Why are the British so anti Europe?

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

It seems to me that there is a view in Ireland that to criticise is to be against something. This is, I think, a cultural difference between Ireland and the UK.

I'm not sure that, even if this opinion of yours is correct, it is even relevant to this thread. After all, many of those eurosceptics, who have 'criticized' the EU here or elsewhere, have been pretty clear in their opposition to the EU on a fundamental level; it's not like they've all suggesting that should the EU "address our criticisms and we'll be happy to stay in", is it? Many have made it clear that they're against; full stop.

Sometimes in Ireland it is thought that its better to be "nice" and not to say "no" and not to criticise.

I think you're exaggerating, TBH. The Irish may be passive-aggressive, but we're not neurotic; at least no more than the British.

I don't agree that the british are any more anti europe than any other nations, but its just they may be more vocal with their criticisms. I'd bet that if a vote were taken , the UK and Ireland would have similar numbers of citizens pro and con.

You're basing this simply on your opinion though; your hypothesis is that more vocal opposition to something simply means a more open attitude twoards criticizing others, yet back this up with no evidence at all.

In reality, if you look at the evidence that is out there, you'll find that Ireland has consistently voted more pro-Europe in referenda, compared to the UK (whenever it's had a chance to vote) and additionally, one can point to very real historical reasons for British Euroscepticism. All of which contradicts your hypothesis. What can you offer that supports it instead?

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't agree that the british are any more anti europe than any other nations, but its just they may be more vocal with their criticisms. I'd bet that if a vote were taken , the UK and Ireland would have similar numbers of citizens pro and con.

Can't say I agree with this. There's a tangible anti-EU animus among British individuals and their press that is simply not there in other countries I know quite well like Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and even Poland.

As for a UK and Ireland vote, our last EU referendum returned a 2:1 ratio on a high turnout in favour of treaty amendment for involvement to a degree higher than the UK's. It's silly to compare the UK's pro-con breakdown which on all recent opinion polls bears no relationship whatsoever to the Irish breakdown.

SoulandForm

A better question would be why the Irish so pro-EU? Personally Im in favour of withdrawal though whether that is possible now given the last treaty Ireland signed remains to be seen,.

McDave

SoulandForm wrote: »

A better question would be why the Irish so pro-EU? Personally Im in favour of withdrawal though whether that is possible now given the last treaty Ireland signed remains to be seen,.

I think it's because Irish people see opportunity in committing politically to a diverse economic arrangement, rather than being dependent on a large, overwhelming neighbour.

SoulandForm

McDave wrote: »

I think it's because Irish people see opportunity in committing politically to a diverse economic arrangement, rather than being dependent on a large, overwhelming neighbour.

The Euro seriously damagaed Ireland's economy; it was through the failure of the various Free State governments to break economic dependence on England (largely down to their fear of taking on private business) that led the Free State to join the Common Market as it was than in the first place. The Free State had achieved partital independence from London but than it went and threw that away to Brussels.

McDave

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Euro seriously damagaed Ireland's economy; it was through the failure of the various Free State governments to break economic dependence on England (largely down to their fear of taking on private business) that led the Free State to join the Common Market as it was than in the first place. The Free State had achieved partital independence from London but than it went and threw that away to Brussels.

No it didn't. The advent of the single market after the Single European Act and the establishment of the Euro were phenomenal opportunities for Ireland to close much of the gap in the wealthy European countries. The single market was broadly successful for us. But Ahern and McCreevy really blew it for us in the noughties.

The Euro didn't cause the economies of most EZ countries to fail, nor was it responsible for the failure of countries outside the EZ in the aftermath of Lehmans. No. Our own problems were caused by our own sovereign macroeconomic decisions, and regulatory inactions.

georgesstreet

In the UK, many are concerned about sovereignty, by which is meant the ability to govern themselves. The EU is seen as ever expanding at the expense of the UK being able to govern itself, and being dictated to by the EU.

For example, the imposed lifting, in 2014, of restrictions for East Europeans has crystallised, in the minds of many, the concern that the UK is less and less powerful in the hands of an ever powerful and ever expanding EU.

In Ireland, it seems to be different, and there seems to be little concern for the numbers of East Europeans who come to Ireland as “benefit tourists” and who benefit from a generous welfare system, the costs of which are paid by the Irish people.

SpaceTime

I've actually found a lot of British attitudes to the EU to be anything but rational scepticism.

I have no issue with people criticising the EU and I think it's very important that it's done as it does have quite a few big problems that remain unaddressed notably a democratic deficit around how the Commission operates and it's very poor at communicating what it's doing.

What I find from a large % of British people and it's egged on by the tabloid media is literally foaming at the mouth europhobia which is just a more socially acceptable form of xenophobia. There's a strong hatred of the French in particular (even more than the Germans in some respects) that is just based on nonsense and ancient history and it's not reciprocated in France either.

I don't think the British are having a rational debate about the EU. The business community over there is terrified that the general public are going to just thow the baby out with the bathwater and leave without any notion of the potential economic consequences.

Ironically, it could be a huge advantage to Ireland as we might end up attracting companies leaving the UK to remain in the EU.

I think though if the British engaged more constructively in the EU it would have been a more 'British looking' organisation. That being said, it does primarily use English as it's working language and it's followed a very pro liberal market agenda very similar to the UK ...

I also don't think the Irish public have been pushovers either. We've rejected treaties and basically forced the EU to directly negotiate with the Irish electorate in two occasions. We extracted compromises and I think that's a very reasonable way of dealing with it!

georgesstreet

SpaceTime wrote: »

What I find from a large % of British people and it's egged on by the tabloid media is literally foaming at the mouth europhobia which is just a more socially acceptable form of xenophobia.

As someone who never reads the tabloid media, I must bow to your apparent superior knowledge of it. However, it is simply incorrect to claim that the issue is not discussed at every level in the UK, from the village shop, to workplaces and in parliament, and in meetings and debates across the land. The "it's all a tabloid media conspiracy guv" argument is transparently false.

SpaceTime

It's discussed but I think a lot of the debate boils down to good old fashioned fear of foreigners be it fear of "Brussels" or fear of immigration perceived to be caused by "Brussels".

I'm not saying that debate of a more serious nature doesn't go on. However, a large % of what I've personally encountered in the UK (more so working class areas of northern England) is all in a weird kind of WWII mentality about "the frogs" and "the krauts" and other EU neighbours they love so much.

The open hostility towards French people in England often absolutely shocks the French when they encounter it first hand. There is a cultural acceptance that it's fine to absolutely rip into the French and to me it sums up a lot of English attitudes to Europe in general as being a place full of people with amusing accents and entertaining culinary habits.

I don't get that vibe in Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany etc etc they may have other problems of racism etc but they're definitely not as quick to resort to an 'Allo 'Allo stereotype etc

Mainstream media in England still thinks that kind of stuff is fine. You regularly see references to humourless Germans, unwashed French people etc etc etc.
They've given up the Irish jokes only because it's now considered to be racism but it's still open season on the rest of western Europe.

To me that just shows they've an 'us' and 'them' attitude to neighbouring countries that's much much more pronounced than most other countries that moved on since the 1950s!

I just hope the debate in the UK before any referendum is a lot deeper than what I'm seeing and hearing first hand.
If it's not, they'll be off with a 90% majority in favour and to hell with the consequences.

georgesstreet

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's discussed but I think a lot of the debate boils down to good old fashioned fear of foreigners be it fear of "Brussels" or fear of immigration perceived to be caused by "Brussels".

Perhaps that is your experience. However, the debate at a national level is about sovereignty, and is about a not unimportant issue about shifting power from the nation to the EU. Your claim that the debate in the UK is about “good old fashioned fear of foreigners” is simply false.

However, even if you are correct, (which you are not), anyone in the UK is entitled to frame the terms of debate as they please, and make up their minds on whatever criteria they please, even those which you mistakenly claim above.

SpaceTime wrote: »

To me that just shows they've an 'us' and 'them' attitude to neighbouring countries that's much much more pronounced than most other countries that moved on since the 1950s!

The irony is your posts reek of an us and them attitude towards the UK, making claims which are nonsense and merely seem to highlight your own prejudices.

SpaceTime

I'm not saying they're not entitled to frame the debate anyway they want to.

I just think it will be a shame if they just pack their bags and leave based on a very shallow discussion without a lot of facts.

Maybe I'm not being exposed to very intellectual people in England but that's the impression I'm being left with.

The typical argument I'm getting is that the EU didn't benefit them at all in any way and they'd be better off leaving. There is also a notion it will solve the issue of immigration from outside c the EU, which makes no sense as the UK issues its own visas.

I even had this argument from a UK retiree living in Spain on a state pension and using the Spanish healthcare system. He didn't even comprehend that he might lose all that and have to relocate home.

I still think it's a very uninformed, emotionally charged debate.

I would prefer to see the UK pushing serious reforms of the EU. It's definitely expanded by function creep.

It will be interesting to see if a serious debate develops closer to a referendum but, so far in my own personal experience (which be different to yours) I'm not seeing it or hearing it.

I actually think Ireland would be in a very dodgy position in the EU without the UK on side. Areas like taxation would suddenly be on the table in a much more real way if France and central European countries were completely dominating the agenda.

I'm just not sure that the British public are 'getting' that they could mould the EU into something far more 'British' if their politicians engaged harder and got like minded countries on side more.

To be fair to UKIP, they've at least created a platform for debate.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

In the UK, many are concerned about sovereignty, by which is meant the ability to govern themselves. The EU is seen as ever expanding at the expense of the UK being able to govern itself, and being dictated to by the EU.

For example, the imposed lifting, in 2014, of restrictions for East Europeans has crystallised, in the minds of many, the concern that the UK is less and less powerful in the hands of an ever powerful and ever expanding EU.

In Ireland, it seems to be different, and there seems to be little concern for the numbers of East Europeans who come to Ireland as “benefit tourists” and who benefit from a generous welfare system, the costs of which are paid by the Irish people.

I always smell a rat with the use of the word 'dictate' in conjunction with the EU. The EU is comprised of democracies who have joined through the mechanisms of their democratic institutions.

The UK has no lien on the word 'sovereignty' which is widely understood across European societies. Neither are its citizens entitled to pontificate on dictatorship, their country having been an imperial power dictating terms to, for instance, India and Persia.

As for the glib reference to Eastern Europeans in Ireland, well for starters most are from Central Europe. And most here work. There has been widespread abuse of the Irish welfare system across the board, set up as it was in recent times by a government intent on buying votes from any quarter, including welfare recipients, using taxpayers' money. The welfare system is slowly being reformed, and the most egregious abuses are being tackled. Most Irish people see this, and have not in the round converted latent frustration into endemic hostility to immigrants from accession states who come here to contribute.

But thanks anyway for pointing this out to us, and for patronising us about our lack of concern for a 'problem' you seem happy to stoke up.

The Corinthian

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Euro seriously damagaed Ireland's economy; it was through the failure of the various Free State governments to break economic dependence on England (largely down to their fear of taking on private business) that led the Free State to join the Common Market as it was than in the first place. The Free State had achieved partital independence from London but than it went and threw that away to Brussels.

That 'the Euro seriously damagaed Ireland's economy' is one of those many economic arguments that has at this stage been debunked on numerous occasions, to the point that it's tiresome to hear it again and again.

Now historically you're not not incorrect on previous economic policy; although it was a dependence on British trade that was in reality born of the fact that we largely rejected trade; Ireland followed a protectionist economic policy up until the 1960's. As a result, we never managed to develop new trade and stuck with the devil we knew.

Of course, your conclusion is another matter; it's really just the usual nationalistic xenophobia about foreigners.

SoulandForm wrote: »

A better question would be why the Irish so pro-EU?

I would imagine because many Irish remember what it was like in Ireland before the ECC or before the EU opened up the market; high unemployment (much higher than today) and taxation (again, much higher than today), lack of selection of goods in the shops (we still had a lot of protectionism, leaving us with little choice), on top of which we paid more than elsewhere in Europe for the same things. As an entrepreneur, you were realistically limited to the Irish market (operating anywhere else was too complex and expensive), which meant you were never going to get rich. Added to this the EU removed our political and economic dependence on the UK (which had been less than friendly upon occasion). And overall, we probably had the lowest standard of living in northern Europe - at least Spain had Franco to explain theirs.

I expect there are other factors too that differentiated us from the British; the Irish media lacks the same eurosceptic bias that the UK media has and we never had to suffer the patriotic baggage of once having been an 'empire'.

I'd imagine that much of the above would be in many Irish people's minds and may explain our largely positive attitude twoards the EU.

georgesstreet

McDave wrote: »

I always smell a rat with the use of the word 'dictate' in conjunction with the EU. The EU is comprised of democracies who have joined through the mechanisms of their democratic institutions.

And there are many who make that argument, which is a good one, in the UK also. However, others believe events have moved on from 40 years ago and believe its a time to reassess.

McDave wrote: »

The UK has no lien on the word 'sovereignty' which is widely understood across European societies. Neither are its citizens entitled to pontificate on dictatorship, their country having been an imperial power dictating terms to, for instance, India and Persia.

It is how it is understood in the UK which is, perhaps, more relevant to the people in the UK.

All free citizens, are as entitled to pontificate on whatever they choose to pontificate about, just as your are entitled to pontificate about what you think others should be allowed to pontificate about.

McDave wrote: »

As for the glib reference to Eastern Europeans in Ireland, well for starters most are from Central Europe. And most here work. There has been widespread abuse of the Irish welfare system across the board, set up as it was in recent times by a government intent on buying votes from any quarter, including welfare recipients, using taxpayers' money. The welfare system is slowly being reformed, and the most egregious abuses are being tackled. Most Irish people see this, and have not in the round converted latent frustration into endemic hostility to immigrants from accession states who come here to contribute.

But thanks anyway for pointing this out to us, and for patronising us about our lack of concern for a 'problem' you seem happy to stoke up.

This thread is about the UK and how the UK citizens are so anti-europe. While your views on the irish governments use of taxpayers money are interesting, they are not that relevant in a thread about the UK.

I don't make this thread personal and that you want to call me names here and try to make it personal is really your business. However, the irony of you patronising me by telling me I am patronising "us" did makes me smile.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

In the UK, many are concerned about sovereignty, by which is meant the ability to govern themselves. The EU is seen as ever expanding at the expense of the UK being able to govern itself, and being dictated to by the EU.

All member states have a veto on what competencies the EU may have. Hence the UK has democratically approved these "expansions" of the EU.

georgesstreet wrote: »

For example, the imposed lifting, in 2014, of restrictions for East Europeans has crystallised, in the minds of many, the concern that the UK is less and less powerful in the hands of an ever powerful and ever expanding EU.

The UK democratically approved the membership of these East European member states and hence that their citizens could avail of the right of freedom of movement to the UK. It has also democratically chosen to avail of the maximum allowed three temporary restrictions to that right. The last of those restrictions expire in a few months time (the last such restriction within the EU I believe as the other member states have already lifted their restrictions).

Hence the only body "imposing" anything on the UK is the democratically elected parliament of the UK.

It isn't an "EU problem" if a majority of the UK electorate elect politicians to parliament who democratically vote to approve such memberahip treaties and/or laws. Indeed it isn't a "UK problem" either save to the minority of the UK electorate who have difficulties accepting the democratic decision making of the UK's parliament.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

All member states have a veto on what competencies the EU may have. Hence the UK has democratically approved these "expansions" of the EU.



The UK democratically approved the membership of these East European member states and hence that their citizens could avail of the right of freedom of movement to the UK. It has also democratically chosen to avail of the maximum allowed three temporary restrictions to that right. The last of those restrictions expire in a few months time (the last such restriction within the EU I believe as the other member states have already lifted their restrictions).

Hence the only body "imposing" anything on the UK is the democratically elected parliament of the UK.

It isn't an "EU problem" if a majority of the UK electorate elect politicians to parliament who democratically vote to approve such memberahip treaties and/or laws. Indeed it isn't a "UK problem" either save to the minority of the UK electorate who have difficulties accepting the democratic decision making of the UK's parliament.

I am less convinced your arguments will sway those in the UK who seem to see it differently. The point of the proposed referendum is to see which view is in a minority and majority, and it would be a brave man who predicts, as you do, that it will be a minority who vote for change.

SpaceTime

The UK, Irish and Swedish governments also went above and beyond what the EU was doing with the previous accession state countries.
All other EU countries restricted migration from those countries temporally, but Ireland, the UK and Sweden granted them full access because at the time we needed migration to fill a construction jobs and other jobs we couldn't get people in to do.

So, to say that the EU's imposing anything / dictating anything on immigration is a bit hysterical to be honest. The UK could put its foot down on such issues if it wanted to.

On top of that, the UK is not part of the Schengen visa union which also makes me wonder why I keep hearing people in England going on about how the EU's responsible for non-EU migration into the UK. This is something entirely controlled by the UK's own border agencies and the Home Office.

I would also wonder if the non-Schengen status increases the number of asylum applications to the UK as when a Schengen visa is refused / entry to the Schengen area isn't granted, the applicant is then entitled to make a UK application separately and they process it separately where as they cannot re-apply to multiple different Schengen countries.

I just think to a large degree, the debate's become about British immigration policy rather than the EU when in a lot of cases the two issues aren't connected at all.

...

I would also add that the UK has a long history of local authorities, state bodies and various QANGOs using EU directives as an excuse to implement rather draconian laws. For example, the trading standards laws that went around prosecuting market stall holders for selling items in imperial units were blamed on the EU, when they were in fact British laws. All the EU required was that prices were also displayed in metric units. If you wanted to sell in Bushels and Hogsheads, that wasn't an issue as long as there was a metric equivalent noted too. But, the quango responsible went way too far and banned imperial units entirely resulting in "the Metric Martyrs" - local stall holders jailed for non-compliance.

Naturally enough, the tabloids blamed "Brussels".

I just think there's a lot of scape-goating the EU for stuff like that, or implementing incredibly draconian versions of EU directives without any flexibility when that wasn't ever required and when the implementation of them elsewhere in Europe is much less OTT.

...

The EU institutions themselves are not blameless in this either. Their communications are unbelievably bad. I find most EU documents absolutely unfathomable and they're often written in some kind of odd Eurospeak that results from second language English speakers speaking to other second language English speakers and completely butchering the language in the process.

The Brussels Bubble has a habit of communicating with itself far too much and doing it in a very academic way. I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that they recruit people who are trained in university with "European Studies" type courses and are primarily multilingual and very europhile in their approach to life anyway.

The could do with bringing in some non-Euro-trained people from their home countries and just letting them rip through the documentation and communications strategies and coming up with something tailor made for a UK, Irish, French, German etc audience rather than this bland Euro-nonsense that gets spewed a lot of the time.

The institutions have abstracted themselves from reality far too much and really do need to be brought back down to earth in a big way.

You shouldn't need a degree in european politics to understand what's going on, but that's almost the case at the moment.

The result of this is that you get stuff like a paper in the UK quoting some random nut job backbencher MEP who has called for some daft measure that will never be implemented and it's quoted as if it's EU policy.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

I am less convinced your arguments will sway those in the UK who seem to see it differently. The point of the proposed referendum is to see which view is in a minority and majority, and it would be a brave man who predicts, as you do, that it will be a minority who vote for change.

I am not predicting the outcome of any referendum - that will be up to the UK electorate should one be called.

The current problem for the opponents of the UK's EU membership is they can't command a majority within parliament hence they want to bypass it by having a referendum. Had they a majority within parliament they wouldn't need a referendum as they'd just vote the UK out of the EU straight away. If you note they aren't exactly rushing to hold referenda on the various opt-outs the UK has as they don't want such opt-out decisions put to the electorate as their position would suffer a severe blow were the UK electorate to vote to opt-in to Schengen for instance. Hence "the democratic will of the people" (in referenda) is only of interest to advance their position NEVER to risk it being called into question.

KindOfIrish

georgesstreet wrote: »

As someone who never reads the tabloid media, I must bow to your apparent superior knowledge of it. However, it is simply incorrect to claim that the issue is not discussed at every level in the UK, from the village shop, to workplaces and in parliament, and in meetings and debates across the land. The "it's all a tabloid media conspiracy guv" argument is transparently false.

It is a tabloid media conspiracy or rather individuals behind those tabloids.
Two main "problems" with EU: immigration and "loosing sovereignty". Both are totally invented by the above mentioned. Check figures from ONS (Office of national statistic UK):

1. Net immigration to UK for the year ended March 2012:
Non-EU: 260,000
EU: 76,000
It looks like EU (just 23%) is the list immigration problem in UK. We all know there the main problem lie (former colonies).

2. EU dictate

Just 6% of UK legislation is came from EU. And it's mainly about environment and protection of workers.

All this anti-EU bulls...t is a clear case of post-imperial syndrome, IMHO

SpaceTime

They also conveniently forget about the very large number of UK citizens living in other EU countries who could find themselves having to apply for visas and residency permits if the UK were to leave the EU.

Do they really want hundreds of thousands of pensioners trying to sell off properties in Spain and arriving back to the UK in negative equity to be a burden on the UK state?

There are 761,000 UK citizens permanently resident in Spain alone, another 200,000 in France, 100,000 in Germany, 291,000 in Ireland etc.

On a side issue (If you think Irish emigration to Australia's high, there are 1,300,000 UK citizens permanently resident there.. British emigration often goes unreported as it's not as emotive as in Ireland)

Or, to find that all of a sudden those people get granted residency in Spain, Portugal etc but get cut off healthcare as there's no longer any agreement due to the UK leaving the EU?

There are a lot of very serious positives of EU migration that the UK's benefiting from.

I'm not sure how the UK would cope if say 1m+ people (many of whom would be elderly) all suddenly got deported back to the UK which is the likely effect if the UK tried to do a similar move on EU citizens from Poland etc.

It's also getting access to a much larger pool of educated multi-lingual workers (we are too). If it weren't for EU membership, I could see the likes of Apple, Google etc re-thinking having support centres in Ireland and I am sure there are lots of companies in England taking similar advantage of the EU single labour market.

We couldn't possibly provide native-level language speakers in all the languages required by those companies, yet by our EU membership, we have them and they're paying income tax here and causing spin-off jobs to happen here too as those multinationals are more likely to stay and expand. The UK's not much different in that regard.

All those people are paying taxes in the UK if they're working there.

Then you've UK companies bidding other European public projects and doing very well at getting them too. That would be immediately gone and they'd be competing form the outside as if they were Japanese, South Korean etc.

What would happen to the City of London? A lot of companies are located there because it's a light-touch regulation centre, English-speaking but within the EU. Would they all be off to Dublin, Amsterdam, Luxembourg?

Also being in the EEA isn't a great situation at all. You've got to comply with ALL relevant EU directives and you have absolutely no part in creating or modifying them. At present, the UK has a huge part in that and has a lot of power due to its size within the EU. It's the 2nd biggest EU country and a net contributor to the budget, which should give it enormous power similar to Germany, yet it mostly opts to use the power of the 'huff' instead of engaging.

All I see at the moment is a very one way debate as if EU citizens only emigrate to the UK and as if UK citizens only go on holidays to other EU countries and spend lots of money in their economies. The reality's far from that.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

The current problem for the opponents of the UK's EU membership is they can't command a majority within parliament hence they want to bypass it by having a referendum. Had they a majority within parliament they wouldn't need a referendum as they'd just vote the UK out of the EU straight away. If you note they aren't exactly rushing to hold referenda on the various opt-outs the UK has as they don't want such opt-out decisions put to the electorate as their position would suffer a severe blow were the UK electorate to vote to opt-in to Schengen for instance. Hence "the democratic will of the people" (in referenda) is only of interest to advance their position NEVER to risk it being called into question.

It is the Prime minister who has called the referendum.

Sometimes parliamentarians actually do the right thing, and realise an issue is of such importance that it needs a referendum. It's not a matter of "needing " a referendum, but desiring one. The issue in the UK is blowing up into a political pressure cooker and the referendum is designed to be the valve which lets the steam out and reduces the pressure.

SpaceTime

Well, all that will really happen is the referendum will be pushed out further, the UKIP and other parties like that will split the Conservative Party's vote even more so.

Remember: it couldn't even form a majority government last time, so it doesn't have much hope this time. The Tories have shot themselves in the foot on a number of normal issues i.e. being too elitist, the expenses scandals, etc etc so their vote will be down anyway. Also, just people are fed up with them in general as they're in office too long now.

So, what will quite likely happen is that unless Labour manage to shoot themselves in both feet simultaneously, they'll be back in power and this whole issue will be put to bed again much like it was in the 1990s in John Major's era.

I think you'll also see a lot of floating voters switch Lib Dem back to Labour having been rather disappointed with Clegg and having forgotten about how Blair went from all enthusiasm and hype to pure spin, control and jumping into various wars by the end of his last term.

So, I would rather suspect this whole Euro-spat will be just that and confined to the history of the Tory back bench squabbles which is where it usually comes from.

georgesstreet

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, all that will really happen is the referendum will be pushed out further, the UKIP and other parties like that will split the Conservative Party's vote even more so.

Remember: it couldn't even form a majority government last time, so it doesn't have much hope this time. The Tories have shot themselves in the foot on a number of normal issues i.e. being too elitist, the expenses scandals, etc etc so their vote will be down anyway. Also, just people are fed up with them in general as they're in office too long now.

So, what will quite likely happen is that unless Labour manage to shoot themselves in both feet simultaneously, they'll be back in power and this whole issue will be put to bed again much like it was in the 1990s in John Major's era.

I think you'll also see a lot of floating voters switch Lib Dem back to Labour having been rather disappointed with Clegg and having forgotten about how Blair went from all enthusiasm and hype to pure spin, control and jumping into various wars by the end of his last term.

So, I would rather suspect this whole Euro-spat will be just that and confined to the history of the Tory back bench squabbles which is where it usually comes from.

While all your predictions are interesting, they are merely guesses.

SpaceTime

True, but they're educated guesses based on observing opinion poll trends.

Miliband however could manage to be pretty unelectable, even with good party polling.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

I am less convinced your arguments will sway those in the UK who seem to see it differently.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that the UK - England in particular - see it differently. What we're discussing is why they do.

So far, no evidence or even cogent argument has been given other than it being a product of historical xenophobia, that has been further promoted by popular media.

Or are you going to suggest that the British (believe they) have a better grasp of democracy than other Europeans, as was earlier suggested here and, ironically, in doing so further underline the xenophobia argument?

georgesstreet wrote: »

While all your predictions are interesting, they are merely guesses.

A bit of an ironic accusation, given the serving of speculation and unsupported opinion you supplied earlier:

georgesstreet wrote: »

It seems to me that there is a view in Ireland that to criticise is to be against something. This is, I think, a cultural difference between Ireland and the UK.

In Ireland many will recognise that often people say "yes" when they mean no and only at the last minute you will learn, often by osmosis, that "yes" in fact meant "no" all along. In, for example, the USA and the UK generally speaking people are more direct and will say "no" at the outset and not waste ones time.

Sometimes in Ireland it is thought that its better to be "nice" and not to say "no" and not to criticise.

Consequently, in ireland it is thought to criticise is to be against something, whereas in the UK it is often the case that one only criticises the things one actually cares about, in the hope of making it better.

I don't agree that the british are any more anti europe than any other nations, but its just they may be more vocal with their criticisms. I'd bet that if a vote were taken , the UK and Ireland would have similar numbers of citizens pro and con.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

It is the Prime minister who has called the referendum.

The Prime Minister hasn't called any referendum. He has said he would favour one subject to criteria which would have to be met (e.g. The other member states re-negotiate T&Cs of the UK's EU membership).

georgesstreet wrote: »

Sometimes parliamentarians actually do the right thing, and realise an issue is of such importance that it needs a referendum. It's not a matter of "needing " a referendum, but desiring one. The issue in the UK is blowing up into a political pressure cooker and the referendum is designed to be the valve which lets the steam out and reduces the pressure.

Parliamentarians just decided NOT to support a private member's bill on a referendum. I doubt many of them would do so were this a "pressure cooker" issue.

I await the calls for a referendum to determine the will of the UK electorate on the issue of the UK joining Schengen. Odd that "referendum democracy" only applies one way (I.e. out), isn't it?

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think that anyone disagrees that the UK - England in particular - see it differently. What we're discussing is why they do.

So far, no evidence or even cogent argument has been given other than it being a product of historical xenophobia, that has been further promoted by popular media.

Or are you going to suggest that the British (believe they) have a better grasp of democracy than other Europeans, as was earlier suggested here and, ironically, in doing so further underline the xenophobia argument?

If you want to believe the british question how they are governed because of historical xenophobia, then that's what you believe.

I make no suggestions as to what the british believe, as I imagine the british believe many different things, and don't all believe the same things.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

The Prime Minister hasn't called any referendum. He has said he would favour one subject to criteria which would have to be met (e.g. The other member states re-negotiate T&Cs of the UK's EU membership).

Renegotiation is not on the cards, and the only way to renegotiate is to invoke article 50. Or that's my understanding as it currently stands.

View wrote: »

Parliamentarians just decided NOT to support a private member's bill on a referendum. I doubt many of them would do so were this a "pressure cooker" issue.

Your doubts are your own. Of course no one is going to support a referendum now, that would be preposterous, The whole position is to have one in the future as an attempt to put pressure on the EU in the meantime.

View wrote: »

I await the calls for a referendum to determine the will of the UK electorate on the issue of the UK joining Schengen. Odd that "referendum democracy" only applies one way (I.e. out), isn't it?

As you ask, it is not at all odd that the UK is to be asked if it wants to be ruled from Brussels or London, which is what they will be asked. I dont imagine the ballot paper will put it in the terms you suggest.

SpaceTime

Nor does anyone else.

However, there is a unique set of circumstances in the UK, particularly with the way the tabloid media covers certain issues around Europe, immigration etc etc.

I have read a few objective reports on this which formed the basis of thesis and other academic papers and there is definitely a major difference with how coverage tends to happen there in a very large section of the press.

It undoubtedly plays a big factor. Just watch what happens when there is a referendum. I can almost 100% guarantee you that the red tops will quite overtly back an exit vote.

I don't think many other countries have such an overtly politicised press to be honest. It's usually at least a bit more subtle!

It should never have been the case that certain major tabloids were supporting one party or the other or backing things in elections. They're meant to be reporting the news, and instead they've been setting the political agenda on many issues for years and that's really not how it should operate in an ideal democratic situation. It's more like what happens in Italy than in most of Northern Europe (including Ireland).

I know many people in the UK who are very quick to criticise and poke fun at Fox News, but they've a print media that's really no different or even worse in many respects. There's very little objectivity at all in the UK red tops and they don't even pretend to be fair and balanced.

Not many countries have papers that run headlines like :

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00369/The_Sun_14755053_369401j.jpg

They've a long, long history of stuff like that and randomly making up nonsense about EU directives dictating non-bendy bananas etc.

georgesstreet

SpaceTime wrote: »

Nor does anyone else.

However, there is a unique set of circumstances in the UK, particularly with the way the tabloid media covers certain issues around Europe.

I have read a few objective reports on this which formed the basis of thesis and other academic papers and there is definitely a major difference with how coverage tends to happen there in a very large section of the press.

It undoubtedly plays a big factor. Just watch what happens when there is a referendum. I can almost 100% guarantee you that the red tops will quite overtly back an exit vote.

I know many people in the UK who are very quick to criticise and poke fun at Fox News, but they've a print media that's really no different or even worse in many respects. There's very little objectivity at all in the UK red tops and they don't even pretend to be fair and balanced

I am afraid I dont read the tabloid press nor do I own a television set so have never seen fox news. however, if mr Murdock or anyone else wants to pay for a tv station and others want to watch it, then in a free democracy thats what we support. I choose not to read the tabloids or fox news, and we are free to make those choices also.

SpaceTime wrote: »

N
It should never have been the case that certain major tabloids were supporting one party or the other or backing things in elections. They're meant to be reporting the news, and instead they've been setting the political agenda on many issues for years and that's really not how it should operate in an ideal democratic situation. It's more like what happens in Italy than in most of Northern Europe (including Ireland).

.

I don't see why you get to decide what a private company chooses to put into its publications. If you want to set up and run your own newspaper, then you get to decide if its meant to be reporting the news, or supporting investigations into aliens, or whatever you want.

I am afraid you are simply wrong. In a democracy my newspapers should operate exactly as I want them to, your newspapers should operate as you want them to, and no one in a democracy should be able to dictate to either of us what we choose to put in our own newspapers.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you want to believe the british question how they are governed because of historical xenophobia, then that's what you believe.

Well, so far it's the only theory that's been put forward that has any evidence supporting it whatsoever. So it's not simply a matter of opinion or faith why I might tend to support this view.

Of course, you may believe something else, but you've hardly made a very cogent case for it, and that's a pity, because why the UK has been historically more eurosceptic is actually quite important.

Knowing why, may reveal important critical flaws in the EU or conversely in that eurosceptic reasoning.

I make no suggestions as to what the british believe, as I imagine the british believe many different things, and don't all believe the same things.

Now, that's not true; you've made a number of suggestions as to their reasoning, such as "events have moved on from 40 years ago and believe its a time to reassess".

Indeed, isn't that the whole point of this thread? As you put it yourself, "about the UK and how the UK citizens are so anti-europe"?

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

Renegotiation is not on the cards, and the only way to renegotiate is to invoke article 50. Or that's my understanding as it currently stands.

The Prime Minister does not appear to share that understanding as that is what he prefers.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Your doubts are your own. Of course no one is going to support a referendum now, that would be preposterous,

A minority within parliament did just that.

georgesstreet wrote: »

The whole position is to have one in the future as an attempt to put pressure on the EU in the meantime.

Again a minority position within parliament.

georgesstreet wrote: »

As you ask, it is not at all odd that the UK is to be asked if it wants to be ruled from Brussels or London, which is what they will be asked. I dont imagine the ballot paper will put it in the terms you suggest.

Or in other words, the UK electorate will be denied the opportunity to make democratic decisions on whether or not to opt-in to Schengen etc.

In other words, Parliament's democratic decisions are only "undemocratic" when they don't support the Euro-sceptic position but should not be put to the UK electorate otherwise.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

And there are many who make that argument, which is a good one, in the UK also. However, others believe events have moved on from 40 years ago and believe its a time to reassess.

Maybe it's time for British people to move on from their WW2 mindset. Most others have.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

This thread is about the UK and how the UK citizens are so anti-europe. While your views on the irish governments use of taxpayers money are interesting, they are not that relevant in a thread about the UK.

*You* brought Ireland into this part of the discussion.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't see why you get to decide what a private company chooses to put into its publications. If you want to set up and run your own newspaper, then you get to decide if its meant to be reporting the news, or supporting investigations into aliens, or whatever you want.

I am afraid you are simply wrong. In a democracy my newspapers should operate exactly as I want them to, your newspapers should operate as you want them to, and no one in a democracy should be able to dictate to either of us what we choose to put in our own newspapers.

I think you'll find that were a newspaper to start publishing a constant barrage of anti-Semitic or racist "news" coverage that the courts and parliament would have a lot to say about that matter.

It isn't just up to you to decide what to publish. Society and parliament has a say on that and the wishes of a single person don't trump democratic decisions.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't make this thread personal and that you want to call me names here and try to make it personal is really your business. However, the irony of you patronising me by telling me I am patronising "us" did makes me smile.

'Patronising' was indeed the word I used.

Here's your text again:

In Ireland, it seems to be different, and there seems to be little concern for the numbers of East Europeans who come to Ireland as “benefit tourists” and who benefit from a generous welfare system, the costs of which are paid by the Irish people.

It's clear to me that you're explicitly criticising Irish people for being somehow slack or indifferent on 'benefit tourism' and to the 'numbers of East Europeans' who come here. It's also clear to me that this is an incitement, however bland, against EU citizens who are entitled to seek work here, and who in the main do.

I'm calling *you* on your statement, as you are the person making it. If you see it as personalising affairs, that's your problem.

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, so far it's the only theory that's been put forward that has any evidence supporting it whatsoever. So it's not simply a matter of opinion or faith why I might tend to support this view.

Of course, you may believe something else, but you've hardly made a very cogent case for it, and that's a pity, because why the UK has been historically more eurosceptic is actually quite important.

Perhaps its more important what the british will actually do, as presumably they believe a number of different things and not all british people believe the same things.

I don’t need to make a case for what I believe, as my own beliefs are not really relevant.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now, that's not true; you've made a number of suggestions as to their reasoning, such as "events have moved on from 40 years ago and believe its a time to reassess".

Indeed, isn't that the whole point of this thread? As you put it yourself, "about the UK and how the UK citizens are so anti-europe"?

If you think events have not moved on for the british since the original vote to enter the Common market, than that’s a view. I don’t think its one many british people would share with you, incidentally.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

Or in other words, the UK electorate will be denied the opportunity to make democratic decisions on whether or not to opt-in to Schengen etc.

In other words, Parliament's democratic decisions are only "undemocratic" when they don't support the Euro-sceptic position but should not be put to the UK electorate otherwise.

I don't think anyone would deny there is a crises of democracy in the west, with many parliaments being held in contempt, few young voters even bothering to follow the process yet alone vote, and with disillusionment amongst many.

I dont know why you should claim some of parliaments decisions are undemocratic, which seems to be a novel view.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

I think you'll find that were a newspaper to start publishing a constant barrage of anti-Semitic or racist "news" coverage that the courts and parliament would have a lot to say about that matter.

It isn't just up to you to decide what to publish. Society and parliament has a say on that and the wishes of a single person don't trump democratic decisions.

Again, you are simply incorrect on your last point.

Certainly, some things are against the law, and all publications are not permitted to break the law. Anti semitism and racism would both fall under that category.

I am afraid it is exactly up to me what I want to print in my newspaper (so long as it is not against the law), and the same goes for you and that nice Mr Murdock. That's democracy.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don’t need to make a case for what I believe, as my own beliefs are not really relevant.

Actually you do. You've already stated your own beliefs - your opinions - on numerous occasions in this discussion; for example your view on how the Irish are far more passive than the British or other anglophone nations, where it comes to speaking out. So, given all you are posting is based upon your own beliefs, then they're very relevant indeed and thus you do need to make a case for them.

Unless you're just soapboxing, that is. If so, then you're really just wasting people's time here with propaganda and not engaging in meaningful debate.

I don’t think its one many british people would share with you, incidentally.

Is this another one of your irrelevant beliefs than you need not make a case for?

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

Again, you are simply incorrect on your last point.

Certainly, some things are against the law, and all publications are not permitted to break the law. Anti semitism and racism would both fall under that category.

I am afraid it is exactly up to me what I want to print in my newspaper (so long as it is not against the law), and the same goes for you and that nice Mr Murdock. That's democracy.

Or in other words, NO you are not free to just do as you like. And it is the democratic decisions of others who set those boundaries on your freedom to print "whatever you like". Hence your previous claim is just wrong.

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you do. You've already stated your own beliefs - your opinions - on numerous occasions in this discussion; for example your view on how the Irish are far more passive than the British or other anglophone nations, where it comes to speaking out. So, given all you are posting is based upon your own beliefs, then they're very relevant indeed and thus you do need to make a case for them.

Unless you're just soapboxing, that is. If so, then you're really just wasting people's time here with propaganda and not engaging in meaningful debate.

Is this another one of your irrelevant beliefs than you need not make a case for?

It's an opinion and one which you are quite at liberty to ignore, and given in context. I don't have a set of beliefs, but do have opinions.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

Or in other words, NO you are not free to just do as you like. And it is the democratic decisions of others who set those boundaries on your freedom to print "whatever you like". Hence your previous claim is just wrong.

I've already said that I am free to put whatever I want in my own newspaper, within the law. Perhaps you missed where I said that.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

It's an opinion and one which you are quite at liberty to ignore, and given in context. I don't have a set of beliefs, but do have opinions.

So you're soapboxing; preaching your 'opinions', but unwilling to defend those 'opinions' in open discussion, which is the purpose of this forum, not as a pulpit.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't think anyone would deny there is a crises of democracy in the west,

That is a highly speculative opinion and not one that most people seem willing to act upon in practice.

georgesstreet wrote: »

with many parliaments being held in contempt, few young voters even bothering to follow the process yet alone vote, and with disillusionment amongst many.

It is the responsibility and perogative of VOTERS to change their political system and/or politicians should they so choose. "Democracy in the west" gives them that choice, hence the "crisis of democracy" would appear to boil down to the voters choosing the current system.

georgesstreet wrote: »

I dont know why you should claim some of parliaments decisions are undemocratic, which seems to be a novel view.

If you note I used double quotes - "democratic" - in my post. In other words, for Eurosceptics, decisions by parliament cease to be democratic decisions when parliament makes decisions they disagree with as their assumption is that parliament, and not Euro-sceptics that, holds the minority view in that case. Minor issues like they failing to have a majority in parliament are dismissed by them whereas, to any normal person, it would point to an unwillingness by the electorate to vote for their views and/or preferred candidates.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

I've already said that I am free to put whatever I want in my own newspaper, within the law. Perhaps you missed where I said that.

Not at all but that is a fundamental shift on your previous position. Should parliament follow the example of the US on media ownership, where majority ownership is restricted to (solely) US citizens, Mr Murdoch would probably not be able to own UK papers much less publish what he wants. And that would be a fairly fundamental democratic limit on the freedom of his actions.

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you're soapboxing; preaching your 'opinions', but unwilling to defend those 'opinions' in open discussion, which is the purpose of this forum, not as a pulpit.

Preaching? eh, I don't think so. What a curious word to choose. It's a discussion forum, and I am discussing. Having read through many posts here, I seem to be engaging with others on my opinions as much if not more than others.

It's an interesting subject and not one where one can prove it one way or another, or at least I find it interesting.

georgesstreet

View wrote: »

Not at all but that is a fundamental shift on your previous position. Should parliament follow the example of the US on media ownership, where majority ownership is restricted to (solely) US citizens, Mr Murdoch would probably not be able to own UK papers much less publish what he wants. And that would be a fairly fundamental democratic limit on the freedom of his actions.

Its not actually a shift on my previous opinion, and if you think my previous opinion was that anyone is free to break the law, then that was never my opinion. The law is the law.

I think american law is often an ass, but have no opinion as to whether the UK should follow the US example. My experience is the UK press is more diverse, more interesting and more representative than the US press, but am also aware that the press ( as in newspapers) days are numbered, knowing that no one under 35 has ever bought a newspaper, so what happens with the printed media is less and less relevant.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

Preaching? eh, I don't think so. What a curious word to choose. It's a discussion forum, and I am discussing.

You're not discussing. You're stating your opinion (which incidentally is a belief) and refusing to debate or defend it. That's soapboxing.