Noticed this poster at a tube station today:
My immediate thought was: none of your bloody business.
(After a moment's additional thought, perhaps I should moderate that to: none of your bloody business between the two on the right, and between all three if you internalize carbon externalities with a mechanism more rational than the EU-ETS.)
It turns out that this is part of a series. The others are shown below.
EUobserver points out that these exaggerate the powers of the European parliament. Typical euro-deception. But would it be better if they didn't?
Is this the Euro equivalent of a dollar vote? In free markets, how much gets produced of which goods is determined by the dollars (or other currency) that customers spend (vote) on the products.
In the EU, it seems, how much gets produced of which goods is determined by the political trade-offs between politicians returned as a result of an election on multiple issues.
In a free market, we will gradually discover what works in which circumstances, and are free to have horses for courses, and to change the balance in response to changing market information.
In the EU, the parties who form the ruling coalition (and their electors) are assumed to have 20:20 foresight, deciding what immature technologies will be best for all of us, and imposing them on us by legislation, with all the associated responsiveness and flexibility.
It tells you something about the mindset of the Eurocrats and politicians that they think this is the job of the European parliament, and that the suggestion that they have this power will attract people to the project.
If this is a Euro vote, I don't want it, and I don't want other people to have it either. I want us to cast dollar votes for economic choices. Political votes are to decide those rules that we need for effective cooperation, on questions that cannot be decided more efficiently by dollar votes.