Why are the British so anti Europe?

old hippy

getz wrote: »

not now, all the ones i knew died,and most of the londoners i now meet live in the blackpool area,

Yeah, well - Blackpool might as well be another country compared to London.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

Yeah, well - Blackpool might as well be another country compared to London.

the young can still afford to buy a house up here

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Back on topic, please.

donaghs

Maura74 wrote: »

Rule Britannia brigade is doing well now.... Brits still thinks that they are still an Empire has sad....:o

I do not think the Liberal party that are in the coalition are not too happy about it.

Heard on the radio that they do not want to pay for counties like Greece that can still retire at the age of 50 whereas in other courtiers workers have to works another 15 years before they can retire.:(

Not that simple. As mentioned above, Britain has always been a net contributor so feels more entitled to have a say in what goes on, or disagree with the direction of the EU. Ireland has mostly been a net benificiary so has been happy to rubber stamp the general Frano-German consensus as long as the money kept flowing.

It was the Conservative Party who were most keen to get the UK into the Common Market, starting with MacMillan, and finally succeeding with Heath. The Labour Party, Trades Unions and the Left in the UK were much more wary of the EEC. E.g. in the the 1970s UK referendum on EEC membership, the Conservatives, Heath, Thatcher etc all campaigned to stay in. And the Daily Mail backed the YES vote too. The Labour Party were split, mostly opposed, the NO crowd led by Tony Benn. And the Guardian would have featured articles opposing EEC membership.

One of the main reasons for opposing EEC membership were the fears over plans towards increasing integration into a federal superstate. They were largely dismissed, but now appear more of a reality?

McDave

getz wrote: »

who is to blame ?well a quick google tells me,that europe blames the UK for the euro debt crisis, and then again EU chief barroso blames US banks for the eurozone crisis, but again the IMF blames the people and not goverments,ha now i see it now a number of euro countries are now blaming germany . no its greece, some time soon they will get round to blame ireland.

In order to short-circuit a circle of blame, how about a link?

McDave

gallag wrote: »

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk, not joining the euro seems to have been the correct choice, I hope we remain sceptical of the euro.

Although I'm a bit sceptical about overuse of the term 'austerity', it seems the British Chancellor is predicting five more years of it:

The healing process will take far longer than Mr Osborne first anticipated in 2010. Then he forecast five years of austerity before Britain’s public finances would be back in balance. This week he again extended his austerity deadline – this time to eight years. Fitch, a credit rating agency, concerned by this apparent loss of fiscal discipline, has placed Britain’s triple A credit status under threat of a downgrade.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1207/1224327612329.html


And although Britain has exited its second recession in recent times, it seems the recovery is likely to be a temporary little arrangement:

Britain's economy has exited recession and official figures show it grew by 1 per cent in the third quarter, although that strength is unlikely to be sustained.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1127/breaking14.html


Now I'm not suggesting all is rosy in Germany, but:

German two-year bond yields dipped to four-month lows today on bets the European Central Bank could cut interest rates further, but a looming US jobs report kept investors cautious and limited falls.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1207/breaking15.html

Indeed, bond yields have been enjoying a sustained reduction in EZ countries across the continent including Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece. This suggests the EZ is making considerable progress.

HowsAboutThis

thechanger wrote: »

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

Brits are actually pretty pro-Europe within a very specific definition. They enjoy the free trade and to an extent the travel/movement rights. The issue for many is they were never asked whether they agreed with joining what has now become the "EU" along with all it's baggage.

McDave

HowsAboutThis wrote: »

Brits are actually pretty pro-Europe within a very specific definition. They enjoy the free trade and to an extent the travel/movement rights. The issue for many is they were never asked whether they agreed with joining what has now become the "EU" along with all it's baggage.

The UK had a retrospective referendum on EEC membership in 1975. The preamble of the Treaty of Rome spoke of 'ever closer union', so it's clear that a political element to the EEC was foreseen by the signatory parties, and that further steps could be taken along the way. It was up to British citizens and their political representatives to at least consider this aspect in the course of the referendum campaign.

The first really major development in this regard was the 1992 single market, which the UK supported. The UK balked at the proposed social competence and got an opt-out. The UK has been resisting most extensions of EU competence ever since.

The UK is entirely within its rights to determine what elements of sovereignty it is prepared to conditionally cede to the EU. And to mark each step with a referendum if that is what is constitutionally required. Ireland ratifies every single change to the treaties with a referendum. When a change to the texture was proposed under the Nice Treaty, two member states rejected it in referenda. In more recent times, the German constitutional court has dealt with the issue of sovereignty in great, almost philosophical, detail, concluding that any transfer of 'competence' (i.e. a vital, distinct element of sovereignty) will explicitly require a referendum - quite a development in a country where referenda are treated with great suspicion.

Based on the above, I don't see how you can contend the UK is pretty pro-Europe. The UK stated it's anti-EEC/EU credentials by refusing to engage with the establishment of the EEC and founding a competing trading bloc - EFTA. Even since its 1973 EEC accession, the UK has been semi-detached, and since Thatcher, quite hostile to the EU stuff that goes on on the continent. Cameron's attempt to derail the ESM - and effectively undermine the Euro - was the final straw.

I think it's fair to conclude that large parts of the British political establishment, and almost all its press is actively hostile to the EU. I also think that most British people at this stage go along with this opinion-forming consensus. Although I can't help feeling that were there to be a referendum campaign, there'd be a surprising amount of support for the EU, although probably not enough to carry the day.

Will there be a referendum? Hard to say. Sentiment seems to require one. But what question could you ask? Giving the green light to all that has gone before, or provide a green light for Westminster to engage in future developments as they arise? Setting the question could be the trickiest of all.

At any rate, I don't doubt for a second that British people have a strong sense of democracy and sovereignty. That's very much to Britain's credit. However, I'm also of the view that Britain has been less than honest in its dealings with the EU, and is in some way stuck in a more agreeable past where it's role in the world was more definite. Consequently, I see Britain's attitude to the EU as a primarily reactive as opposed to constructive one.

The Corinthian

The Economist's cover story this week is an examination of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU.

For those who read it regularly, the publication generally has a very strong Anglo-centric, free market, slant and thus has never been terribly fond of the EU historically. As such, when it concludes that a British exit would be disastrous for the UK, as it does in this article, one would tend to sit up and listen.

Warning: the article contains actual economic arguments.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Economist's cover story this week is an examination of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU.

For those who read it regularly, the publication generally has a very strong Anglo-centric, free market, slant and thus has never been terribly fond of the EU historically. As such, when it concludes that a British exit would be disastrous for the UK, as it does in this article, one would tend to sit up and listen.

Warning: the article contains actual economic arguments.

Worth reading the briefing as well - it's referenced and linked in the article, but in case people miss it: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break

The benefits, in fiscal terms, do seem rather paltry, and the claim that the UK would be able to waltz into a free-market arrangement with the EU after exit do seem to have all the desperation and self-delusion of the SNP's claim that Scotland wouldn't have to reapply for membership if it left the UK.

I suspect that the Economist will be accurately reflecting the position of the UK's business leadership, which has already expressed alarm at the possible consequences of an EU exit. I note that they're concerned about, amongst other issues, the way some 40% of their FDI cites being inside the EU as a reason for site selection. Luckily, there is of course another English-speaking, common-law, business-friendly, low-tax jurisdiction left in the EU even if the UK exits...

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

Scofflaw wrote: »

Worth reading the briefing as well - it's referenced and linked in the article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break

Actually that's the one I meant, as I originally read the print version - my mistake.

The benefits, in fiscal terms, do seem rather paltry, and the claim that the UK would be able to waltz into a free-market arrangement with the EU after exit do seem to have all the desperation and self-delusion of the SNP's claim that Scotland wouldn't have to reapply for membership if it left the UK.

An interesting point is that Scotland is the least Eurosceptic part of the UK (50% seeking to leave) against England which is the most Eurosceptic (60% seeking to leave).

While I cannot see a Scottish succession referendum getting anywhere at present, were the UK to leave the EU, the fall out of this and difference in attitudes between Scotland and England on membership, would likely increase support for independence (as the only way to get back into the EU).

It'll be interesting to see if Cameron can keep a lid on it all.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I cannot see a Scottish succession referendum getting anywhere at present, were the UK to leave the EU, the fall out of this and difference in attitudes between Scotland and England on membership, would likely increase support for independence (as the only way to get back into the EU).

I'm not sure about that. While it's true that Scotland is less eurosceptic than England & Wales, it's still pretty damn eurosceptic.

Although, I guess if the UK were to leave the EU, Scottish eurosceptics may be quicker to recognise the damage done to the British economy (which may in turn lead to growing support for an independent Scottish application for EU membership) relative to their English and Welsh counterparts, who I suspect would stubbornly stick to their guns.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote: »

Although, I guess if the UK were to leave the EU, Scottish eurosceptics may be quicker to recognise the damage done to the British economy (which may in turn lead to growing support for an independent Scottish application for EU membership) relative to their English and Welsh counterparts, who I suspect would stubbornly stick to their guns.

I never suggested that it would cause Scotland to vote for independence, only that it would "increase support for independence" - whether this, combined with other events, changes the playing field come a referendum, is another matter.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested that it would cause Scotland to vote for independence...

Yeah, sorry - on re-reading it would appear I've sort of just reiterated what you posted.

walshb

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I suspect a lot of them are still living in the days when Kipling boasted that the sun never set on the Empire.*:D

*To which George Bernard Shaw replied that it was because God wouldn't trust the English in the dark.

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

gallag

walshb wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

Is there even any British people alive today that would remember being a world dictator?

walshb

gallag wrote: »

Is there even any British people alive today that would remember being a world dictator?

These things live long long in the DNA and memory. Are taught too.

gallag

walshb wrote: »

These things live long long in the DNA and memory. Are taught too.

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

walshb

gallag wrote: »

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Hey, I am not saying that the U.K. is wrong for being anti Europe. I am saying that they were always anti EU. From being so dominant to now having to share their toys. Can't sit well.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

...has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Has it? I posted this on another thread:

djpbarry wrote: »

The UK's public deficit is similar in size to Ireland's (expressed as % GDP), there are significant unemployment blackspots (particularly in the West Midlands, north east and Northern Ireland), youth unemployment is a massive problem (far bigger than in Ireland) and economic growth has been negative in three of the last four quarters.

It's in the context of the UK's current economic malaise that calls for EU withdrawal look particularly ridiculous – what’s left of the economy would crash and burn pretty damn quickly.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good. It allowed, in particular, the Germans to reinvent themselves (repeatedly) from scratch and even taught the French (because even they don't try pretending that 'they' won with a straight face) a certain level of caution against hubris.

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

gallag wrote: »

And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Actually, you appear to know very little about Ireland. Ireland was a lot worse off before joining the EEC/EU than it is even today.

Even in a more modern context, not following the present path would have almost certainly condemned Ireland to a far more disastrous economic future than the present austerity. That this point has been repeatedly been made, with evidence, does not appear to dampen your enthusiastism at repeating the accusation. Is it a case of if you repeat it often enough, it'll stick? Or magically become true? Please let me know as I'm curious as to the psychology behind and/or reasoning of some of these arguments.

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am not saying that the U.K. is wrong for being anti Europe. I am saying that they were always anti EU. From being so dominant to now having to share their toys. Can't sit well.

They always had to share their toys and it never sat all that well. One of the reasons for World War I, TBH.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

Has it? I posted this on another thread:

It's in the context of the UK's current economic malaise that calls for EU withdrawal look particularly ridiculous – what’s left of the economy would crash and burn pretty damn quickly.

In your opinion, the UK has a stronger more diverse economy than Ireland so comparing dept/GDP per capita etc is pointless, this is bore out in fact by simple things like the UK having a far better credit rating (if we adopted the euro we could have a terrible rating like Ireland) and actually being in a position to lend to Ireland. There has been a lot of good news for the UK at the min, sharpest drop in unemployment in decade, out of recession for now at least, all bucking the euro trend.

It seems that people believe trade blocks by other eu countries is the main reason the UK would have trouble out of the eu, I tinder that unlikely because the UK is a net importer.

gallag

I don't know why that stupid smiley face is appearing ahead of my post, does anyone know how to get the forums back onto mobile mode?

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good. It allowed, in particular, the Germans to reinvent themselves (repeatedly) from scratch and even taught the French (because even they don't try pretending that 'they' won with a straight face) a certain level of caution against hubris.

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

Actually, you appear to know very little about Ireland. Ireland was a lot worse off before joining the EEC/EU than it is even today.

Even in a more modern context, not following the present path would have almost certainly condemned Ireland to a far more disastrous economic future than the present austerity. That this point has been repeatedly been made, with evidence, does not appear to dampen your enthusiastism at repeating the accusation. Is it a case of if you repeat it often enough, it'll stick? Or magically become true? Please let me know as I'm curious as to the psychology behind and/or reasoning of some of these arguments.

They always had to share their toys and it never sat all that well. One of the reasons for World War I, TBH.

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

No, in the case of World War II, Britain was able to hold on long enough for Russia and the US (thanks to Japan) to get involved and turn the tide. In short the UK didn't lose it - it was won by the US and Russia - as evidenced by the fact that subsequently geopolitics turned twoards those countries and the UK was no longer able to act without the de facto permission of the US (Suez being a case in point).

Loosing one of the World wars would ironically have released Britain from the shackles of her imperial past, that she needed to behave in a manner which was no longer reflected in reality. This is what happened with Germany and France (which effectively lost and only won by default). Of course, this is an arguable point, but I did make it fairly clear I was simply musing.

As for massive debts being inherited - you'll find every Western nation will be bequeathing one of those to the next generation, regardless of whether they're in the EU or not.

Now, there's nothing 'anti-British' about this, it's simply an observation of the national psyche, just as I often make about other nations. You are welcome to argue against this, but preferably have some substance in your argument if you do.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

In your opinion, the UK has a stronger more diverse economy than Ireland...

The UK has a larger economy, but by what metric is it “stronger”?

gallag wrote: »

...this is bore out in fact by simple things like the UK having a far better credit rating...

Which is based on little more than “confidence” and besides, the UK is on the verge of losing its AAA rating.

gallag wrote: »

...if we adopted the euro we could have a terrible rating like Ireland...

Ireland has a terrible rating because of how it managed its own affairs, not because of the Euro.

gallag wrote: »

...out of recession for now at least...

Growth has been negative in three of the last four quarters?

gallag wrote: »

It seems that people believe trade blocks by other eu countries is the main reason the UK would have trouble out of the eu, I tinder that unlikely because the UK is a net importer.

You don’t think the British government will slap import tariffs on imported goods from the EU? Seems pretty unlikely given that British products (agricultural produce in particular) are likely to attract hefty tariffs in the EU.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

Surprising comment. Considering you wrote...

McDave

... this:

gallag wrote: »

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

SiegfriedsMum

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good.

I am sure you are right and wouldn't it be exciting to speculate what europe would now look like had Hitler won, and probably even free from all those jews, gypsies and nasty homosexuals, for a start, even in Britain. What a World of good that would be.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

You are , of course, quite right, that Britain's euroscepticism is complex, but to ascribe, in whole or in part, it to delusions of grandeur seems in itself to miss the point. Even if we were to accept it as true, to have some delusions of grandeur seems like a harmless hobby, and unimportant.

Britain is a complex country, with no written constitution and a monarch, yet it seems to work pretty well. The main reason for euroscepticism in the UK is that Britain is a democracy which is ill at east smundging over the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU.

Many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic, open and accountable as national parliaments are (just look at Scofflaw's many posts here on the topic), but by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

This is the real reason at the heart of Britains Euroscepticism, and to pretend it's because the british have delusions of one sort of another is merely name calling and a distraction.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Britain is a complex country, with no written constitution and a monarch, yet it seems to work pretty well. The main reason for euroscepticism in the UK is that Britain is a democracy which is ill at east smundging over the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU.

Most large countries are complex and many of them, especially those in the OECD, work pretty well. The large EU states are all democracies with their own understandings of history, and are happy enough to devolve certain powers to the EU under certain legal conditions. All feature some form of Eurosceptic opposition. But none to the extent manifested in the UK.

Britain seems to be a bit different. And long may they remain so. By all means should they have an internal debate on the EU. But it's probably best not conducted from a high horse.

djpbarry

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic, open and accountable as national parliaments are (just look at Scofflaw's many posts here on the topic), but by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

This is the real reason at the heart of Britains Euroscepticism, and to pretend it's because the british have delusions of one sort of another is merely name calling and a distraction.

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

Most understand this and don't set up the phoney false opposition that the EU must become more democratic, but should not integrate further. That phoney false opposition truly is delusional, and it's about time 'heroic' British Eurosceptics accepted that they are not the sole fonts of wisdom on the matter.

SiegfriedsMum

djpbarry wrote: »

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

Perhaps you misunderstand that I am not interested in getting into an argument to argue one side or the other, and I was merely explaining that a previous post which seemed to claim that Britain’s scepticism was due to delusions, was simplistic, incorrect, and merely seemed to highlight the posters prejudices.

McDave wrote: »

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

Most understand this and don't set up the phoney false opposition that the EU must become more democratic, but should not integrate further. That phoney false opposition truly is delusional, and it's about time 'heroic' British Eurosceptics accepted that they are not the sole fonts of wisdom on the matter.

I look forward to you writing letters to the English newspapers telling the UK that their opposition to what they perceive as lack of democracy is false, delusional and phoney, and hope you get an opportunity to argue that position in a debate with some of the UK’s sceptics. Simply saying they are phoney, false and delusional is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union, then it seems your understanding of the Treaties of Rome differs from many others.

oscarBravo

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Perhaps you misunderstand that I am not interested in getting into an argument to argue one side or the other...

It's a bit disingenuous to stake a claim on one side of an argument, and then, when challenged on it, to insist that you don't want to argue either side. It's almost as if you want to merely say something without adducing any evidence to back it up, which I'm sure you would agree is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union...

If that's what you think he thinks, you might be better served by actually reading his posts.

SiegfriedsMum

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a bit disingenuous to stake a claim on one side of an argument, and then, when challenged on it, to insist that you don't want to argue either side.

In this, as in all things, context is king. Another poster claimed that the UK was anti Europe due to delusions of grandeur, so I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

Subsequently, a third poster asked me to “whip out some of those yardsticks” and, I have to confess, I have no idea what that means. The same poster then asked me to give some examples of lack of accountability in terms of the UK. My observation was that the democratic deficit is the reason behind the scepticism in the UK, and my own personal views on accountability don’t seem relevant.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's what you think he thinks, you might be better served by actually reading his posts.

McDave wrote: »

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

As you can see, I was not only reading his post, but replying directly to it. Again, the context is king. The introduction of whether or not some would “prefer” the EU to become a state or not was irrelevant and a red herring to the topic that the aims of every closer political and economic union the EU as stated in the treaties of Rome, and again its this ever closer movement which concerns some sceptics.

djpbarry

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Another poster claimed that the UK was anti Europe due to delusions of grandeur, so I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

Subsequently, a third poster asked me to “whip out some of those yardsticks” and, I have to confess, I have no idea what that means.

Let me help you out with that:

djpbarry wrote: »

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me.

The Corinthian

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I am sure you are right and wouldn't it be exciting to speculate what europe would now look like had Hitler won, and probably even free from all those jews, gypsies and nasty homosexuals, for a start, even in Britain. What a World of good that would be.

Yes, let's get hysterical, exaggerate the point I was making so we can inexorably drive the discussion to the typically inane conclusion that invokes Godwin's law.

You are , of course, quite right, that Britain's euroscepticism is complex, but to ascribe, in whole or in part, it to delusions of grandeur seems in itself to miss the point. Even if we were to accept it as true, to have some delusions of grandeur seems like a harmless hobby, and unimportant.

Yet the rest of your post fails to debunk the theory that British nostalgia is a factor, you just dismiss the notion and then move on. So you'll forgive me, given I bothered to give an argument why, if I don't take your dismissal too seriously.

The main reason for euroscepticism in the UK is that Britain is a democracy which is ill at east smundging over the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU.

Which is of course a red herring, because were euroscepticism in the UK really interested in the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU, then it would be campaigning for the transfer of the powers of the commission to the democratically elected European parliament. But guess what, it's not.

Many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic

No doubt because many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK? I suspect the attitude you betrayed there probably is closer to the real reason for most Eurosceptism.

This is the real reason at the heart of Britains Euroscepticism, and to pretend it's because the british have delusions of one sort of another is merely name calling and a distraction.

Your post was a distraction.

It was little more than a basic dismissal (without bothering to debunk the position it is dismissing) followed with your stating an alternative theory (without bothering to submit an argument as to why the British are somehow more in touch with their democratic side than the "Europeans").

Care to try again, perhaps with some substance this time?

SiegfriedsMum

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, let's get hysterical, exaggerate the point I was making so we can inexorably drive the discussion to the typically inane conclusion that invokes Godwin's law.

I have no intention of becoming hysterical. I responded to what you said which was

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good.

And if you don’t want to think through the consequences of what you said, that’s your choice. However, I can only respond to what you actually say, which is what I did. However, if you have a point to make which is other than that which you have said, then make it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet the rest of your post fails to debunk the theory that British nostalgia is a factor, you just dismiss the notion and then move on. So you'll forgive me, given I bothered to give an argument why, if I don't take your dismissal too seriously.

The purpose was not to try to debunk anything, and nostalgia may well be a factor, but not a reason. If you wish to be bothered, or not, to argue or give reasons, that’s a matter for you. However, your intemperate tone doesn’t help.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is of course a red herring, because were euroscepticism in the UK really interested in the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU, then it would be campaigning for the transfer of the powers of the commission to the democratically elected European parliament. But guess what, it's not.

You can’t decide how other should react, and then conclude because you decide they don’t react in the way which you find acceptable, then you conclude their position is flawed. (It is, of course, quite possible to be eurosceptical without campaigning for a transfer of powers from one institution to another, and campaign, for example, for a complete withdrawal from all institutions and return powers to ones own institutions.)

The Corinthian wrote: »

No doubt because many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK? I suspect the attitude you betrayed there probably is closer to the real reason for most Eurosceptism.

I don’t agree that many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK. The only “attitude” (to use your unfortunate word) being displayed is you simply making things up which I have not said, and then concluding from your making up that I have “betrayed” something or other.

Terry Wogan put is beautifully when talking about the Eurovision song contest. When asked by other commentators why he was at the contest when the UK evidently hated it, he said that it wasn’t that the UK hated the contest at all, they love it but they just love it in a different way. T

This has an element of truth when applied to the UK attitude to the EU also.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Care to try again, perhaps with some substance this time?

Actually no. I like to discuss and argue, but I don’t like your tone, which comes over as somewhat patronising and headmaster-ish.

oscarBravo

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

[...]

My observation was that the democratic deficit is the reason behind the scepticism in the UK...

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

It is, of course, quite possible to be eurosceptical without campaigning for a transfer of powers from one institution to another, and campaign, for example, for a complete withdrawal from all institutions and return powers to ones own institutions.

Goalpost-shifting is a poor form of argument.

I like to discuss and argue...

With respect, you don't seem fond of discussion and argument as I understand the concepts.

The Corinthian

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

And if you don’t want to think through the consequences of what you said, that’s your choice. However, I can only respond to what you actually say, which is what I did. However, if you have a point to make which is other than that which you have said, then make it.

Are you still labouring under the delusion that the UK won World War II?

Had the UK lost, Germany would still have likely lost overall against the USSR, such was the scale of her losses on the eastern front. She still would have declared war on the US, in keeping with her treaty with Japan, and dragged American resources and military assets, into assisting the USSR.

Now, of course, without Air Strip 1 to launch a US led invasion of France, this may have drawn out the War, and perhaps resulted in a stalemate (as mooted as Robert Harris), but I certainly would not be as certain of the consequences as you would be, simply because I do not overestimate Britain's importance when compared to either the US or the USSR.

The purpose was not to try to debunk anything, and nostalgia may well be a factor, but not a reason.

Oh, now you're agreeing with me - after all I did say "but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor". Bit of a climbdown, TBH.

You can’t decide how other should react, and then conclude because you decide they don’t react in the way which you find acceptable, then you conclude their position is flawed.

Of course I can, don't be ridiculous. If someone claims to follow a principle then constantly fails to do so, or even opposes any move twoards it, then clearly they don't follow it - it's a pretty clearly demonstrated conclusion.

The Eurosceptic unfortunately has always come down to this; Brussels is opposed, not because it it undemocratic, but because it is foreign.

But fair enough - if nationalism the reason, that's the reason. But it does get my goat up when I hear pseudo democratic and economic arguments, from those who want to hide the real reason because they're afraid that it won't be welcomed. At least tell the truth, for goodness sake.

I don’t agree that many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK. The only “attitude” (to use your unfortunate word) being displayed is you simply making things up which I have not said, and then concluding from your making up that I have “betrayed” something or other.

Really? Explain "many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic" then. Why are they "pretending" then? Corruption? Some other moral or intellectual flaw?

Actually no. I like to discuss and argue, but I don’t like your tone, which comes over as somewhat patronising and headmaster-ish.

Would you prefer if I politely accepted your rather transparent attempts to twist the discussion, using unsubstantiated dismissals (that turn out you were actually in agreement with me), and unsupported opinion without even an argument to back them up, let alone evidence?

So if I sound somewhat "patronising and headmaster-ish", then perhaps it is simply because what you've posted called for an intellectual birching.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I look forward to you writing letters to the English newspapers telling the UK that their opposition to what they perceive as lack of democracy is false, delusional and phoney, and hope you get an opportunity to argue that position in a debate with some of the UK’s sceptics. Simply saying they are phoney, false and delusional is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

In the considerable meantime, I'm happy to discuss the theme in the OP here on this thread and on other Irish fora, where British sceptics see fit to intervene in sufficient numbers.

As to "false, delusional and phoney", if the cap fits...

In my sentient life the British have pursued a largely antagonistic approach to the EU. Thatcher in particular with her attempt to stiff the 'deepening' strand of the EU by putting on a big push for post-1989 'widening'. She won the short-term battle on that one, but lost out on the longer-term strategy when the single currency was given treaty status and came to fruition.

Blair made his dependence on the 'special relationship', and Britain's underlying antipathy towards the EU plain for all to see. Cameron has merely put the tin hat on it by attempting to block the fiscal compact.

At this point, the the UK should simply get off the pot and allow others to get on with the business of 'ever closer union' as foreseen in the Treaty of Rome all those decades ago. And it would be nice if in the process British politicians would give the posturing about 'democracy' a rest. They didn't invent the concept and have no lien on it above and beyond others.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union, then it seems your understanding of the Treaties of Rome differs from many others.

The EU is about 'ever closer union'. Political and economic union are obviously key elements are part of it. No confusion there.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

As you can see, I was not only reading his post, but replying directly to it. Again, the context is king. The introduction of whether or not some would “prefer” the EU to become a state or not was irrelevant and a red herring to the topic that the aims of every closer political and economic union the EU as stated in the treaties of Rome, and again its this ever closer movement which concerns some sceptics.

'Ever closer union' has always been on the agenda - on the signing of the original Treaty of Rome, when the UK helped found EFTA, when the UK joined the EEC in 1972 and when the UK endorsed the ratification in 1975.

The UK chose to absent itself from subsequent social policy and economic and monetary union developments by obtaining opt-outs. Fine up to a point. But now the UK is attempting to prevent others from developing policies and competences in which the UK is not an active party. The UK isn't in the Euro, yet it attempted to block a fiscal compact to help underpin it.

The real context, I fear, is that large groupings of EU members want to press ahead with certain policies, but the UK wants to take the ball away on some of them - as evidenced by Cameron's recent behaviour.

Britons are perfectly entitled to be sceptical of the EU. But if the EU has gone beyond what they are now prepared to cooperate with, they should do the honourable thing and leave the stage. Otherwise the EU will evolve away from the UK with the ultimate establishment of a new EU Mark II treaty framework.

The British would also do well to remember that the EEC-EC-EU is not their brainchild. The impetus for European integration comes from other quarters. If the British intent is to play a spoiling game, those in other quarters will just find another way to advance their strategic interests.

getz

E U democratic is a fantasy,18th oct 2012,chancellor angela merkel

.we have made good progress on strengthening fiscal discipling with the fiscal pact, but we are in the opinion, and i speak for the whole german goverment on this,that we could go a step further by giving europe[european commission] real rights of intervention in national budgets it must be stressed that no additional powers for the european parliament accompanied this proposal for the real rights of; intervention in national budgets;. in other words they [EU] not your countries citizens, will decide what is good for you.

The Corinthian

Welcome back getz; are you going to address how your earlier claims about somehow avoiding the property bubble would have been possible if only we were not in the EU turned out to be nonsense, or has your absence been simply in the hope we'd forget this?

As to your new claim / rant. Would you like to back that up with anything? A coherent argument might be a good place to start.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Welcome back getz; are you going to address how your earlier claims about somehow avoiding the property bubble would have been possible if only we were not in the EU turned out to be nonsense, or has your absence been simply in the hope we'd forget this?

As to your new claim / rant. Would you like to back that up with anything? A coherent argument might be a good place to start.

how do you know that you would not be better off if you dident join the EU ?are you a clairvoyant ?,the one thing i can tell you for sure is that those countries that did not join the EU are better off than ireland.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

how do you know that you would not be better off if you dident join the EU ?are you a clairvoyant ?

No, just not ignorant of the facts.

Ireland prior to the 1990's was essentially a Second World nation; laughable infrastructure, high unemployment and a standard of living that was the envy of the Third World - but that's about it. The economic growth that took place was as a direct result of our membership of the EU - there is absolutely no credible economist of business person who will claim otherwise.

So, it is a pretty safe bet that we would have been worse off had we not joined, and stayed the course in, the EU.

the one thing i can tell you for sure is that those countries that did not join the EU are better off than ireland.

And oddly enough some of those, such as Switzerland, have been better off than us even before we joined. And some other nations in the EU are better off than us, and a some are worse off. And many non-EU nations are worse off (or are we only allowed to cherry-pick the one's you like?)

All of which proves... nothing. Why? Because it's the same nonsense about how we could be like Norway or Switzerland or whoever if we just left the EU, without even considering for a moment that we're nothing like either. How much do you even know about either?

Look - if you don't understand basic macroeconomics, fine, but please don't pretend you do. Be honest, your motivations in opposing EU membership are almost certainly nationalistic, is my guess, and it would save us all a lot of time and ridicule if you came clean and we could just argue on that basis.

getz

how can you be better off when you have had to mortgage your childrens future to pay back the debt,there are more young irishmen and women leaving ireland to work in the UK now since the 1960s, irish foreign dept is 1.7 tri ,foreign dept to the GDP 1.93%. goverment dept to GDP is 109%. foreign dept per person is 390,969 euro, it was the cheep credit from the EU that fuelled the unsustainable growth in its housing market, so you are telling me you would have been worse off by not joining ?

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

how can you be better off when you have had to mortgage your childrens future to pay back the debt

At least they have a future in Ireland now. For example, back in the eighties, unemployment was even higher than today:



Add to that, we were also paying significantly more tax. As bad as things are in Ireland, they are significantly better that they were back in the bad old days, prior to the Celtic Tiger and Euro, when leaving was literally the only option most of us (old enough to have been there) had.

there are more young irishmen and women leaving ireland to work in the UK now since the 1960s

Really, can you back that up with evidence? I ask because these types of claims have been going around for a while and tend to include non-nationals too.

irish foreign dept is 1.7 tri ,foreign dept to the GDP 1.93%. goverment dept to GDP is 109%. foreign dept per person is 390,969 euro,

And the UK's foreign debt represents 390% of GDP - even Germany's is worse than ours! As to the level of debt, you don't seem to even understand what that debt actually is.

it was the cheep credit from the EU that fuelled the unsustainable growth in its housing market

No it was not, and this was explained to you a few pages back, which you ignored then shortly after which you ducked out of the discussion rather than address it. Would you like to continue making the same discredited claim?

so you are telling me you would have been worse off by not joining ?

Yes, I already did and unlike you have actually pointed out the facts of the matter. Ireland is infinitely better off having joined the EEC/EC/EU, than it was, as evidenced by the Celtic Tiger which has been attributed to FDI that put EU (and later Euro) membership pretty much at the top of the list (along with our low corporation tax rates).

Let's not forget all the EU money we were more than happy to build our infrastructure on, BTW.

The Euro ultimately may have had some effect in fuelling the bubble, but given the failure of our government to employ fiscal measures to control the bubble (quite the opposite), it becomes clear that even with monetary policy control would have made no difference. Certainly, however, to claim that the Euro was to blame is frankly delusional.

We would be a lot worse off were we not in the EEC/EC/EU; a poor backwater nation on the edge of Europe, with a currency still pegged to the British Pound, with even higher taxes and unemployment than we have today and where most of us would have to emigrate to have any hope for a better life - and I don't mean just now, but on a never-ending basis.

So are you actually going to address some facts or are you going to continue this game of yours, whereby you continue to make spurious claims in the hope that some will stick?

Better still, how about you tell us the real reason for your Eurosceptism?

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

At least they have a future in Ireland now. For example, back in the eighties, unemployment was even higher than today:



Add to that, we were also paying significantly more tax. As bad as things are in Ireland, they are significantly better that they were back in the bad old days, prior to the Celtic Tiger and Euro, when leaving was literally the only option most of us (old enough to have been there) had.

Really, can you back that up with evidence? I ask because these types of claims have been going around for a while and tend to include non-nationals too.

And the UK's foreign debt represents 390% of GDP - even Germany's is worse than ours! As to the level of debt, you don't seem to even understand what that debt actually is.

No it was not, and this was explained to you a few pages back, which you ignored then shortly after which you ducked out of the discussion rather than address it. Would you like to continue making the same discredited claim?

Yes, I already did and unlike you have actually pointed out the facts of the matter. Ireland is infinitely better off having joined the EEC/EC/EU, than it was, as evidenced by the Celtic Tiger which has been attributed to FDI that put EU (and later Euro) membership pretty much at the top of the list (along with our low corporation tax rates).

Let's not forget all the EU money we were more than happy to build our infrastructure on, BTW.

The Euro ultimately may have had some effect in fuelling the bubble, but given the failure of our government to employ fiscal measures to control the bubble (quite the opposite), it becomes clear that even with monetary policy control would have made no difference. Certainly, however, to claim that the Euro was to blame is frankly delusional.

We would be a lot worse off were we not in the EEC/EC/EU; a poor backwater nation on the edge of Europe, with a currency still pegged to the British Pound, with even higher taxes and unemployment than we have today and where most of us would have to emigrate to have any hope for a better life - and I don't mean just now, but on a never-ending basis.

So are you actually going to address some facts or are you going to continue this game of yours, whereby you continue to make spurious claims in the hope that some will stick?

Better still, how about you tell us the real reason for your Eurosceptism?

as usual you keep on throwing out insults,as a mod i would expect you to behave better,the UK WILL leave the EU at the end of the day,and there is nothing you can do about it, i can assure you most UK citizens will vote out if they get the chance, and that makes me think just how ireland would cope with us out