In a rush, but I'll just say that I think you're looking at the whole "money spent on lobbying" thing the wrong way around. They spend that much because the EU is considerably harder to lobby than the UK government to get the results. Convincing 27 countries to agree to a thing is a lot harder than convincing a handful of Ministers and their Chief Whip.
No, they spend that much because it scales to the benefit of their investment. Lobbyists in the UK can affect British policy, lobbyists in the EU will decide what rules Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK will obey. Whether you intend it or not, you are deliberately spreading disinformation by pretending the presence of a multibillion year EU lobbying industry is evidence that it is
struggling to gain results.
To stroll around the vast, ugly and permanent building site that is Brussels' European district is to brush up against the power of the lobbies. Every office block, every glass and steel construction within a kilometre of the European commission, council and parliament is peopled by Europe's biggest corporate names.
Thousands of companies, banks, law firms, PR consultancies and trade associations are there to bend ears and influence the regulations and laws that shape Europe's single market, fix trade deals, and govern economic and commercial behaviour in a union of 507 million.
Lobbying is a billion-euro industry in Brussels. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog campaigning for greater transparency, there are at least 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, nearly matching the 31,000 staff employed by the European commission and making it second only to Washington in the concentration of those seeking to affect legislation. Lobbyists sign a transparency register run by the parliament and the commission, though it is not mandatory.
By some estimates, they influence 75% of legislation. In principle, lobbyists give politicians information and arguments during the decision-making process. In practice, the corridors of the parliament often teem with individuals, who meet MEPs in their offices or in open spaces such as the "Mickey Mouse bar" (nicknamed so because of the shape of its seats) inside the parliament.
They explain their concerns, provide a "position paper", and send in suggestions for amendments to legislative proposals. Of course, the final decision is taken by MEPs. But examples are legion of the tail wagging the dog.
The most effective lobbying in Brussels centres on the gamekeepers-turned-poachers, the revolving door of senior commission officials, diplomats, and MEPs who retire or quit public office and instantly take up offers to translate their contacts and inside knowledge into lucrative lobbying work, often by moving to an office across the street.
Take Jean de Ruyt, a Belgian who knows Brussels inside out. As ambassador to the EU, the career diplomat in effect ran Belgium's EU presidency four years ago, then retired, took up a job with a US law firm and is now a leading figure in the shale lobby.
His No 2 as ambassador is now chief of staff to Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European council steering EU summits.
As a point of correction, the Guardian article was written in
2014, there is no longer 30,000 lobbyists, there are now over
80,000 lobbyists working to influence EU policy and regulation in 2018.
More money, less transparency, more influence and less responsibility. But perhaps we should defer to the United States, given how much their corporations spend on lobbying their government, they too must be a bastion of transparent democracy
You say our leaders can't change, and we should "advance in technology and culture". But technology benefits immensely from EU membership, hence why so many of the businesses and business leaders and researchers and academics are pro-remain. We stand a better chance of advancing in terms of science and technology as a part of the EU than outside of it.
It's an old lobbying trick to manufacture consensus:
3. Engineer a following
It doesn't help if a corporation is the only one making the case to government. That looks like special pleading. What is needed is a critical mass of voices singing to its tune. This can be engineered.
The forte of lobbying firm Westbourne is in mobilising voices behind its clients. Thirty economists, for example, signed a letter to the FT in 2011 in support of HS2; 100 businesses endorsed another published in the Daily Telegraph.
Westbourne was also hired in 2011 to lobby against the top rate of tax, although who was behind its "50p tax campaign" remains a mystery. Ahead of the chancellor's annual Budget announcement in early 2012, letters appeared in the press demanding he scrap it. The FT's was signed by 20 economists. The Telegraph's by the bosses of 573 SMEs, described as the "bedrock" of British industry. A quick glance, though, revealed it included five managers from the Switzerland-based banking giant Credit Suisse. The paper's commentary noted the alarm this new call from "ordinary British business" would cause inside government.
Hence why there's been years of articles going on about how Leave voters are really a small minority who never wanted brexit anyways, therefore we should implement further integration to the EU in order to appease them. Subsequently we should trust in a list of businessmen and researchers who are paid by the European Union in order to gain an appraisal of the European Union's merits, faster than you could say 'conflict of interest.' But alas - we should be wasting billions on building up EU pension schemes for its bureaucrats, or else the birthplace of the industrial revolution and modern finance will be incapable of innovating...
As for culture, meh. Culture changes, culture grows, culture adapts, culture isn't a "thing" you can point at and preserve or fix. It is a fluid mess, and obsessing about preserving it (for example) is a fools errand as far as I'm concerned. Our culture is not our parents is not our grandparents is not our great-grandparents will not be our childrens will not be our grandchildrens, it's not worth the time to "improve" or "preserve" as a thing in and of itself, it's something that just happens. Social issues are what need focusing on, culture will follow suit and adapts and change as it always has and always will.
You cannot accept the mutability of culture without accepting its capacity to decline; once you have severed the continuity between the past and present, that link is irreparable. The United Kingdom stands at this schizophrenic crossroads wherein it spends so much time and capital seeking to revive Celtic languages or promote cultures from across the Commonwealth within the British Isles - but then turns around and says that actually, it is best to just let heritage and culture die. Because culture is not something you cultivate or preserve, for as long as you ignore all of our past and present efforts to do just that, or ignore the entire profession of the teacher or the artist or the content creator - and ultimately, of the parent, the grandparent and the great-grandparent.
Personally I don't think the EU is progressing to becoming a full state ala the USA. I consider that a shame, personally, since I'm actually in favour of humanity progressing towards a one-world government, but that's just me. And I think a United State of Europe (to quote Churchill) could be a positive step forward towards that. There are factions inside the EU that want to take it that way, sure. But there are factions that want Wales to become independent from the UK. Doesn't make it particularly likely anytime soon 
Give it time, I am personally of the belief that we will progress towards a universal government one way or another once holding an independent foreign policy becomes too expensive all (or all but one) of the world's states to maintain. Once that is the case, the distinction between one national government and another will become increasingly irrelevant, as both governments will be incapable of maintaining divergent international interests - all other integration will have already occurred, or will follow suit organically.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 991989 times)