Europe
I was a young child when the decision to become part of the Common Market took place, but the free trade my parents voted for then is a far cry to the political union we have now.
I believe it is now time to review our relationship with the EU and work towards returning Europe to a loose conglomeration of commercially co-operating nation states. To bring this about we should be committing to a renegotiation of our relationship with the rest of Europe following a wide reaching national debate about what our role should be.
In many respects I believe that the discussions on the future of Europe should be held outside of any general Election campaign.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b3f9c7b0-8e9b-4a2b-9106-5957c190c114)
Entries(RSS)
Kevin, do you really think this is wise? I agree, the single market is the cornerstone of the EU - but the fact is that we couldn't get anything done on things that we profess to believe in, like climate change, energy security and cross-border terrorism, if we were not working as one bloc. The UK's views are also better represented in fora such as the WTO when we speak as a multinational trading bloc. I share your concerns about a federal state, but there is very little to support this assertion - least of all our vetoes on key issues such as taxation, social security, defence and foreign policy. It seems to me your EU views are much close to those of Nigel Farage than those of David Cameron - whose pre-Christmas speech made clear the value of working with other European partners. I do hope you will reconsider your approach, for in all other ways you are an ideal candidate for Yeovil.
I have a great deal of time for the people of Europe and do not believe we should just unilaterally pull out of the EU, but we at least should be given the opportunity to have that debate.
The founding Father's of the European ideal had as their guiding philosophy the desire to end wars in Europe and believed that the co-operation on economic matters was the way of achieving that aim.
What I think concerns me is that the growth of unaccountable Europe is progressing at a fast rate - the new treaty has in it the establishment of a permanent President - and I believe it is right that we take time to think about its future direction.
I am not arguing, necessarily, that withdrawal is the only answer. This is very different from the position of UKIP!
You mention the WTO, but also think about the UN security council where we do not sit as an EU bloc. I am all for, where it is in our national interest, negotiating as a bloc, but do we need Parliaments in both Brussels and Strasbourg to do that?
I agree that we should co-operate on the things that matter to us all in Europe (the environment being a very important issue), but that we should not need to create pan-European structures of state to do that. Kyoto was about individual states (169 of them) signing up to its protocols, it was not about Europe signing up as a single European bloc.
In summary my approach is pragmatic. There should be no more integration and co-operation should always be in the national interest with opt outs for those nation states who object.
I believe the British people are overdue a real debate on the future of Europe and we should see a referendum about how the future develops - accepting that a referendum is a difficult thing to phrase. For my views on referendums I suggest you see this post here.
http://kevindavis.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/does-localism-make-you-happy/
Kevin. What is you view on allowing Turkey to join the EEC thus opening the doors of the UK to 70,000,000 Turks ?
I am very much against Turkey joining if we have not got an annual cap on immigration in place and effective border controls in place - Conservative Party Policy.
Would the conservative party (if elected) take a more realistic stance on immigration? how much longer can we permit unsustainable numbers of economic migrants, coming to the UK (often with families in tow) to seek non existant jobs? It occurs to me the tax payer is already susidising far too many unemployed or workshy people, how can a government, of any colour, think it acceptable to endorse the current level of immigration, and still expect fair minded hard working to support them? Common sense dictates that where
ever immigrants come from, within the EU or outside of it, if the applicant does not have a guarantee of a job
here, together with a financial sponsor, then the application for entry should be refused. This is not racist, or anti minority, it is a decision based purely on sound economics
To secure the support of this lifetime Conservative voter, your party must be seen to encourage the economic survival of Great Britain in the short term, and without question put in place a strategy of training
opportunities for young people, so that we all have a future to look forward to.
We cannot permit unsustainable levels of immigration. There is clearly both good and bad immigration and we have had far too much of the latter. Both Labour and the Lib Dems appear to want to continue the current position and the Lib Dems would go further and give instant citizenship to the 700,000 approx illegal immigrants by way of an amnesty. They argue this is OK because we cannot find them anyway but I argue we should try harder!
The real issue for me is that many immigrants who work here do a very good job and yet the money they are paid is often returned to their home country. This sucks money out of the local economy and I would rather the money was spent here.
Let me print for you the current policy position we have taken on this subject.
A Conservative government will reduce immigration to the levels of the 1990s - tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.
Annual Limit on Non-EU Economic Migration. For economic migrants from outside the EU we have proposed a two-stage process for deciding which applications should be successful. The first stage would be to make eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy. The second stage would control the numbers, taking into account the wider effects on society. These effects include the ability of the public services and infrastructure to cope with new arrivals at both national and local levels, the environmental impact of a rapidly rising population, and the potential effects on community cohesion.
Transitional Controls for New EU Entrants. A further step we can take to control immigration directly is the imposition of transitional controls for future new EU entrants. This means placing temporary restrictions on the movement of workers from Accession States. They should be applied here as they are in other countries.
A National Border Police Force. It is impossible to control immigration without proper border controls. In February 2007, we announced that a Conservative government would create a dedicated border police force, with all the necessary powers to arrest, detain and prosecute offenders. Gordon Brown's Border Agency, launched in April 2008, only combines the work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UKvisas, and does not include the police. We will refocus existing police and Home Office resources to create a dedicated border police force designed to help protect the UK from terrorism, serious and organised crime, people trafficking and drug smuggling, illegal immigration and major economic threats.