Why are the British so anti Europe?

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

You have changed the question, you are now asking, why was the requirement included in text of the EEA agreement.

Essentially that is the question I'm seeking an answer. Why is it a requirement at all, whether it is a requirement of the EEA or a requirement of the EU? My apologies if I was not clear.

Pretty much the entire text of the EEA agreement shows that the position of the EU member states and the EFTA EEA states is different, for example.

From the text of the EEA agreement:
Article 126.1
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.

Well this is just establishing the overall area of the treaty. It is simply shorthand for all the individual states making up the treaty area. It does not establish the EU as one party and the three states as another either individually or collectively.

The issue with Croatia appears to have been resolved, the 2014 enlargement has been agreed:
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea-enlargement/2014/Agreement-signatures.pdf

I think the problem was with ratification rather than the initial agreement. But whether or not they are now officially members of the EEA, the delay does show that Croatia are individual members of the EEA in their own right and not merely as members of the EU.

Here's what Norway said on completion of negotiations with Croatia:

– The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian business. The agreement ensures market access for Norwegian businesses equal to those of EU Member States. At the same time, the extension of the EEA Grants will strengthen contact and cooperation between Norway and Croatia, says Vidar Helgesen, Minister for EEA and EU Affairs at the Office of the Prime Minister.

The Norwegian PM says "The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian busines". In other words access to Croatia depends on Croatia being in the EEA. It does not depend on Croatia simply being in the EU. If what you and View were saying was correct, this would not be the case. It means that the EEA itself ensures market access between the various EEA countries, both inside and out of the EU. It is not merely an extension of the EU's internal market to three external countries but rather it is an agreement in its own right between a large number of countries regardless of their EU status. Although the same rules apply as they apply to EU countries trading with other, the rules are implemented separately but in parallel by the EEA members.

kult

McDave wrote: »

Demonstrate how "EU works exactly like old soviet" (as you assert).

It's already obvious you know precious little about "living through communism".

Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas. Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism. Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules. Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state... Btw: I lived in communism for 15 years ( long time ago when probably you weren't even born ) in Eastern Europe when my parents moved there for a contract work. I know exactly how it works.

oscarBravo

kult wrote: »

Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes"...

I'll ask again, since you ignored my previous question: do you have a source for this EU saying this?

Or are you just inventing stuff to get annoyed about?

kult

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll ask again, since you ignored my previous question: do you have a source for this EU saying this?

Or are you just inventing stuff to get annoyed about?

Irish people said no, EU did not respect and accept democratic result and made irish vote again... is this a freedom, is this democracy? No, this is the way soviet union used to work, exactly the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AuNFBUBYCY

oscarBravo

kult wrote: »

Irish people say no, EU did not respect and accept democratic result and made irish vote again...

The EU didn't make Ireland vote again. Stop making stuff up, you're embarrassing yourself.

kult

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU didn't make Ireland vote again. Stop making stuff up, you're embarrassing yourself.

Actually Germans and French made Irish Government do referendum again. Because Ireland like other countries in EU is just a state with no independence anymore... If you knew recent history and follow and watch EU closely then you would stop embarrassing yourself now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AuNFBUBYCY watch this and then talk

meglome

Your post is absolute nonsense.

kult wrote: »

Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth

kult wrote: »

Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism.

So why do you think the first vote was okay and the second one wasn't? Both were the democratic will of the Irish electorate at the time. How can having more democratic votes be less democratic... it makes no sense.

kult wrote: »

Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules.

Will I wait for the list? Though I probably won't wait since these figures only exist in your head. But let's pretend that these figures are correct for a second... all these politicians were voted in by the people of Europe, either directly or indirectly. How can that not be completely democratic?

kult wrote: »

Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state...

I was going to point out how this is crap but I really can't be bothered. As Oscarbravo said you're angry about stuff that isn't real or isn't happening. I come in and defend the EU because I remember what a backward inward looking ****hole this country was before the EU helped drag us out of it.

kult

meglome wrote: »

Your post is absolute nonsense.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth

it was not a myth, it was the truth, then they have changed it, not many people remember that about 8 years ago...



So why do you think the first vote was okay and the second one wasn't? Both were the democratic will of the Irish electorate at the time. How can having more democratic votes be less democratic... it makes no sense.

- it was a referendum and 1 is enough, they did not respect irish vote, and if the second was YES so why not to have 3rd one? it has no sense at all, and there will be no 3rd referendum because EU achieved what they wanted to achieve, take irish independnece

Will I wait for the list? Though I probably won't wait since these figures only exist in your head. But let's pretend that these figures are correct for a second... all these politicians were voted in by the people of Europe, either directly or indirectly. How can that not be completely democratic?

- if you know the rules of democracy they you would not ask this ridiculous question, also other counties had no referendum about lisbon treaty at all, is that democratic ? Why they did not respect irish NO for the first time? SO lets have referendums, even 20 of them just to get the result EU want?

I was going to point out how this is crap but I really can't be bothered. As Oscarbravo said you're angry about stuff that isn't real or isn't happening. I come in and defend the EU because I remember what a backward inward looking ****hole this country was before the EU helped drag us out of it.

I have been following this red organization for over 20 years, each year something changes or they try to hide things like with bananas... People then search in google or wikilinks which are controlled by some people. People cannot think independently anymore... This is the main issue. Have your EU, we cant even control our borders anymore, we do not have own currency, and we call ourselves independent... I have read lisbon treaty, read it and also read EU political program, then read Mein Kampf political program, then compare, but in order to compare you need to open your eyes wide...

btw "unfollow" you are too narrow minded to understand basic facts and realize what is going on. Keep living in your dream. And remember, we are independent, they said that on TV so it must be true...

gallag

To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again and promised that if the vote did not go the right way the country would be finished!

McDave

kult wrote: »

Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas.

Beyond nonsensical.

McDave

kult wrote: »

Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas. Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism. Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules. Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state.... Btw: I lived in communism for 15 years ( long time ago when probably you weren't even born ) in Eastern Europe when my parents moved there for a contract work. I know exactly how it works.

Well, I've read Mein Kampf and am well able to discuss it on its (de)merits, but IMO your simplistic contentions are formulaic anti-EU rubbish.

And I simply don't believe you've lived in a Communist country, let alone paid attention to how the putative host society worked in comparison to democratic EU countries.

Seems to me you're just spoofing.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

Essentially that is the question I'm seeking an answer. Why is it a requirement at all, whether it is a requirement of the EEA or a requirement of the EU? My apologies if I was not clear.

Presumably is included in the EEA text to ensure that the EFTA EEA countries are consulted when the single market expands.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well this is just establishing the overall area of the treaty. It is simply shorthand for all the individual states making up the treaty area. It does not establish the EU as one party and the three states as another either individually or collectively.

It does mean that if the UK left the EU it would no longer be part of the territory described and so no longer be part of the territories where the EEA applies.

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think the problem was with ratification rather than the initial agreement. But whether or not they are now officially members of the EEA, the delay does show that Croatia are individual members of the EEA in their own right and not merely as members of the EU.

No, just shows it took longer than expected for the expansion to be agreed.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Here's what Norway said on completion of negotiations with Croatia:

– The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian business. The agreement ensures market access for Norwegian businesses equal to those of EU Member States.

Note the wording is "expansion of the agreement", there is no mention of Croatia becoming a "member of the EEA".

dlouth15 wrote: »

In other words access to Croatia depends on Croatia being in the EEA.

Your choice of words suggests that Norwegian business could not do business with Croatia without the expansion of the EEA, when of course they have access. The EEA enlargement just means Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein's access is to Croatia is equal to those of EU Member States."

dlouth15 wrote: »

It means that the EEA itself ensures market access between the various EEA countries, both inside and out of the EU.

If the EEA agreement were torn up, the the single market would continue just without the three EFTA EEA countries.
So it only ensures the single market access for the three EFTA EEA countries.

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

Presumably is included in the EEA text to ensure that the EFTA EEA countries are consulted when the single market expands.

It does mean that if the UK left the EU it would no longer be part of the territory described and so no longer be part of the territories where the EEA applies.

However the UK is currently part of the EEA territory and would remain so if it left the EU. Therefore membership is unaffected.

No, just shows it took longer than expected for the expansion to be agreed.

Although I think the problem was with ratification, it does not really matter to the argument.

Note the wording is "expansion of the agreement", there is no mention of Croatia becoming a "member of the EEA".

You are just playing with words here.

Your choice of words suggests that Norwegian business could not do business with Croatia without the expansion of the EEA, when of course they have access. The EEA enlargement just means Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein's access is to Croatia is equal to those of EU Member States."

Why does expansion of the EEA to an already EU member matter here if as has been maintained, Croatia is only an EEA member by virtue of its EU membership? If the EEA agreement is between the EU and particular external states, then Croatia's EU membership would be sufficient.

If the EEA agreement were torn up, the the single market would continue just without the three EFTA EEA countries.
So it only ensures the single market access for the three EFTA EEA countries.

Likewise if the EU were dissolved, former EU countries could still trade with each other on the basis of the EEA agreement. And with the three non-EU, EEA members.

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again and promised that if the vote did not go the right way the country would be finished!

Can you link to show who and where this bullying or threatening happened?
It's pretty reasonable that the rest of EU who did agree the treaty would ask what exactly we wanted changing and why they should all change the treaty just to suit us, especially when there was no coherent argument from the No side.

With democracy comes responsibility. There seems to be a view that there should be no consequences to any vote the Irish electorate take. There are even if the Irish electorate have and do ignore them...

Vote in Fianna Fail -> populist policies that caused economic ruin repeatedly
Vote against abortion -> Women go to UK to get abortion. Women die in our hospitals because of no treatment.
Vote against divorce -> People trapped in potentially violent relationships they don't want.

You seem to be suggesting that there should have been no consequences to our Lisbon No vote, and that the rest of the EU should simply tear it up and stop moving forward because 53% of 53% of less then 1% of the EU population should dictate progress. That is a profoundly undemocratic view of the world. The other members of the EU have rights too and the right to move on with or without us. If we didn't want to move on we could have voted No again, the logical consequence being our seceding from the EU - our choice. That's not bullying, its a fact of life. As it turned out the other member states graciously gave us a number of assurances on items raised during the referendum (unneeded, but a figleaf for the Irish Electorate).

oscarBravo

kult wrote: »

Actually Germans and French made Irish Government do referendum again.

Actually, they didn't. Repeating the same tritely stupid myths several times won't make them true.

Because Ireland like other countries in EU is just a state with no independence anymore...

Ireland, like all the other EU member states, is a sovereign country.

If you knew recent history and follow and watch EU closely then you would stop embarrassing yourself now.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would produce something more substantial than a video of Nigel Farage running his mouth as evidence.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again...

As someone who followed both referendum campaigns closely, I say no evidence of bullying or threatening.

I saw plenty of rampant abuse of the word "bullying" to mean "arguments I disagree with", but that I took as a symptom of an inability to counter those arguments.

comongethappy

oscarBravo wrote: »

As someone who followed both referendum campaigns closely, I say no evidence of bullying or threatening.

I saw plenty of rampant abuse of the word "bullying" to mean "arguments I disagree with", but that I took as a symptom of an inability to counter those arguments.

Indeed.

The bullying I say was the hysteria of the fringe parties.....

The vote passed & I have yet to be conscripted & forced to have a mandatory abortion.

What gives?

meglome

comongethappy wrote: »

Indeed.

The bullying I say was the hysteria of the fringe parties.....

The vote passed & I have yet to be conscripted & forced to have a mandatory abortion.

What gives?

It's actually funny. Someone posted (can't recall who) a breakdown of what Sinn Fein had claimed at each referendum on the EU, even when we joined. It was pretty much exactly the same thing each time, none of which has come to pass. How stupid are people. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the EU does but it should indicate it's time to stop listening to people who have been repeatedly and utterly wrong about the EU.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

However the UK is currently part of the EEA territory and would remain so if it left the EU. Therefore membership is unaffected.

Where does the EEA agreement say that?

dlouth15 wrote: »

You are just playing with words here.

I'd be very happy for you to point out any mentions in the EEA agreement of "members of the EEA" or "membership of EEA".

dlouth15 wrote: »

Why does expansion of the EEA to an already EU member matter here if as has been maintained, Croatia is only an EEA member by virtue of its EU membership? If the EEA agreement is between the EU and particular external states, then Croatia's EU membership would be sufficient.

I don't have a different answer to this since the last time you asked.
EU membership is not sufficient because the EEA agreement says so.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Likewise if the EU were dissolved, former EU countries could still trade with each other on the basis of the EEA agreement. And with the three non-EU, EEA members.

Really? which court would adjudicate in a dispute between Portugal and Poland?

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

Where does the EEA agreement say that?

The Uk is listed as a signatory of the agreement. Therefore it is in the area covered by the agreement. Where does it say in the agreement that the UK or any EU member must leave the EEA if it leaves the EU?

I'd be very happy for you to point out any mentions in the EEA agreement of "members of the EEA" or "membership of EEA".

And so from this you conclude that there's no such thing as a member of the EEA, that the EEA has no member states? You are being silly here with your nit picking.

I don't have a different answer to this since the last time you asked.
EU membership is not sufficient because the EEA agreement says so.

Correct. And the reason for this requirement is because the EU states are members of the EEA in their own right. Which in turn means that membership is not contingent on membership of the EU. You have not provided any other answer to the question as to why it is a requirement.

Really? which court would adjudicate in a dispute between Portugal and Poland?

They would have to set up their own system of adjudication. But the agreement in other respects would still remain. It would still be an agreement under international law.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

The Uk is listed as a signatory of the agreement.

True

dlouth15 wrote: »

Therefore it is in the area covered by the agreement.

The area covered by the agreement is the EU + the three EEA EFTA countries.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Where does it say in the agreement that the UK or any EU member must leave the EEA if it leaves the EU?

AFAIK It is not explicitly stated, but if the UK leaves the EU but refused to to negotiate an exit from the EEA agreement, it would be a legal anomaly and become unenforcible in relation to the UK.

dlouth15 wrote: »

And so from this you conclude that there's no such thing as a member of the EEA, that the EEA has no member states? You are being silly here with your nit picking.

Your argument is that EEA is separate from the EU with the term "member of the EEA" when in reality the EEA is mechanism for EFTA countries to opt in to some of the EUs arrangements.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Correct. And the reason for this requirement is because the EU states are members of the EEA in their own right.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the concept of "EU states are members of the EEA in their own right" exists.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Which in turn means that membership is not contingent on membership of the EU.

It is contingent on membership of either the EU or the EFTA.

dlouth15 wrote: »

You have not provided any other answer to the question as to why it is a requirement.

You are asking me to explain the thoughts of some Norwegian civil servant or whoever it was asked for it to be induced in the EEA agreement. I don't see why you would expect me to be able to give a definitive answer to that question.

dlouth15 wrote: »

They would have to set up their own system of adjudication. But the agreement in other respects would still remain. It would still be an agreement under international law.

So it would not be "on the basis of the EEA agreement." but on the basis of a new agreement which sets up new institutions, since the existing agreement only covers EU and EFTA countries.

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

True

The area covered by the agreement is the EU + the three EEA EFTA countries.

Exactly. And if the UK leave the EU they are still in that same area.

AFAIK It is not explicitly stated, but if the UK leaves the EU but refused to to negotiate an exit from the EEA agreement, it would be a legal anomaly and become unenforcible in relation to the UK.

Why is it unenforcible? The UK would still have the same rights and responsibilities under the EEA as it had before the exit and its relationship to the other EEA countries remains unchanged.

Your argument is that EEA is separate from the EU with the term "member of the EEA" when in reality the EEA is mechanism for EFTA countries to opt in to some of the EUs arrangements.

Member of the EEA is just another way of saying signatory of the treaty or party to the agreement. The mechanism is such that the EEA itself adopts EU laws and enforces them itself among all the EEA countries including EU ones. This has the effect of extending EU rules to the non-EU members.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the concept of "EU states are members of the EEA in their own right" exists.

The fact that each member, not merely the EFTA countries are individual signatories to the agreement is evidence they are members in their own right.

The fact that that EEA laws apply equally to all EEA members regardless of EU membership is also evidence of that.

The fact that Norway needs Croatia to be a member of the EEA not merely the EU in order to trade under EEA rules with Croatia is further evidence of that.

It is contingent on membership of either the EU or the EFTA.

Where does it say that. Yes, it is mentioned that countries happen to be either EU or EFTA, but where is it stipulated that if a country ceases to be either, then it ceases to be a member of the EEA?

You are asking me to explain the thoughts of some Norwegian civil servant or whoever it was asked for it to be induced in the EEA agreement. I don't see why you would expect me to be able to give a definitive answer to that question.

Well it was authorized by the PM of Norway if not written by the PM. I would regard the government of Norway as being knowledgeable on these matters.

So it would not be "on the basis of the EEA agreement." but on the basis of a new agreement which sets up new institutions, since the existing agreement only covers EU and EFTA countries.

The agreement would still exist. Yes it would run into problems if a dispute arose. The setting up of a judicial authority would involve an amendment to the treaty and agreement among the parties.

Ignoring whether the UK oustide of the EU might or might not be a member of the EEA or EFTA automatically:
What are the practical requirements of being a non-EU member of the EEA and/or the EFTA?

dlouth15

Deleted User wrote: »

Ignoring whether the UK oustide of the EU might or might not be a member of the EEA or EFTA automatically:
What are the practical requirements of being a non-EU member of the EEA and/or the EFTA?

The basic requirement under the agreement doesn't change as far as I can see whether or not it is in the EU. It is the same whether or not a country is in the EEA which is that the state must allow free trade in the specific areas covered by the EEA agreement. Agriculture and fisheries are not included but would still be traded. Other areas such as financial services are included.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

Exactly. And if the UK leave the EU they are still in that same area.

If the UK leaves the EU the will still be in the area of the EU? you'll have to explain that one to me.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Why is it unenforcible?

It is currently enforced by the EFTA court and the EU court. Neither of these courts would have jurisdiction over the UK if it left the EU.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Member of the EEA is just another way of saying signatory of the treaty or party to the agreement.

The EU is a signatory, and signs on behalf of the EU countries.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The mechanism is such that the EEA itself adopts EU laws and enforces them itself among all the EEA countries including EU ones. This has the effect of extending EU rules to the non-EU members.

How does "the EEA" enforce laws?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that each member, not merely the EFTA countries are individual signatories to the agreement is evidence they are members in their own right.

AFAIK, the EU signs the agreement on behalf of the EU Members.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that that EEA laws apply equally to all EEA members regardless of EU membership is also evidence of that.

What are EEA laws?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that Norway needs Croatia to be a member of the EEA not merely the EU in order to trade under EEA rules with Croatia is further evidence of that.

No it just reflects that it is a requirement of the EEA agreement.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Where does it say that. Yes, it is mentioned that countries happen to be either EU or EFTA, but where is it stipulated that if a country ceases to be either, then it ceases to be a member of the EEA?

Where does it stipulate that they are members of the EEA?
Article 44
The Community, on the one hand, and the EFTA States, on the other, shall apply their internal procedures, ...

What procedure would a country which is neither part of the EU or of EFTA follow?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The agreement would still exist. Yes it would run into problems if a dispute arose. The setting up of a judicial authority would involve an amendment to the treaty and agreement among the parties.

That is the point, if the UK refused to renegotiate a new arrangement with the EU and the EEA EFTA countries or it would be excluded from being able to function as part of the EEA.

That wouldn't happen as obviously the UK would negotiate a new trading relationship with the the EU and EEA EFTA countries as part of its exit from the EU.

FURET

Perhaps one of the reasons they're so anti-Europe is that Europe provides an alternative center of gravity to London; and this, in large part, is what makes the prospect of a UK breakup feasible.

Though it must be said, given the recent bickering and surge in national sentiment among the various countries of the UK - a peaceful, wealthy, long-standing, over-achieving monoglot state - it doesn't bode well for those wishing to see a more federal Europe and the emergence of a European gens.

Finnbar01

Coming late to the debate but I don't think the British are anti-European, more like anti-EU.

Scofflaw

FURET wrote: »

Perhaps one of the reasons they're so anti-Europe is that Europe provides an alternative center of gravity to London; and this, in large part, is what makes the prospect of a UK breakup feasible.

Though it must be said, given the recent bickering and surge in national sentiment among the various countries of the UK - a peaceful, wealthy, long-standing, over-achieving monoglot state - it doesn't bode well for those wishing to see a more federal Europe and the emergence of a European gens.

I'm not sure those entirely follow from each other, unless you mean a monolithic EU like a giant copy of a nation-state. A more federal EU with more power shared at the European level by many smaller countries is entirely feasible, and would follow fairly reasonably from the breakup of nation-states.

For those who want a giant uniform Eurocountry, well, many many things don't bode well for them, like public opinion, centuries of history, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Coming late to the debate but I don't think the British are anti-European, more like anti-EU.

Given the emotive and betimes irrational jingoism that seems to accompany the debate over there betimes, it does seem to me that its the former (be it conscious or subconscious) leading to the latter.

micosoft

What bemuses me is that it's the right thing to call for UK independence from the EU (to the point of calling your party the UK independence Party) but then to say NO and actively campaign against Scottish Independence.

Given that the UK government are now preparing to offer Scotland a new Union approach remarkably like the EU, I think it becomes clearer then ever that Unions are OK if they are dominated by English People from the south east of England but not OK if they are funny people from the continent. All the arguments being made to leave the EU are being reversed for the Better Together campaign (Cross Party in the UK).

The Corinthian

micosoft wrote: »

Given that the UK government are now preparing to offer Scotland a new Union approach remarkably like the EU, I think it becomes clearer then ever that Unions are OK if they are dominated by English People from the south east of England but not OK if they are funny people from the continent. All the arguments being made to leave the EU are being reversed for the Better Together campaign (Cross Party in the UK).

I've seen countless eurosceptics argue over the years and probably almost without exception at the core of their rationale is xenophobia.

This is not to suggest that real non-xenophobic eurosceptic arguments exist, only that they're more rare than unicorns. If you read through this and other threads, what you'll generally find is a FUD eurosceptic argument is given, it is rebutted, then it is repeated shortly after by the same poster as if it were somehow never addressed. Occasionally, they'll let the mask slip and come out with some veiled "but they're not like us" comment, which will be closer to their true motivations, but most can avoid this. The arguments they otherwise present are only done so because they know well enough that "but they're not like us" isn't going to win hearts and minds, they don't really believe or care if they're true or not.

The ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions is twofold; firstly it is a conservative stance - one opposing something that does not yet exist and the other supporting an existing union. Secondly it is based on the xenophobia that I detailed above and repeatedly demonstrated by UKIP candidates.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

... and the other supporting an existing union. Secondly it is based on the xenophobia that I detailed above and repeatedly demonstrated by UKIP candidates.

How is supporting an existing union xenophobic?

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

How is supporting an existing union xenophobic?

I didn't say supporting an existing union is xenophobic (if anything I said it is conservative to support an existing union). I said the ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions are due to two factors - one conservative and the other xenophobic.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't say supporting an existing union is xenophobic (if anything I said it is conservative to support an existing union). I said the ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions are due to two factors - one conservative and the other xenophobic.

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance. This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance. This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

Given that they are arguing for a significant alteration to the UK's status quo, they are NOT adopting a conservative position.

Rather their position is that of a constitutional iconoclast, hell bent on smashing something and d*%n the consequences - a radical one in other words.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

Given that they are arguing for a significant alteration to the UK's status quo, they are NOT adopting a conservative position.

Rather their position is that of a constitutional iconoclast, hell bent on smashing something and d*%n the consequences - a radical one in other words.

Remember it is not me that initially called them conservative. The point that was made (not by me) was:

"firstly it is a conservative stance - one opposing something that does not yet exist and the other supporting an existing union"

I'm not saying I agree with that - and clearly you don't either - but if you did hold that view, then you would have to concede that conservatism and not xenophobia was their primary ideology.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance.

No I didn't. I don't think you've read what I posted properly.

I pointed out that supporting the British union is principally a conservative stance, as it is an existing union. The stance on the EU is xenophobic principally.

This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

When did I imply this? One could argue that opposing further union with the EU is a conservative position (as conservatism will tend to oppose change), but to suggest that this is the overarching ideology for this is conservationism is purely your conclusion.

I responded to a question on the contradiction in the two positions; the two are driven principally by differing ideologies. I never suggested any overarching ideology; that's all you.

No Username Yet

Because they are British

porsche959

There are some interesting questions and rumours as regards one of the principal architects of Britain entering the EEC, i.e. Ted Heath.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19740905&id=OtRYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HOUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3027,1190284

Parse the article carefully.

Peregrinus

However carefully I parse the article, I'm not seeing anything remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. Nor am I seeing anything that isn't already very well-known.

Am I missing something?

porsche959

Peregrinus wrote: »

However carefully I parse the article, I'm not seeing anything remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. Nor am I seeing anything that isn't already very well-known.

Am I missing something?

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

oscarBravo

...what?

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

Not once in all my now several years reading the output of the eurosceptical have I heard any such rumour, or anything even suggestive of it. If it comes to it, I daresay most people would only have the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM in question, never mind being able to recall the yachting accident.

a bit boggled,
Scofflaw

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not once in all my now several years reading the output of the eurosceptical have I heard any such rumour, or anything even suggestive of it.

Which rumour are you referring to? The rumour I am referring to is that Heath was a homosexual. He was more or less outed after his death by several former associates, so perhaps the rumour was lent some weight.

http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/24/former-pm-ted-heath-is-outed-308406/

There are much darker rumours about Heath on the recesses of the web, and, granted, mainly from conspiracy sites and the like, but in light of that contemporaneous article from a respected Australian newspaper, can the rumours be entirely dismissed?

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it comes to it, I daresay most people would only have the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM in question, never mind being able to recall the yachting accident.

a bit boggled,
Scofflaw

If it is truly the case that most people have only the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM that took the UK into the EEC, then this merely indicates that most people have remarkably short memories, or alternatively are not bothered even doing the most basic research - or some combination thereof.

But probably most people are also unaware that one of Heath's main political allies in advancing the Europhile case in the UK in the 1970s subsequently was put to trial for murder. He was, as it happens, acquitted of the charge, but there's a serious whiff of sulphur remaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

The bodies were pulled from the sea. There is no suggestion that they came from Heath's yacht, and the fact that they were decomposed means that they died some time before they yacht sailed, never mind before it capsized. They were found during the search for people lost from the yacht; there is no reason to think there is any other connection.

porsche959 wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

If this is the kind of foundation on which the rumours are built, I think we can discount them.

porsche959

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bodies were pulled from the sea. There is no suggestion that they came from Heath's yacht, and the fact that they were decomposed means that they died some time before they yacht sailed, never mind before it capsized. They were found during the search for people lost from the yacht; there is no reason to think there is any other connection.

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If this is the kind of foundation on which the rumours are built, I think we can discount them.

Which rumours, precisely, are you referring to here?

The rumours of Heath being gay, certainly, seem to have been vindicated, and it would not have been at all unusual for homosexual politicians to have been blackmailed during the less enlightened era of say, the 1970s - indeed several cases exist.

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened.

Between three and four hundred UK residents are drowned each year, a bit less than half of them at sea. Some are never recovered but, basically, about three bodies a week are pulled from the seas around Britain. And,unsurprisingly, a fair number of these are recovered during search-and-rescue operations. In a search and rescue operation arising out of one accident it's somewhat unusual to find bodies from another unrelated accident, but it's not fundamentally improbable.

There will have been inquests for the two bodies mentioned in the SMH article that you link to. If they remained unidentified, or if there were any factors at all to suggest that they might be linked in any way to Edward Heath, you can be sure that the conspiracy theorists would be drawing our attention to it.

porsche959 wrote: »

Which rumours, precisely, are you referring to here?

The ones that you suggest are connected with the SMH article that you link to.

porsche959 wrote: »

The rumours of Heath being gay, certainly, seem to have been vindicated, and it would not have been at all unusual for homosexual politicians to have been blackmailed during the less enlightened era of say, the 1970s - indeed several cases exist.

It would have been difficult to blackmail Heath, since everyone already assumed he was gay. I believed he was gay, and I was not connected with him in any way, and we had no acquaintances in common. He never married, and had no facade to maintain.

Yes, it's possible that he was blackmailed, but there is no evidence of this, and those who attempt to link his policies on Europe (or any other matters) to putative blackmail cast rather more light on themselves and their own view of the world than they do on Heath and his policies.

porsche959

porsche959 wrote: »

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened

I think it happened in Galway in the past few years - people searching for a missing person found the body of a different person who had been missing for much longer. I will have a google and see if I can find an article about it.

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

Which rumour are you referring to? The rumour I am referring to is that Heath was a homosexual. He was more or less outed after his death by several former associates, so perhaps the rumour was lent some weight.

http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/24/former-pm-ted-heath-is-outed-308406/

There are much darker rumours about Heath on the recesses of the web, and, granted, mainly from conspiracy sites and the like, but in light of that contemporaneous article from a respected Australian newspaper, can the rumours be entirely dismissed?



If it is truly the case that most people have only the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM that took the UK into the EEC, then this merely indicates that most people have remarkably short memories, or alternatively are not bothered even doing the most basic research - or some combination thereof.

But probably most people are also unaware that one of Heath's main political allies in advancing the Europhile case in the UK in the 1970s subsequently was put to trial for murder. He was, as it happens, acquitted of the charge, but there's a serious whiff of sulphur remaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe

I would say that, yes, most people would be even less aware of that. Again, I don't think I've ever heard it even hinted at that Heath was personally blackmailed into joining the EU.

Aside from anything else, the UK started trying to join the EEC under Macmillan, continued trying (and failing) to do so under Wilson, and were only let in when de Gaulle was no longer there to veto their entry, following which both the British people and the parliament voted by clear majorities for entry. Heath was the PM who happened to be in power when the French relented under Pompidou.

Swallowing the idea that somehow Heath was blackmailed into making Britain join would therefore require such a huge appetite for complete tosh, and such an appalling ignorance of history, that I think few eurosceptics could possibly manage it.

I would think that the memory of being kept out of the EEC by the French would be a far stronger gall (so to speak).

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that, yes, most people would be even less aware of that. Again, I don't think I've ever heard it even hinted at that Heath was personally blackmailed into joining the EU.

Aside from anything else, the UK started trying to join the EEC under Macmillan, continued trying (and failing) to do so under Wilson, and were only let in when de Gaulle was no longer there to veto their entry, following which both the British people and the parliament voted by clear majorities for entry. Heath was the PM who happened to be in power when the French relented under Pompidou.

Swallowing the idea that somehow Heath was blackmailed into making Britain join would therefore require such a huge appetite for complete tosh, and such an appalling ignorance of history, that I think few eurosceptics could possibly manage it.

I would think that the memory of being kept out of the EEC by the French would be a far stronger gall (so to speak).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Also let's not forget Britain was in financial ****e when when joined the EU. They seem to have forgotten why they joined but I have a feeling if they leave they will be reminded quickly enough.