My two eurocents: I think I’m like most pro-EU types in that I fall somewhere into the ‘positive grey’ zone – the EU’s better than what came before it, but it could be a lot better.

It may be a sensible and rational position – what it lacks is passion. Eurosceptics have passion! Balls! Fire! It’s what makes them so much fun. Nothing grey there! ;-)

Why is that? I don’t know, but I know one thing – thank God it’s true! On the rare occasions I do run into people who are genuinely passionately pro-European – with the same jingoistic, tub-thumping, from-the-balls europhilic passion that eurosceptics have – it makes my toes curl up inside my shoes.

The EU was and should remain a rational solution to the problem of improving cooperation between nation states and getting us out of the anarchic model of international relations. Let’s hope we get less “Yay! Europe is Cool!” communications campaigns between now and 2014, and a better focus on where, how and why the EU adds value.

One point to start, however – I’m in favour of a multi-tier system, not a multi-speed system. A subtle difference, but an important one. “Ever closer union” is one of the concepts I’d be keen to drop from any future EU model – it’s far too vague a concept and so open to any number of interpretations and it is, in any case, contradicted by the existence of the subsidiarity principle, under which a number of EU competences should already be getting returned to the member states.

Robin – I’m merely saying that the extremes on either side are dishonest in over-emphasising their levels of support and the (flawed) logic of their arguments. I don’t deny for one moment that there are committed withdrawalists or committed superstatists. I also agree entirely about those who say one thing in public while pushing for something altogether different behind closed doors – it’s one of the major reasons why I’m in favour of greater transparency (especially in the Council – though, to be fair, with that particular body, diplomatic issues could arrive without allowing a certain level of secrecy.)

As for the three main parties’ policies when it comes to the EU, I’d say that only the Lib Dems really *have* any EU policies (and even those are vague). Over the last 12 years Labour’s singularly failed to be open about anything when it comes to the EU (as with so many things), while I don’t think even David Cameron really knows what the Conservative Party’s current EU policy is actually trying to achieve. I don’t think the Tories are being dishonest – they’re just being ignorant.

The reasons that so many are convinced that a superstate is on the cards centre on two aspects; firstly, it has been the stated goal of many at the heart of the EU project, and secondly, EU competances have expanded into areas of our lives that few dreamed would ever be its concern despite assurances that there would be no great expansion of EU power. Given those points, a certain degree of scepticism regarding safeguards preventing further powers migrating to the EU is hardly astonishing.

As to the multi speed approach there is a fundamental problem for those who dissagree with not just the speed but with the direction of travel. Those who, like Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, (though I’m sure with better intent than that schmuck), want the centre of Europe to become a single state are more than welcome to go ahead. However, dragging us into the same position is no more agreeable for the slower pace. If alternatively, we wouldn’t be subject to that traction then we would end up in something similar to the EFTA, a situation that many people in this country would be very happy with.

Ultimately, the current options boil down to “ever closer union” at one speed or another or EFTA. To do anything outside of those otions requires a new organisation.

But equally the maturity in the debate requires that, if it makes sense for something that we want to do is best done at European level, that we accept this rather than endlessly demanding that national level is best and should be the default (e.g. CFP is a mess but in part its a mess because fish don’t respect national boundaries so repatriation of fisheries policy is a very odd thing indeed to demand in comparison with root-and-branch reform of CFP at the European level).

The original idea behind the Convention on the future of Europe, and the subsequent Constitutional Treaty, was to be a full-on review and restructure to fit the needs of C21 Europeans. I guess we can say it failed in that (although its still not totally clear just why) and there are certainly some eccentricities in what is covered by European comeptence, in what way.

But wg’s comments above kind of illustrate the problem with looking for that debate in the UK.
Europhiles feel the need to talk up the EU and not talk so much about the problems although as you say most feel the EU is not perfect.
Unless there’s someone out there to explain what good things we as a country get from being part of the EU, then the only impression that’s out there to be gained is that the EU is what’s in the press and what comes out of the politicians themselves (national with the agendas that come with that or EU where our media appears to have a habit of seeking out those with less moderate views).

And it’s always easier to listen to those shouting “EU, EU EU – out! out! out!” than to those saying “what do we want? A technical yet plain language discussion of the practical implications of the benefits and costs of addressing issues at different levels of political decision-making including European level, reappraisal of each and an institutional structure that faciliates this, accessible for and engaging with all! When do we want it? Within a reasonable timescale that allows for genuine debate without dragging on!”

Yep, I think we need a proper discussion. And part of me goes, bring it on! But I remain to be convinced that we are able to do that in the UK at present precisely because things have got so polemic and because a lot of people would frankly rather be watching Eastenders or the football. And despite being an EU geek, that sometimes includes me!

The EU developed as a result of specific circumstances that have changed and developed (and if you ask me, are even more urgent).

The EU is a terrible system for cooperation, but its better than the alternatives. And its a model that is being expanded and developed all over the world.

The people of Britain love their own country, a lot of them don’t see the EU as anything other than a bureaucracy that imposes unwanted regulations. We are never going to love the EU. The election figures tell us all we want to know about the British attitude to the EU but the same interested parties, namely those who get something out of it, will carry on ignoring the opinions of the electorate and carry on regardless.

As a ‘working class’ person I only perceive the EU as a corporatist monster. It uses the poorer people of the EU to pursue an agenda of maximizing profits for large businesses whilst forcing down the wages and conditions of the people in better off countries such as Britain.

For this purpose it must have an excess of labour, hence huge immigration and large numbers of migrant workers swarming around Europe. The policy is backed up by the EU’s legal fraternity prattling on about rights and freedoms and bringing in laws on xenophobia. Basically all these caring legal souls are doing is making criminals of people who are only concerned with saving their jobs and conditions of work. As a manual worker it is amusing to see how the ‘Left’ is so taken in by this.

I am also in agreement on the corrupt and corrupting nature of the EU. When the EU’s Trade and Industry representative spends some time on a Russsian oligarchs yacht and that Russian is then given advantages in his dealings with the EU then we are looking at something that stinks.

We have the damage done to democracy by the EU. We now have a large amount of people in the House of Lords who depend on the EU for a pension. How can we trust them to put the concerns of the British people before their EU pensions. We also have a situation, such as in Richard Corbett’s case, where the rejection of a politician and his policies is disregarded and that ex-politician is then offered a lucrative job by the colleagues. What is the point of anybody voting?

I don’t want the EU to become more transparent or more accountable, I just don’t want the EU at all. It is one huge and costly mistake.