passport applications which has forced it to allow Americans continuing to travel to the above mentioned countries just with stamped receipts confirming that they applied for passports].
3. Sales tax is not a Value Added Tax. It's a retail sales tax imposed by states (not all by any means); it's typically within 3-6% range
[not 18-25% EU members "enjoy"], does not apply to food staples, and is not charged if you make your purchesses on the Internet, or buy the goods physically in other state than the one you reside in.
[as per your driver's licence]
The absence of VAT tax European style is one of the main reasons why gasoline in the US costs less than half what it costs in EU member states. And why food is so much cheaper, not to mention electronic/computer equipment.
[truly free market is another reason]
Take it from somebody who is an American and who's acquired a passport only to be able to visit EU countries and contribute to their economies by paying their VATs.
[I don't drink much and don't smoke, so airport 'duty frees' don't cut it for me. :-)]
To Wouter N (35):
I did chemistry to advanced level and appreciate your points about mercury occuring in nature, the difference between the pure form used in instrument manufacture and the diluted form in finished CFLs.
I agree that the form that will enter our households through the product we buy will be relatively harmless. From a safety angle, the biggest question is how the CFLs are disposed of. And before I hear you cry the magic word 'recycling' let me tell you that where I live in Manchester recycling of *any* household waste is a shambles. Local Government, bless them, provide us with the special recycling bins and then never show up to empty them (let me add that the EU is entirely responsible for this debacle - its Landfill Directive was promoted by Denmark and The Netherlands because they were running out of landfill space, and now poor local councils are left paying penalties for every tonne of waste they landfill. No wonder our Council Tax is going up. The UK should be left to adopt local solutions to its problems and then there would be the political will to see them through and make them successful.)
The plaintive letter from the Managing Director of Russell Scientific Instruments to the EC is recorded on the EU's website. It is truly heart-breaking to read it. The MD does not rant and rave in the face of impending financial ruin. Instead he calmly and quietly pleads his case and comes across as a genuinely decent fellow who has worked hard all his life to support himself and his community. I defy anyone to read it and not be humbled by this display of self-control and courage under circumstances that would have crushed lesser men. Only once, at the very end, does he make an attack, a very gentlemenly attack, on the European Commissioners themselves. He asks them to bear in mind that he, unlike them, is not funded by the taxpayer but is, in fact, a 'contributor' (i.e. he pays towards their wages). And there, Mr. Wouter, is the point. The EU and its EC have agrandised themselves over the years under the false pretext of 'just doing what is good for Europe' whilst its officers like Barosso gorge their egos on their own propoganda to the point where they believe they can do no wrong and any dissenters are either stupid, deluded or emotional weaklings (e.g. when an opinion poll found that a high proportion of British people thought that they were worse off under the EU Barosso's comments were that 'British people are insecure.'). In the hearts and minds of the Commissioners they are working for themselves and their own welfare instead of ours.
Mr. Russell Scientific didn't stand a chance, however patently unjust the new law. The truth is that, pre-1973, Mr. Russell Scientific, like the rest of us, could lobby our MP at Westminster, raise petitions, debate and argue our case directly with the people who govern us, and if they refused to listen then we could vote them out. Today Mr.Russell Scientific, like the rest of us, have been violated and had that direct relationship removed from us (70% of UK legislation comes from the EU).
But we don't need Barosso & Co. to tell us that less mercury is a great idea, or that low-energy light-bulbs are a great idea, or that recycling is a great idea. We have the right to decide for ourselves on how and when to impose the right kind of controls to be placed on UK citizens. The faster we get our sovereignty back and our democratic rights restored the better.
Interestingly, the EU's Charter on Fundemental Rights tells me that I have the right to vote in local elections and the right to vote in EU Parliamentary elections. It has pages of 'Freedoms' such as the right to free association, freedom of religion, etc. but does not say that I have right to self-determination, i.e. to elect those who govern me. What a low-down dirty trick. Every time the Eurocrats talk about the Charter of F.Rights in hushed and reverent tones as though they had just invented the Bible they are cleverly avoiding telling us that it's another EU tool to control us with rather than confirm the rights that we were borm with (and don't need a politician to define for us).
On a not-entirely-unrelated point, I have read entries on this blog that say 'You can still vote for MPs who hold to the policy of leaving the EU.' and to them I say this: If I have read the discussions about the not-the-constitution Reform Treaty correctly, then it sets up the EU as a legal entity for the first time and also says that the UK will be legally bound to work 'for the good of the EU.' Like a Stalinist state the EU will enjoy itself by accusing dissenters of committing the latest thought-crime (even more than it does already). And so the process of political subjugation continues, the political sheep repeat 'EU good, Independence bad', older politicians who have experienced Independence and the true freedom of democracy (pre-1973, or even just pre-1991)slowly die away and are replaced by a new generation (the Millibands of this world) who have never experienced complete democratic power within their own country. The confidence and the personnel with gravitas necessary to lead an independent UK, with its own trade agreements with the other EU countries, will surely diminish even more quickly than at present. The moment I heard Chris Patten on Radio 4 on 1st May 2004 discussing the accession of the East European countries that day, and speaking in mystical tones about how people should see the 'benefits of shared sovereignty' I felt that we had arrived in a very dark place. This was the first time that I had heard the term 'shared sovereignty' used by a British politician, indeed, it was the first time that I had heard the term used *ever*. Not only were British politicians surrendering to the indoctrination of Brussels but they were also surrendering the will to govern and the will to take on responsibility, and inventing a special trendy phrase for it to boot. Yes, it smacks of cowardice, but worse still, if politicians are not prepared to govern (and I mean govern in the true noble sense of the word) then we are in deep trouble. There's more. In order to receive their Β£70,000 per anum pension from the EU, ex-Commissioners, such as Mr.Patten, have to compromised themselves by agreeing not to speak against the EU or risk forfeiting it. So, for the rest of their lives or until they purge themselves, they are political dummies who are not allowed free thought. This truly is perdition. (I am not sure if Patten did take his Β£70,000 per year or turned it dow - can anyone enlighten me?) Until very recently no ex-Commissioner in our House of Lords has been obliged to declare such an oath as a personal interest. That's where it leads, folks, to a country riven with corruption. Goodbye any hope of peace and justice. Just go down the list of EU Commissioners past and present and it is no surprise how many are Communists (e.g. Barosso), have been under investigation (Mendelson, Prodi) or had to resign en masse (the entire Santer commission over the corruption scandel in 1999) therefore let's be under no illusion that the core of this organisation, judging by the bad character of the personnel, is completely rotten. By definition, this stinking philosophy will inevitably contaminate ever piece of legislation and institution is controls. It is sad to think that it will take many more cases to be added to the file before enough voters see what is really going on. It is just possible that the EU disease has neutralised the confidence (not to mention integrity and all the other noble things) of our political classes beyond the critical point. The real question is: is there anyone of the right type left to vote for? Brown breaks his promise that we would get a referendum so that he can avoid having to resign after he has lost it. Cameron breaks his promise to take the Tories out of the notorious EPP group in the European Parliament to appease his pro-EU supporters. The Lib Dems participate in EU-propaganda funded by the taxpayer (see the EU's website on promoting the EU in schools with online participation by a LibDem MEP).
The only serious respectable party that I know of that advocates leaving the EU is the UK Independence Party and although they have scored well in EU Parliamentary elections they have no MPs in Westminster. The gaffe-prone celebrities like Kilroy have gone and they look pretty straight now (someone tell me otherwise). So is there a real chance that they gain critical mass before the EU removes too much integrity from the rest of the political classes? I don't know.