New Era Dawns for EU

[cock23]

Well I din't say they would like it, but most of the anti-eu posters are arguing the US is a great place, cohesive, no internal issues. So if Europe was one country like the US it would also be a great place, no internal issues, etc, etc, and be just as good at getting its own way in the world as the US. How would we not be better off if all that was indeed the case?

I frankly can't be bothered to trawl through all the points you've made at this point in time, but this really sticks out for me. How do you KNOW that the EU will be better off as a superstate?

That's a pretty big statement to make, so I trust you have some pretty strong evidence to back your beliefs up. And how do you KNOW that all the states would get on peacefully and always co-operate? Again I expect strong evidence for your argument and not some general sweeping statements which you are prone to making.

 

[798686]

Hmm, this links in with Drifter's comment about regionalisation of the world - I'll come back to that in a day or so.

I agree tho, that the leaders do smell glory for themselves, and sometimes their nations (in the case of Germany, and possibly France), if they push the EU into the big-time. Not sure about it being easy to steer other nations towards our goals - we haven't been that successful so far (but it depends which goals you have in mind).

What about Britain being an ally/co-operative neighbour and trading partner of the EU, but existing outside their political structure, with sovereignty over our own law-making (a la Norway)? We'd then be free to pursue links with our usual, and reliable (usually) allies - the US/Canada/Aus/NZ, and possibly India etc, and other Commonwealth nations.

I agree about resources being a problem in the future - maybe also religious differences allied with it. The EU getting its tentacles into the infrastructure of other blocs is already underway (access to the African water distribution market, along with other things - in return for limited trading access to the EU single market)...but this belongs in Drifter's regionalisation reply, really...

My original point tho was that if Britain throws herself into the EU with wild abandon, the superstate agenda will become ever more obvious as time goes by, and nation states will continue to be eroded, so Britain will no longer exist in the form she does now. If we want to preserve Britain and any influence whatsoever as the United Kingdom - then we can't support a federal Europe, because eventually (sooner rather than later, I imagine) there won't be any Britain left - just English Euroregions in an all-powerful bloc (which can no longer be held to account by anyone).

 

[Jason]

Like Eurotop I had sort of decided to give this one a rest, but ...

There are arguments that the UK is more prosperous within the EU, and that a UK within the EU can influence decisions and gain global influence through the EU. These arguments may even be right. But I'm far from sure people in Britain actually want these things.

Prosperity isn't just about the nation's total wealth. A big chunk of the UK GNP goes towards military spending that could be cut. Why do we want to have a state of the art nuclear missile system? Why do we want to be playing a major role in Iraq and Afghanistan? If we re-evaluate our role we could in theory have a lower GNP but more prosperity for people because we are not spending so much on the military.

And then there's global influence. I don't think most people in Britain really want this. We have a cultural and linguistic achievement which isn't going to go away.

What we do need is a debate in Britain on whether we want to be part of the emerging EU. If we do, fine. If we don't, well it would be best to take that on board and get it sorted.

 

[cock23]

Oh Jason, you still haven't told me which of my points were wrong, I'm still waiting you know.

P.S. Don't think I'l let that one go because I won't.

 

[798686]

What we do need is a debate in Britain on whether we want to be part of the emerging EU. If we do, fine. If we don't, well it would be best to take that on board and get it sorted.

I agree. I think the notion that Britain would be better off in a superstate is not something many Britons are willing to entertain, lol.

 

[dandelion]

I frankly can't be bothered to trawl through all the points you've made at this point in time, but this really sticks out for me. How do you KNOW that the EU will be better off as a superstate?

That's a pretty big statement to make, so I trust you have some pretty strong evidence to back your beliefs up. And how do you KNOW that all the states would get on peacefully and always co-operate? Again I expect strong evidence for your argument and not some general sweeping statements which you are prone to making.

I don't know it. I postulated it, if you were paying attention. I also don't know now which post it was, to see exactly what I said. The point was to consider the best case outcome. People seem worried the EU could not hold together because it is too diverse. I don't see that, but just for the sake of argument assume everyone got on fine. Why would the EU not be just as nice a place to live as the US? Nicer, because it would be home. What exactly would be wrong with living in such a state?

 

[cock23]

I don't know it. I postulated it, if you were paying attention. I also don't know now which post it was, to see exactly what I said. The point was to consider the best case outcome. People seem worried the EU could not hold together because it is too diverse. I don't see that, but just for the sake of argument assume everyone got on fine. Why would the EU not be just as nice a place to live as the US? Nicer, because it would be home. What exactly would be wrong with living in such a state?

dandelion dandelion dandelion....here's a tip for you: don't make strong, sweeping statements which you can't back up with equally strong evidence. :wink:

 

[dandelion]

Not sure about it being easy to steer other nations towards our goals - we haven't been that successful so far (but it depends which goals you have in mind).

well yes, I must admit to sitting here wondering exactly what we might do with all this power once we got it. I think the answer is you never know until some difficulty arises. I havn't the least idea what those goals might be. Fundamentally I think we are better off the more power is wielded by peoples most like ourselves. I would rather it was the European block which got things its own way. At the moment we are more like the kids with the construction set arguing which bits go where. What do you do with it once it is complete?

What about Britain being an ally/co-operative neighbour and trading partner of the EU, but existing outside their political structure, with sovereignty over our own law-making (a la Norway)? We'd then be free to pursue links with our usual, and reliable (usually) allies - the US/Canada/Aus/NZ, and possibly India etc, and other Commonwealth nations.

The British empire again then? I think these countries acted as reliable allies when they were part of that empire, which we were running. This was the thread of common interest. The US has always had its own motivations to be our ally which sometimes apply and sometimes not. The world is much smaller than it used to be, but it still remains more important to be on good terms with the country next door than the one on the opposite side of the globe. So relations with europe are always going to be important. Unless any grouping is really solid, how much is it worth when things become bad, which is when it will matter. Which is the point about a tight Eu. WHich is not to say that such a grouping could not be made with the commonwealth countries, but although we share a language, we have more in common with other Europeans.

My original point tho was that if Britain throws herself into the EU with wild abandon, the superstate agenda will become ever more obvious as time goes by, and nation states will continue to be eroded, so Britain will no longer exist in the form she does now. If we want to preserve Britain and any influence whatsoever as the United Kingdom - then we can't support a federal Europe, because eventually (sooner rather than later, I imagine) there won't be any Britain left - just English Euroregions in an all-powerful bloc (which can no longer be held to account by anyone).

I don't see the EU as a threat to britishness, whatever that is. I don't really believe it makes the slightest difference to being british whether we belong to the EU or not. I don't see the Eu doing anything except encourage cultural diversity, because this is extremely important to every member state.

 

[dandelion]

There are arguments that the UK is more prosperous within the EU, and that a UK within the EU can influence decisions and gain global influence through the EU. These arguments may even be right. But I'm far from sure people in Britain actually want these things.
Why do we want to have a state of the art nuclear missile system? Why do we want to be playing a major role in Iraq and Afghanistan?

To start at the end, because we like to be friends with the US, who wanted us to give them moral support. So that they will give us (er, sell) a nice new state of the art nuclear missile system. Because we are so weak by ourselves we feel we have to have one. Had we been part of an integrated EU, there would have been none of this nonsense of joining in these invasions. The price of independence is giving in to anyone powerful.

 

[dandelion]

dandelion dandelion dandelion....here's a tip for you: don't make strong, sweeping statements which you can't back up with equally strong evidence. :wink:

I wrote quite precisely: what would you find unacceptable about living in a united europe similar to the US? Realistically although the union is perfectly possible, it would inevitably havs much more cultural diversity. Frankly, little different to how it is now. What do you imagine could change if there was one centralised government ?

 

[cock23]

I don't see the EU as a threat to britishness, whatever that is. I don't really believe it makes the slightest difference to being british whether we belong to the EU or not. I don't see the Eu doing anything except encourage cultural diversity, because this is extremely important to every member state.[/QUOTE]

Evidence?

I wrote quite precisely: what would you find unacceptable about living in a united europe similar to the US? Realistically although the union is perfectly possible, it would inevitably havs much more cultural diversity. Frankly, little different to how it is now. What do you imagine could change if there was one centralised government ?

I would find the following unacceptable/reasons why the EU power should not increase:

1) I like things to be run locally and the laws used to be UK laws which fit in the values and mindset of this country. In short, I want the UK to run things its own way and for this country's laws to not be overridden by Brussels. (Which is currentlyw hat is happening). I want London to be the central authority and call all the shots, not Brussels. In fact, many people in the UK feel the same.

After all, you wouldn't want your neighbour coming into your house and telling you how you should behave in your own house, would you?

2) "It ain't broken, don't fix it". This country's laws and customs have worked fine before the EU started interfeering. Why change a system which works so well and which people are happy with? Now, I know what your argument will be: the EU has made the system more efficient and systems could always do with reform. My counter argument to that is that the UK laws and systems would have reformed by themselves in due course anyway, but the difference being it would be done with this country's people's approval, not by foreigners who don't always understand how this country works and its people's mentality.

3) It would be a lot more difficult to change the governing system (or anything for that matter) if the EU functioned as a fully fledged federal superstate. In America the President has had, and in fact still does, a nightmare with trying to reform things and all the states generally tug in their own direction. (Look how long it's taking to change the health care system, for example!). It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a system which would satisfy everyone equally. And Britains voice would be hushed by the voices of the other 26 states.

4) Why can't the EU be a set of alliances and trade sharing? Everyone would be satisfied with things that way, and it's a natural compromise between having a federal EU and leaving the EU completely, and the UK wouldn't lose the great trade benefits which the EU has bought it. So with this in mind, is it necessary to go further and create a federal superstate?

I could go on and make more points about what would change if a federal superstate EU was created and what I wouldn't like about it. But I think that's enough for tonight.

So now the same question to you: Give me strong evidence which suggests that the UK would be so much better off being part of a federal EU superstate.

 

[dandelion]

I don't see the EU as a threat to britishness, whatever that is. I don't really believe it makes the slightest difference to being british whether we belong to the EU or not. I don't see the Eu doing anything except encourage cultural diversity, because this is extremely important to every member state.

Evidence?

You want me to name some witnesses to the effect that this is my opinion? If I start a sentence, 'I don't see', it means what it says. I don't see the the EU as a threat to anyones cultural diversity. I turn the question back to you, show me any evidence that the EU has restircted the culture of Britain or any other member state which might alter my opinion. Mine is an informed opinion, however: I don't remember anything the EU has done which has impacted british culture. Culture is an area the EU has virtually nothing to do with. What on earth do you think it would want to do?

1) I like things to be run locally and the laws used to be UK laws which fit in the values and mindset of this country. In short, I want the UK to run things its own way and for this country's laws to not be overridden by Brussels.

Every UK government for 30 years has said it wants to give government back to the people at a local level, and every government has increased centralisation and reduced local input, at the same time crying that the EU was forcing it to do things it did not want to. Bollocks. The UK parliament is obsessive about taking all power to itself and not consulting anyone, british or european, national voter or local. All that time we have been run by minority governments which never ever represented the majority of the british people and immediately ignored half their election promises. Parliamentary representation of the people in this country is pathetic and all parties resolutely prevent changes which would give people more say, for example a proportionately elected house of lords. Instead of one made up of people who got there by accident, we now have one appointed by the government. Gee! what a great democracy. What is so good about this?

2) "It ain't broken, don't fix it". This country's laws and customs have worked fine before the EU started interfeering. Why change a system which works so well and which people are happy with?

you mean the system where MPs are so scared of admitting how much they get paid they deliberately introduce a system of 'expenses' intended to be claimed automatically by everyone? Granting themselves an annual allowance to write to their constituents to say how wonderfully they are doing whereas their opopnents get nothing to promote themselves? Blatant self agrandisement? Most of the people in this country have no reason to vote, because they know that their party stands no chance whatsoever under the first past the post system, which is deliberately designed to keep the established political elite in power for ever and prevent any challengers getting a look in. Utterly undemocratic. Eventually it will also self-destruct under the growing weight of national contempt for this system. The system you espouse is one designed to keep a tiny elite of the British aristocracy in power forever. Just look at the kind of people who are even labour MPs! Just for example, LORD Mandelson, grandson of Herbert Morrison. Someone who has inherited his political position despite not having a hereditary title and who has been APPOINTED to a major government position! Anthony Wedgewood Benn, formerly viscount Stansgate, whose son is now in turn a labour MP? The Churchill dynasty?The british government is all about keeping it in the family.

Now, I know what your argument will be: the EU has made the system more efficient and systems could always do with reform.

Efficient? who ever argued a system with 10 languages and two parliaments which up sticks and swap homes every few months is effiecent? Why is efficiency good? the Nazis were very efficient at what they did. Inaction can be a wonderful virtue.

My counter argument to that is that the UK laws and systems would have reformed by themselves in due course anyway, but the difference being it would be done with this country's people's approval, not by foreigners who don't always understand how this country works and its people's mentality.

You mean compulsory identity cards, DNA of every citizen being recorded by stealth, the biggest ever system of spying on everyones phone and internet usage, imprisonment without trial for 1 month which the government wanted to be 3, new laws permitting the government to declare a state of emergency and rule absolutely without reference to anyone, the right of just about any government busybody you can name to snoop on you and have access to any personal records? Going to war against the wishes and indeed interests of the people? Encouraging immigration? All these are home grown british policies limiting the freedom of the individual. There have been many more over the years.

3) It would be a lot more difficult to change the governing system (or anything for that matter) if the EU functioned as a fully fledged federal superstate.

Yes, to stop tyrants changing the rules and seizing power. It is required to have overwhelming public support before you do any of the changes just listed above. The recent trend in britain has been to roll back hundreds of years of history where the house of commons won the rights to challenge the government and stop any tyrant. Now all these changes are being reversed so that a british government could once again rule by decree and the commons is just a rubber stamp. there are no checks in the bristsh system whatsoever. Every year more and more laws are passed giving ministers of the crown the right to change laws without asking anyone. It just runs on good will! Just look what happened to weimar Germany when the constitution was overturned by Hitler. We are too nice for it happen here? Oh really.

4) Why can't the EU be a set of alliances and trade sharing? Everyone would be satisfied with things that way, and it's a natural compromise between having a federal EU and leaving the EU completely, and the UK wouldn't lose the great trade benefits which the EU has bought it. So with this in mind, is it necessary to go further and create a federal superstate?

It is not a superstate. It is a trade confederation. Why do people keep claiming it is a superstate or fearing it might become one?

I could go on and make more points about what would change if a federal superstate EU was created and what I wouldn't like about it. But I think that's enough for tonight.

I don't. The arguments against a superstate always say 'I don't like it', but show me what exactly you dont like. It normally seems to be a vague concept which people dont like without being able to pinpoint any specific thing.

So now the same question to you: Give me strong evidence which suggests that the UK would be so much better off being part of a federal EU superstate.

What do you mean by 'federal superstate'? How exactly is that different to what we have now? What is the step or steps you find objectionable? Tell me what it is and maybe I can say why it would be better. The obvious answer is USA, but actually the true reason is WW1, WW2. And to those who say it is absurd we europeans should go to war again, just look at the bank crisis only a few years after the USA dismantled the legal protection system designed to prevent ever again a financial crisis like the wallstreet crash. It just couldnt happen again, so lets get rid of those annoying restrictions.....

 

[Drifterwood]

So let me ask. What pan European cultural brands do we see in every high street?

MacDonalds
Burger King
KFC
Starbucks

You getting the drift yet?

We're a bunch of dumb fucks and deserve to be treated as such.

 

[eurotop40]

I think Britons are dismantling their culture by themselves by having imported - due to the Empire - large groups of Muslims, Hindus etc. This is an ironic situation because British colonialists have never mixed up with the locals in their colonies. On the other hand you do not need colonies to have a similar effect, think of the Turks in Germany or of the Romanians in Italy. BUT, could all these countries now run without these immigrants? To a great extent, NO. And this is not a fault of the EU.

 

[798686]

I think Britons are dismantling their culture by themselves by having imported - due to the Empire - large groups of Muslims, Hindus etc. This is an ironic situation because British colonialists have never mixed up with the locals in their colonies. On the other hand you do not need colonies to have a similar effect, think of the Turks in Germany or of the Romanians in Italy. BUT, could all these countries now run without these immigrants? To a great extent, NO. And this is not a fault of the EU.

Yep, I agree - I also don't think the EU is particularly a threat to British culture, per se. What I meant, was that the EU is gradually eroding and fracturing Nation States as entities - promoting a strong, central EU -and also promoting smaller, ethnic regions at the expense of the nation state.

I was really thinking that the UK/Britain as a political unit (and other units like Spain etc) might not survive much longer if the EU Regional Policy, etc - continues. We already have the UK carved up into 9 English euro-regions, plus Wales, Scotland etc for administrative purposes. Each of these have their own office in Brussels to deal directly with the EU for Objective 1 funding, etc (bypassing Westminster) - so eventually with a politically integrated EU dealing with the regions on a large number of issues - the nation states would become redundant.

PS: Thanks to Dandelion and everyone for all the detailed replies.

 

[Drifterwood]

I have no problem with people from different cultures deciding to become British or European.

 

[798686]

I have no problem with people from different cultures deciding to become British or European.

Neither do I really - and they certainly shouldnt be badly treated if they do.

I think Eurotop meant the huge immigration in the 50s changed the face of Britain somewhat - altho they've become 'British' now anyway. Also, the huge influx in 2004 (many of which have gone back) from the East European countries was too much at once...but these policy decisions have already been made, so I say treat ppl well, and just have wisely managed immigration in future, on a level that's sustainable.

British culture really isnt what i was on about originally tho...

 

[eurotop40]

...
I was really thinking that the UK/Britain as a political unit (and other units like Spain etc) might not survive much longer if the EU Regional Policy, etc - continues. We already have the UK carved up into 9 English euro-regions, plus Wales, Scotland etc for administrative purposes. Each of these have their own office in Brussels to deal directly with the EU for Objective 1 funding, etc (bypassing Westminster) - so eventually with a politically integrated EU dealing with the regions on a large number of issues - the nation states would become redundant. ...

Yes, but in the end, don't you think that if the smaller regions become more important, the whole system gets more democratic? How democratic are the USA? Not much to my opinion: Electing the president is a big issue where the people has a true influence, but other than that (I'm told by American friends) there's not that much that you can influence if you don't have a very large amount of money or own a TV station. Other story here in Switzerland, where we vote every three months on local, regional and national issues.

 

[cock23]

You want me to name some witnesses to the effect that this is my opinion? If I start a sentence, 'I don't see', it means what it says. I don't see the the EU as a threat to anyones cultural diversity. I turn the question back to you, show me any evidence that the EU has restircted the culture of Britain or any other member state which might alter my opinion. Mine is an informed opinion, however: I don't remember anything the EU has done which has impacted british culture.

I'm not going to anwser because this is just a silly attempt at avoiding to back up your own point. I've already anwsered one of your sweeping statements which you've turned back to me and I'm not doing it again.

"Mine is an informed opinion" what sources and evidence did you look at to make it an informed opinion then?

And by the way: if you employed this stupid "question back to you" tactic at a professional debate or in an essay, you would be shot down for it within about 1 second. If you're going to make sweeping statements and generalisations then learn to back them up with equally strong evidence.

What do you mean by 'federal superstate'? How exactly is that different to what we have now? What is the step or steps you find objectionable? Tell me what it is and maybe I can say why it would be better. The obvious answer is USA, but actually the true reason is WW1, WW2. And to those who say it is absurd we europeans should go to war again, just look at the bank crisis only a few years after the USA dismantled the legal protection system designed to prevent ever again a financial crisis like the wallstreet crash.

YOU said that the EU will be better off as a federal superstate with one centralised government. Your words, not mine. I'm still waiting to hear strong evidence from your side which made you come to this conclusion. Once again: you can't make sweeping statements and generalisations in a debate then not back them up at all with any evidence. It is not the sign of a good debator.

Oh for your convinience, I've found the exact quote where you've said it as well:

Well bluntly, if Europe was a superstate like the US we would all be better off. I don' see how anyone could dispute that.

 

[798686]

Yes, but in the end, don't you think that if the smaller regions become more important, the whole system gets more democratic? How democratic are the USA? Not much to my opinion: Electing the president is a big issue where the people has a true influence, but other than that (I'm told by American friends) there's not that much that you can influence if you don't have a very large amount of money or own a TV station. Other story here in Switzerland, where we vote every three months on local, regional and national issues.

Possibly, but I don't want Britain to disappear and to end up living in a small Euro-region called Wales.

I like Britain, and feel it is fairly democratic - at least as much as the EU is, well...more actually.