EU Study Group ~ Topics of Meetings
Meeting
01 - 4 October 2004
Meeting
02 - 1 November 2004
Meeting
03 - 3 January 2005
The European Puzzle. Article by Prof. Anand Menon, University of
Birmingham in Prospect Magazine, November 2004. Why is the pro-British
draft constitution not welcomed?
Meeting 04 - 7
February 2005
Presentation to
Citizens (of the draft Constitution), European
Communities. A brave attempt to explain everything to diligent, well
informed and well educated readers. As one of our members said,
“Less than 1% of the population will read
this”. We at least tried.
Meeting 05 - 7
March 2005
A Constitution
for Europe, European Communities. In marginally
less intimidating style, this explains how the parts fit together and
some
principal policies.
Meeting 06 - 4
April 2005
The European Dream; How Europe’s Vision of the Future is
Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream by Jeremy Rifkin an American
Sociologist/Futurologist. Discussion introduced by Dr Nicky Hodges.
Meeting 07 - 3
June 2005
Address by local MEP Glyn Ford (Labour). Very interesting and
impressive. Good discussion. He had an answer for everything. Chaired
by Ted Clapton.
Meeting 08 - 4
July 2005
Paper on global
warming and environmental degradation by Maj. Gen. Joe
Crowdy. This is not the sort of problem that democracies are good at
but nor are autocratic states. There will be bad times for our
grandchildren.
Meeting 09 - 2
September 2005
Address by
local MEP Graham Booth (UK Independence Party). A most
agreeable person with whom we had a pleasant meeting. He displayed many
firmly held odd ideas but was insistent on accusations of EU corruption.
Meeting 10 - 3
October 2005
Hegemony or
Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance by
Noam Chomsky, a leading US academic doomsday commentator. Discussion
introduced by Jean Rhodes
.
Meeting 11 - 7
November 2005
Address by
local MEP Graham Watson (Lib.Dem.). Also interesting and
impressive: our questions and therefore the discussions are getting
better focussed. Asked for a layman’s introduction to the EU
Budget he pointed us to MEP Terry Wynn (Labour, NW Region) with the
result to be seen below. Chaired by Bruce MacEacharn.
Meeting 12 - 5
December 2005
Bring Home the
Constitution: How Britain Can Live the American Dream by
Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian journalist’s sympathetic essay
on American life following a posting to Washington. He slyly claims
that the American constitution, having been written by British
emigrants, is really our constitution. We should bring it home and live
the life of Riley (the American dream). Introduced by Bill Oxburgh
Meeting 13 - 9
January 2006
Imperial
America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia, by Gore
Vidal, America’s satirical but affectionate biographer. This
was to have been our final attempt to measure EU aspirations against US
reality. Introduced by Ted Clapton and Bruce MacEacham.
Meeting 14 - 13
February 2006
Corruption, a
review and discussion of three documents introduced by
Ted Clapton:
1. The EU Budget, Public Perception and Fact, Part Two, Reasons for the
Bad Press by MEP Terry Wynn.
2. Democracy and Corruption in Europe, edited by Donatella Della Porta
and Yves Meny, U. of Florence.
3. Power and Corruption: The Rotten Core of Government and Big Business
by Stephen Moore, a retired policeman.
Meeting
15 - 13 March 2006
‘Pinter
v the US’, the text of Harold
Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, on 7
December 2005 in which he excoriates a ‘brutal, scornful and
ruthless United States’. Discussion introduced by Norman
Beer.
Meeting 16 - 12
April 2006
Address by MEP
Giles Chichester (Conservative). Interesting, impressive
and solid. He took us through the intricacies of chairing a
multi-national, multi-party and multi-lingual Committee, Industry,
Research and Energy. Like the other two cautiously pro-European MEPs he
had answers and firm views on all the topics we raised. Chaired by
Bruce MacEacharn.
Meeting 17 - 8
May 2006
The 2002 EU
Budget, Bill Oxburgh’s critical review and
re-analysis of MEP Terry Wynn’s The EU Budget: Public
Perception and Fact. The conclusion was that the Budget was a mess and
should be sorted out in accordance with the suggestions given. 18 Pages
17.The
2002 EU Budget V3b
Meeting 18 - 11
September 2006
UK Democratic
Deficit: Could MPs Restore Parliament or is it already
too late? This paper reviews the corrupt electoral system of the
Commons, MPs responsibility to their whips not the electorate, the
stalled reform of the House of Lords and where the reform should start.
It expresses a citizen’s disappointment and anger. Bill
Oxburgh. 6 pages.
18.UK Democratic Deficit, Could MPs Restore Parliament?
Meeting 19 - 13
November 2006
EU Democratic
Deficit, a paper arguing that new commissioners should be
appointed and portfolios confirmed by MEPs in consultation with current
commissioners, member state leaders and member state parliaments. The
paper tries to map out an appropriate procedure. Bill Oxburgh. 5 pages.
19.EU Democratic Deficit, Appointment of Commissioners
Meeting 20 - 11
December 2006
Global Warming,
a briefing on the science of climate warming caused by
excessive use of fossil fuels and other factors. Present impacts and
forecast impacts. What might reasonably be done in response, what would
be unreasonable and what would be contentious? Andrew Brightwell. 4
pages.
Meeting
21 - 8
January 2007
The Fight
Against Terrorism, a discussion introduced by Bruce
MacEacharn leading us through Kofi Annan’s wise comments on
the 7/11 attack and the thoughtful Wikipedia articles on the definition
and history of terrorism, the various kinds of perpetrators, wide range
of tactics and available defensive responses. No paper but
visit http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism.
Meeting 22 - 12
February 2007
Democracy
(“People Rule”), Ted Clapton’s
thoughtful and sturdy reaction to the Rowntree Trust’s less
than rousing ‘Power to the People’, a set of
proposals for repairing our democratic decrepitude. The trouble is that
our leaders are too comfortable with decrepitude. Indeed they worked
hard to achieve it. 3 pages of concise notes.
Meeting 23 - 12
March 2007
European Public
Opinion as revealed by Eurobarometer 251 (March 2006),
“The Future of Europe”. Steve Adams’
exposition / slide show revealed that the Brits were least impressed by
EU democracy and most aware of EU inefficiency. Germans and French were
most appreciative of the EU contribution to peace. Almost half the
French thought that the EU was going in the wrong direction whereas
more Germans thought it was moving in the right direction than the
wrong. Generally the Germans and French were in favour of more EU
actions and the Brits less in favour of combating terror, promoting
peace and democracy, protecting the environment and energy supplies.
The Brits were most in favour of globalisation and the French most
opposed. How one might ask, is public opinion formed in the UK?
By the
Sun and its ilk apparently whilst our feeble political leaders keep
their heads down. 19 slides.
Meeting 24 - 16
April 2007 
The German
Constitution (1949). Norman Beer guided us through the Basic
Law, Die Grundgesetz, which sought to confer upon the future state the
notion of firm order based on the democratic will of the people rather
than on the strength of personality of a single political leader.
Following reunification the Basic Law applied to the whole of Germany.
Although less elegantly worded than the US Constitution this German
Constitution is probably the new touchstone. 3 pages of notes.
24.Notes on the German Constitution
Meeting 25 - 14
May 2007
Promoting Peace
and Democracy across the World by the Bush / Cheney /
neocon recipe, the repudiation of the restraints of international law
and the accompanying wild talk of US broad spectrum world hegemony. Dr
Vivienne Hodges’ introductory talk and the subsequent
discussion led to the conclusion that these policies had been
counterproductive and corrosive of goodwill towards America.
Meeting 26 - 11
June 2007
The EU
Accession Process: a means of spreading peace and democracy?
Bill Oxburgh’s paper and the ensuing discussion suggested
that the accession process had been largely successful and seemed
likely to continue in the future to be effective, efficient and
something for the EU to be proud of. Perhaps the existing members
should be subject to re-evaluation and, if compliant, confirmed
every 25 years. 8 pages.
26.The EU Accession Process
Meeting 27 - 10
September 2007
The Reform of
the House of Lords. Steve Adams looked at the history of
the House of Lords and its changing relation with the House of Commons,
the arguments for abolition, retention and reform, its strange
structure, powers and functions exposed by the thorough going Wakenham
Commission, Wakenham’s odd (government guided?) conclusions
and recommendations and finally the difficulty of getting agreement
between the government, Commons and rump Lords,
each too jealous
of its
powers. We may have to wait a long time for the next attempt at reform.
27 slides.
Meeting 28 - 8
October 2007
What does
Nicolas Sarkozy need to do to revitalize France? And for good
measure we asked Dr Vivienne Hodges to tell us about the French health
service. Sarkozy’s declared objective of persuading France to
work harder and longer soon ran into violent opposition and his
popularity into steep decline. One can’t tell yet whether he
will make the impact which he promised. We Brits of course are a bit
reluctant to acknowledge the quality of much of French industry.
Sarkozy has broken with French political tradition in that his private
life has become a soap opera. The French health service displays many
exciting differences from our own NHS though it is considerably more
expensive and in some respects less efficient. Each service could learn
a lot from the other.
Meeting 29 - 12
November 2007
Why are the
Brits so paranoid about the EU? Bill Oxburgh’s
paper looks for historical explanations but finds good reason to be
grateful for the more constructive French reaction to their similar
experience of assaults and invasion. Does our native caution and
insularity explain our reserve towards clever foreigners or are we just
led astray by our gutter press and sordid party politics? The
conclusion is – all of these. We should have done better and
need to try harder in future. 9 pages.
29.Why
are the Brits so paranoid
Meeting 30 - 10
December 2007
European-ness.
Jean Rhodes judiciously cherry picks from ‘The
Birth of Europe’ by the eminent French historian, Jacques Le
Goff. Her paper provides a rich feast of elusive snippets of history
laced with ripe interpretation covering the formation of Europe from
the ruins of the Roman Empire to Christopher Columbus’s
discovery of America at the end of the 15th century. Jean also
addressed the question whether awareness of Europe should be fostered
and how this might be done. She reported sympathetic comments on her
paper from several MEPs but a lack of interest from several school /
colleges. 11 pages.
30. European-ness
Meeting 31 - 14
January 2008
Non-Violence,
the history of a dangerous idea. Ted Clapton guided us
through this interesting book by Mark Kurlansky, a moral American ever
ready to shock his reader with his revelations of violence and
wrongdoing cynically represented as patriotic or religious or other
over- arching imperatives. One could tire of his ambushes but he is
serious and acute commentator on human villainy and earns
one’s respect. Ted led us expertly through perhaps 50 or 60
episodes and in discussion we tried to make sense of it all and put it
in context.
2 pages of notes.
Meeting
32 ~ 11 Febrruary 2008
Steve
Adams gave his account of the strange and wonderful phenomenon known as
globalisation. He spoke from personal experience of having been
involved in Monsanto’s exploration of the potential market
for its GM products in Europe. It turned out to be an interesting but
complex subject. Those of us with simple moral certainties about the
exploitive nature of multi-national companies’ dealings with
weak governments of small economies were subject to the challenges of
wider perspectives but not quite routed. The terminator gene technology
was not owned by Monsanto who had been offered the opportunity to
exploit it: they turned the offer down following the uproar. It was a
good thought provoking meeting.
Meeting
33 ~ 10 March 2008
Bill Oxburgh presented his essay on the need for a second chamber of
the European Parliament, a senate to hold to account the European
Councils and the Councils of Ministers. The proposal was to build up
the senate, step by step, adding a select committee as each Council
acquired its full time president (replacing the current rotating
presidents). Each member state would presumably need to be represented
in each select committee: the large member states might have, say three
senators, medium sized states of say 5 to 20 million population might
have two senators and the smaller member states one senator. It was
proposed that senators would be elected indirectly by national
parliaments from a slate of candidates selected by the membership of
the appropriate national select committees. Some degree of reciprocal
attendance rights might be agreed between the national and European
level select committees.
Besides moving towards an elected body to hold the very
important European Council and Councils of Ministers to account, the
senate is designed to provide a European voice to moderate the pursuit
of national interests at these Council meetings. The linkages between
the national select committees and the senate select committees would
help to reconnect national parliaments and national public opinion with
the business transacted at Council meetings. Would the select
committees contribute towards the legitimisation and more comfortable
acceptance of the European project? Would they even contribute to the
quality of the decision making?
Meeting
34 ~ 14 April 2008
Dr Vivienne Hodges took a broad look at the evolution, trials and
continuing over centralisation of the NHS. By 2005 it
employed some 1.3 million staff
comprising 1.145m frontline staff and 220,000 infrastructure support
staff including 39,391 managers and senior managers. There have been
repeated changes in management structure and torrents of directives and
targets imposed on frontline staff by the over resourced but out of
touch central management and ever willing management consultants. We
wondered at the succession of spectacular disasters. What then is the
point of the DOH?
We looked at the insurance based health services
in Germany and France and the central taxation based service
in Denmark. We had to recognise that there is likely to be an ever
growing demand for a free service leading to some queuing and
rationing. We considered possible supplementary funding sources. We
ended up with discussion of how to curb the extravagances and
miss-management of the command structure. Thank you Vivienne for such
an interesting talk.
TOP
