Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer when I was talking about a legal framework: it doesn’t necessarily mean harmonisation measure, though they are a part of it too. The legal regime of the EU has liberated the single market through the application of treaty principles (e.g. in the form of the doctrine of mutual recognition, which allows good produced legally in one member state to be sold in all the others, though it can be blocked if there’s an overriding public interest reason).

Community law also allows for the use of higher standards by member states – the Community can set a minimum standard and member states can set higher standards for businesses on their territory, as long as the goods, etc. meeting the minimum standards can circulate freely.

There are many models of regulation used by the Community (not just the exhaustive harmonisation model that you refer to). The main feature of the single market, however, remains the acceptence of common rules (either centrally set, jointly set by the centre and the member states, or set just by the member states [and enforced by common legal principles]).

The creation of a European Security and Defence Policy followed a UK/France meeting in 1998. So far, by my estimation, they have succeeded in a few instances (notably overseeing a peace agreement, after 30 years of civil war between the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh movement); they have not exactly sparkled elsewhere. Though I’ve read that their efforts in training police, judges and prison officers in various countries has been much appreciated.

On border security, the “Area of Freedom, Justice and Security” is said to been more about “security” than “freedom” and “justice”. Part of that is down to UK pressure to close off borders to, it seems any and all “illegal” immigrants (whether genuine asylum-seekers or whatever). As you can guess, I like the idea of freedom and justice, but not at the price of “security”. And The European Arrest Warrant appears to me to be loaded against disadvantaged groups (who can’t afford, or don’t know about, legal defence.

As for an EU Foreign Policy. Given that the EU comprises so many countries, each with a different national perspective on the world (never mind their “special interests” – eg the British Commonwealth), then – to me – this is an impossibility.

Now the CAP is a wonder to try to get your arms around. It was probably the first truly common policy – and it has almost completely replaced national government policies in this area. But what a bureaucratic monster. Everyone who can claim to represent some sort of agricultural interest has demanded (and mainly been given) the right to be consulted – except for that body comprising our elected members – the EU Parliament. But when you start to look at where the money goes (difficult, even impossible in some countries) then you can see who has “friends in high places”. UK beneficiaries include HM QE2 and her son, various dukes and whatnots, plus a clutch of food processing companies. Not many ordinary farmers get much out of it. But how to ditch it with so many “special interests” involved?

Finally, you live in a parliamentary democracy, where you are committed to accept that the majority party forms the government and acts on your behalf. And that’s whether your views and theirs coincide or not. OK, there is an “opposition”, whose role is to give the government of the day as rough a ride as possible; and your basic rights are protected by an independent judiciary (or were until recent law-makers decided to restrict these even). And, of course, if you’re really unhappy, then try to persuade a court to pass your grievance up to the European Court of Justice. This latter has been the only way that some, less fortunate, groups (UK included) have gained any redress. NB the latest group are foreign residents in Spain who have had their properties bought for peanuts by dodgy developers (but with local authority backing); Spain have been warned they’ll have their EU subsidies frozen if they don’t legislate.

OK, I’m a europhile but I hope not naive.

And say that to “dismantle the single market would be a huge leap backwards in free trade” – There might be less cross border trade*. This I grant. But it wouldn’t be a ‘huge leap backwards’, either, unless your definition of ‘free trade’ requires no legal barriers. In which case, QED.

*Is there time series data available for cross-border intra-EU trade vs outside-EU covering the various stages of market integration? We’re taking it as read that a more integrated market promotes cross border trade. I’m sure this is true but it would be nice to be able to quantify the effect with a pretty graph.

The rationale behind the single market goes beyond merely eliminating tariffs, it aims to eliminate other fiscal and non-fiscal barriers to free trade which usually offer the most resistance to free trade. If we are to build that level of free trade, then it requires a common legal system, and common institutions to oversee the proper functioning of the single market. Common rules are, in fact, essential to prevent the exclusion of goods or services, etc. which would arise from national legislation.

If you’re against that level of free trade and the idea of the single market, then that’s another discussion, but to dismantle the single market would be a huge leap backwards in free trade.

I’m actually quite religious, but I disapprove of a mixing of Church and state. I don’t know why, since you’re so against the EU, you think that the EU would be better if it concerned itself with religion or the language of religion: I personally think that all government should stay out of religion because both tend to be abused by each other – the favoured religion imposes its view, or has the scope to be very influencal in pushing its view, to the detriment of other views in/sections of society; the state in turn meddles in religion for its own ends, corrupting it. In my view religion is a private thing, and it should be kept so.

There is a mention of a common Christian heritage in the Treaty, but no mention of God. However, unless you want to push a certain religious view, then I can’t see the practical difference the whole thing makes.

I note that Dr Toeben was released and not extradicted. The European Arrest Warrent is to ensure that the free movement of people does not mean that those who commit crime in one member state can simply hop across the border and not be brought to trial.

As for the increases in those areas of crime: that’s been a feature of most countries in the world, with the production of drugs increasing, leading to a drop in prices, leading to more people being able to afford and get hooked on drugs, leading to more money for organised crime… Considering that the UK is one of the most closed off countries in the EU, having not signed up to the Schengen Agreement, by your logic it should be much worse in the other EU countries, but that’s not the case by any significant indicator. And surely if it was the case, there would be a greater reluctance for other countries to sign up – but Switzerland has signed up to the Schengen agreement recently.

Crime happens across borders anyway, and I think it naive to think that any government can “seal off the borders” in any effective manner. Police and judical co-operation would be more effective in combating international crime networks than futile attempts to seal borders.

1 – I support free trade, rather than, necessarily, a single market. Common systems of units, and regulations, are convenient. But I don’t regard them as essential – as long as all parties are agreed on what terms a contract of sale consist of. The EU goes significantly further down this route than I believe is necessary. The fact that you use regulations concerning the permissable noise level of lawnmowers is a case in point. (And please note, Margaret Thatcher is hardly representative of all EU-sceptics.)

In fact, the EU could be regarding as limiting the UKs trading options; I’d particularly like to see us reducing (ideally to zero) tarriffs from the Commonwealth. And as for ” A ‘single market’ is based on the idea of countries becoming ‘an ever-closer union’” I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree. I’m really not clear how a closer union is a prerequisite to a single market. (FYI, it was the VAT thing that turned me from EU-ambivalent to sceptic. Sometimes, it’s the smallest things…)

2 – Regarding ‘the power of blogs to overcome Murdoch & Co…” Clearly, you’re right. In terms of readership, visibility, popularity, newspapers (and Sky) have blogs beat. But _we_ all do read blogs. I try and read blogs from across the spectrum, and no-one is making a clear and consistent argument in favour of the EU as is (perhaps you could recommend one?). There are a lot of blogs, (including, I’d say, this one), that like the EU in principle, but want large scale reform. And given that large scale reform isn’t happening – and that if it did happen, it probably wouldn’t be in the direction that I’d like – I’m throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and suggesting we start over.

3 – The EU arrest warrent. Not something I’m overly fond of (surprise!) and yes, something that Tony Blair did support. But Blair supported a lot of things – illegal wars, torture, imprisonment without trial – that I didn’t. What can I say? I didn’t vote for him. But Blair had form (and I’m sure other European leaders do also) of using the EU legislature to pass things that the UK parliament wouldn’t – or at least, would protest a bit more visibly about.

The thing is, I want to like the EU. I _like_ the freedom of movement, of goods, of services. But… why does this require ‘harmonised’ labour laws? HSE regulations? Yes, an EU arrest warrent? An EU foriegn policy? EU armed forces? An EU national anthem? And the grandaddy of them all: the Common Agricultural Policy? Why? What are they for? What is the EU for?

The EU, as I see it, is a compromise between those wanting a large free trade area, and those wanting some form of European state; whether federal, centralised, some combination… whatever. To my mind, it seems to be too much of a compromise. But that’s just me.

If you wish to have Europol, then have it. I think that Britain should secure its borders and stop these criminals from coming in. What has happened since Britain has ‘opened up’ is that we have more drugs, more illegal immigrants, and, most distressing in my opinion, the trafficking of young people for sex. The point to be made here is that for all of the policing apparatus of this wonderful new empire, crime is increasing in Britain. We also now have the threat from Islamic terrorism.

The EU arrest warrant assumes that all countries that go to make up the EU have the same laws and offences; they do not. In Britain recently a Dr Toben was seized under the EU arrest warrant for something that is not an offence in Britain but was in Germany – holocaust denial. His arrest goes against British law. You, French Dereck, would most probably therefore call for a harmonization of the EU’s laws to make the arrest warrant work, another step in the direction of a legal super state.

You also tell me that the leaders of the countries that go to make up the EU have all signed up to these measures. Well the leader in Britain led us into an illegal war with another sovereign country despite 2 million people marching on our Parliament. So what the leaders do and what the people think may be two different things. The leaders have no right to give away our ancient rights under our Common Law; their positions are temporary, the people are always there. Nobody has asked the people whether they wish to be subject to a EU arrest warrant and nobody is interested in informing the people of this removal of their rights.

As for following the US, if the US and Thatcher hadn’t stood up against the Soviet Union the Eastern European countries would not be free. The only unfortunate thing is that they have jumped out of a Soviet pan and into a EU fire. (As people such as Vaclav Klaus are now finding)

Your enlightened view seems to me to be very sincere but I personally find it naïve.
Power corrupts. When Barosso talks of empire we are in dangerous territory. I don’t want to be part of a cold war with America any more than I wanted to be part of a cold war with Russia. Read between the lines, this is all about power (and you can add exploitation to that list)

I am not the type of person who is willing to give up his sovereignty and legal rights for cheap texts or cheap flights on an aeroplane. I suggest that the reason you like the EU is because you gain from it; I am a manual worker and all I have seen from the EU is exploitation of the working man/woman in order to maintain a self-serving, self-feeding bureaucratic elite.

I don’t really care if the EU wants to be a superstate or no, I just want to be rid of it.

If you must have some sort of mechanism to enable a small group of privileged people to look important try starting from the bottom and ask the people first.

But there’s a question for you. Why, if there is no conspiracy, are the results of referendums continuously ignored? The answer to that question is that the direction of the EU is pre-ordained; it is a belief by a few of how things should turn out for the many, and no country or its people are going to get in the way.

To those of you who berate me for picking out an individual who is against religious intervention in politics, I would say this. Europe was built on Christian principles. Christianity has given us the rich culture (and it’s a common culture) as well as the basis of democracy and apparently – I have not checked myself – there is no mention of Christianity or God in the Lisbon Treaty. There is, in my opinion, a concerted effort to keep Christianity on the sidelines. I think that this is a shame. I do allow for the fact that a lot of people out there think that religion is a lot of mumbo-jumbo and that secularity should be the religion of choice. But there are also a lot of people to whom it is of great importance. I further believe that the EU wouldn’t like a force outside of their control – does this remind you of other past regimes.