Why is Britain in the EU?

[SEXXXX]

there is a really good reason why UK should not be burdened with the poorer part of EU

 

[dong20]

Because today Britain needs the EU more than the US 'needs' Britain, and because one day China will no longer 'need' the US.

 

[798686]

The very fact that a nation that has voted no is being invited to hold a second referendum with their arm duly twisted sets out the democratic deficit of Europe.

An option for Britain is to leave the EU. If it was put to a referendum in terms of staying or leaving I think there would be a majority for leaving (certainly in England). Seems to me that if this is the will of the people it should happen. But it would be very messy - the whole structure of every bit of EU legislation is to make leaving almost unthinkable. There would be an economic cost, and the UK economy is a bit fragile right now.

My thought is that the Conservatives should as a manifesto committment at the next general election pledge a referendum one year after the election on continued membership of the EU. In that year it may be possible to negotiate a sensible relationship between Britain and other countries within the EU. This may include supremacy of UK law over EU law, end of UK's net contribution to Europe, and tough talking on such things as the circus of a peripatetic EU parliament, the moral bankruptcy of the common agricultural policy, and lots more. In Euro-speak this is a "two-speed" Europe with Britain in the slow lane - in reality it is a model which would be followed by many nation states within the EU.

The future for Britain should be a strengthening of historic Commonwealth ties, a special relationship with the EU (without necessarily being a full part of it), and a special relationship with the USA.

This is my feeling really.

The EU also needs Britain - as a major export market, and also a major contributer to its fledgling armed forces. I think if we negotiated a partial withdrawal they'd be interested in keeping as close a relationship with us as possible.

 

[Jason]

This is my feeling really.

The EU also needs Britain - as a major export market, and also a major contributer to its fledgling armed forces. I think if we negotiated a partial withdrawal they'd be interested in keeping as close a relationship with us as possible.

Full agreement. Lets hope Cameron has the bottle to go for it. I think he probably has. The new anti-federalist EU group must have taken a lot of bottle to set up, and seems pointless if you are not going to follow this through in your national politics.

 

[mattflanders]

It's amazing how little people know about the benefits of the EU and how much bullshit the British press writes about the EU. The United Kingdom simply cannot survive economically without the EU because it doesn't have the strong ties with Commonwealth nations anymore. That was the whole reason the UK joined the EC in the 60's. The richer Commonwealth nation simply didn't need the UK anymore as the motor of their economy so the UK had to look for new markets. The best option was the European Continent.
If the UK were not in the EU, than it would have to pay significant import fees to get its products on the market in EU-countries. And that would be a huge burden on a the British economy with over 60% of exports to other EU-countries.
From a purely economic perspective it makes a lot of sense to be in the EU, leaving it is killing your economy. Not to mention not having any say in regulations anymore. Anyone who wants to sell goods in the EU has to comply to trade rules, even the United States or China or they are banned from the European market.

And the EU doesn't forbid anyone from having a national identity.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

It's simple: the Uk can't survive without Europe, and that pure economical like said here above. You said something about europe lost connection with the uk because of a cable, turn it around too: UK lost connection with Europe.
Many people from the Uk aren't against Europe, that is just your opinion. That you drive left or don't use the Euro has to do with proud, tradition and so on and on. The British people are a proud people and keep traditions very much.

The british government was thinking about a new ID for the british, a biometric ID, but many were against it because that would come inbetween their privacy. But with the ID, emmigrants aren't allowed.

Nono, I believe and know from many people from the UK they are European and don't mind being European.

 

[superbot]

It's simple: the Uk can't survive without Europe, and that pure economical like said here above. You said something about europe lost connection with the uk because of a cable, turn it around too: UK lost connection with Europe.
Many people from the Uk aren't against Europe, that is just your opinion. That you drive left or don't use the Euro has to do with proud, tradition and so on and on. The British people are a proud people and keep traditions very much.

The british government was thinking about a new ID for the british, a biometric ID, but many were against it because that would come inbetween their privacy. But with the ID, emmigrants aren't allowed.

Nono, I believe and know from many people from the UK they are European and don't mind being European.

Alot of that simply isn't true.The vast majority of British DON'T see themselves as particularly European,certainly in outlook.It's mainly antipathetic rather than a dislike of 'Johnny foreigner.' Rightly or wrongly we have always felt very comfortable in our own skins,so to speak and cannot bring ourselves to 'Be European'.Besides I think we have always mistrusted the French/German on/off love affair thing!!

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Alot of that simply isn't true.The vast majority of British DON'T see themselves as particularly European,certainly in outlook.It's mainly antipathetic rather than a dislike of 'Johnny foreigner.' Rightly or wrongly we have always felt very comfortable in our own skins,so to speak and cannot bring ourselves to 'Be European'.Besides I think we have always mistrusted the French/German on/off love affair thing!!

Don't forget that Europe is more then France and germany and those things that happend in the past.

 

[Drifterwood]

I am quite happy being European, a European Brit, and I agree that the UK would be better off being a full economic partner in Europe, though we wouldn't not survive without it.

The problem is cultural. There is an English speaking world. Using myself as an example, I spend at least three months a year out of the UK on business. The circle of friends that I have developed tend to be (but are not exclusively) from English speaking countries, even though I am something of a cunning linguist.

There is a north/south, protestant/catholic divide in Europe and then there is the UK. I wouldn't underestimate the depths of these cultural divides. Much though I like Italy and Italians, I have more in common with Aussies.

 

[798686]

Matt - It's true that a lot of people don't know as much about the EU as they should. Some know a fair amount though - if they bother to look. I also agree that the British press doesn't help sometimes by running scare-mongering stories that aren't true - which kind've detracts from the issues that are a problem.

I don't think having looser ties with the EU would mean we had to stop seeing the EU as a trading partner. Lots of non-EU countries have access to the single-market, such as Norway, Switzerland, etc - and many of the countries in the EU Neighbourhood Policy.

Britain mainly joined to be part of the single market - it's what we basically signed up for, what we didnt want was the political integration that came with it (that the economic alignment was designed to create).
Our trade with our colonies was fine when we joined the EU - many of them were deeply offended when we turned our back on them and slapped tariffs on their produce, so we could buy more expensive, EU-subsidised French produce, etc.

I think the Brits generally like Europe as a place, and the Europeans as people - we just don't all agree with the ever-closer political union which is the underlying idea behind the EU.

*(PS: If we can manage to install Pieterjoke as the new EU President, I might feel more favourably towards it. Maybe LPSG can campaign for some seats in the EU Parliament?)

 

[798686]

Full agreement. Lets hope Cameron has the bottle to go for it. I think he probably has. The new anti-federalist EU group must have taken a lot of bottle to set up, and seems pointless if you are not going to follow this through in your national politics.

I'm sort of in two minds about the anti-federalist grouping. I agree the Conservatives can't stay in the EPP-EG grouping, as it's far too federalist in its stated goals and beliefs. But the new group seems to be full of extremist groups which might lower the Tories credibility..really not sure what the answer is. :S

I feel the same way about the democratic deficit - the EU is fairly unaccountable in a lot of things it does, but if that is addressed - presumably by the (already mooted) creation of EU wide political parties, and an EU wide political arena so people can have their say - wouldn't this actually legitimise and create a real EU political entity that many Brits don't want? It seems like a Catch-22. :redface:

PS: D'you think Mandy will try and keep labour in power long enough for Lisbon to be completely ratified - so by the time the Tories get in, it'll be too late to hold a referendum?

 

[Smartalk]

Simple....Edward Heath then Conservative Priminister decided he would do it ...Despite everyone being totally against it. But that is Government and Politics for you, It asks what you want then does the complete opposite. I thought you MP was there to represent the wishes of his constituency, the people who voted them to be their parlimenatry representative. In stead they vote for what they think is right or wht their consience will allow, as I was once told by my local MP needless to he didn't last long

 

[dong20]

Simple....Edward Heath then Conservative Priminister decided he would do it ...Despite everyone being totally against it.

It's not quite so simple as that.

Yes, it was a Conservative Government that [unilaterally] signed Britain up to the then EEC in 1973 (that must chafe eh, Jason:wink.

But, and here the irony is sweet, it was a Labour Government that promised, and held a referendum about retaining membership, only two years later, in 1975. The result was 67% for remaining - a result supported by Thatcher et al.

Unless views took a 180 in the internervening two years, that result hardly supports your assertion of 'everyone being totally against it'.

But I shouldn't need to remind you, you were around then as an adult, perhaps you voted in the referendum - maybe your memory has failed you, or become selective over time.

People may have been ignorant, (then and now) and the EU isn't what it was in 1975 - but when people post such things as - 'everyone things this, or everyone believes that' it just makes me smile. I usually and immediately think; have you met and canvassed the opinion of everyone?

Asked today; do I think a simple majority would vote against Lisbon ... yes. Do I think a simple majority would vote to leave the EU ... perhaps but it would be close.

Would they vote the same were they informed without predjuduce and politcal bias and scarmongering - then I'd say yes (but closer), and no, respectively.

I'm sure that many of the no votes wouldn't be focussed on the real issues, but cast as reaction to events that are tangental (but not unrelated to the EU).

For example, there's considerable resentment about asylum seekers, an irrational fear of metrication (it's simpler, why the fuss??), the surveilance state, draconian legislation in the name of 'terrorism prevention' along with a raft of issues that it's convenient to blame Brussels for, whether Brussels is to blame or not.

Even 'faceless, unaccountable' beauracracy isn't new to the UK. It's been that way since long before the EEC was conceived. Civil servants are not elected, and while and are [supposed to be] non political this has changed in recent years. But I don't blame Brussels for this, I blame Westminster - and senior Civil Servants for bowing to political pressure.

Legislating the 'bend of a banana' is nonsense, as are many of Brussels' edicts, but are these issues over which to tear apart decades of national economic, social and political policy?

Are we at risk of losing site of the bigger picture - what is in the best long term interests of the UK. To allude to a recent thread, there is a difference between integration, and assimilation.

 

[798686]

But, and here the irony is sweet, it was a Labour Government that promised, and held a referendum about retaining membership, only two years later, in 1975. The result was 67% for remaining - a result supported by Thatcher et al.

True, but the referendum was a bit of a swizz - the campaign for the referendum was deliberately skewed to focus on issues such as jobs and whether goods would be cheaper or not... 'the pound in your pocket', etc. and deliberately stayed away from issues such as open-ended loss of sovereignty (which incidentally, Whitehall were aware would be the eventual result anyway, even before we entered the EEC - the UK Gov having admitted this to the US administration when they asked them to support our entry bid).

The man behind the 1975 'Yes' campaign has since admitted they were guilty of mis-representation. Had the people of UK been fully informed as to what EEC entry eventually involved, then the referendum result may well have been very different.

I agree though, that it would be great to give UK citizens a really accurate picture of what continued EU membership involves - without any scaremongering or inaccurate euro-sceptic nonsense, but also without any denial of where the EU hopes to go in the future, what its plans are and what this involves for the UK.

 

[dong20]

True, but the referendum was a bit of a swizz - the campaign for the referendum was deliberately skewed to focus on issues such as jobs and whether goods would be cheaper or not... 'the pound in your pocket', etc. and deliberately stayed away from issues such as open-ended loss of sovereignty (which incidentally, Whitehall were aware would be the eventual result anyway, even before we entered the EEC - the UK Gov having admitted this to the US administration when they asked them to support our entry bid).

Well, that's not a first hand opinion, so one must consider the impact of historical perspective.That's not so important though. What is important is that people voted on the basis of what they were told by politicians, and as well well know, politicians ... lie.

1975 Referendum pamphlet.

In that sense, nothing has really changed, there's as much BS talked about Europe now, as was then. Too many people are simply too lazy to read and learn for themselves, and render an informed choice. What has changed is the ease with which such information is available, yet still the sheep believe what's spoon fed to them.

The man behind the 1975 'Yes' campaign has since admitted they were guilty of mis-representation. Had the people of UK been fully informed as to what EEC entry eventually involved, then the referendum result may well have been very different.

Different maybe, but I think it would still have been a yes, even if a narrower one. But that's a judgement rendered with hindsight and is hypothetical.

Depending on what happens now in Britain and in Ireland, do you imagine in 30 years from now a retrospective view would be so very different in the sense of ' they lied' ? See above on the responsibility of individuals to render informed decisions.:biggrin1:

I agree though, that it would be great to give UK citizens a really accurate picture of what continued EU membership involves - without any scaremongering or inaccurate euro-sceptic nonsense, but also without any denial of where the EU hopes to go in the future, what its plans are and what this involves for the UK.

They only way that will likely happen is if they obtain the information themselves, read the treaties (have you?) think about what really matters and then decide. Once you cut through the flowery crap there's some good stuff in there, plenty of dodgy stuff toom, I can't deny that.

I suppose one's position depends on a number of factors, not least being how much intrinsic value does one assign to nationhood. I have no problem accepting an informed choice (I may not like it, but then people sometimes don't like my decisions!!) but people who decide [vote] based primarily on ignorance, bias and superficiality deserve what they get.

Personally, I don't assign much, I find it as much a bar to progress as it is an aid - mostly because nations are perceived in stereoptypes and thus in ignorance and preconception.

When it comes down to some of the things people kick off about- to name but two examples - I care far more about being able to actually buy food than I do about its scale of measurement, or the currency with which I purchase it. In principle, I support a common European currency - as I would support a common Global currency.

I have no romantic or sentimental attachment to the GBP, it's just a means to an end, what does it matter what it's called or looks like. In our increasingly electronic western world cash is becoming increasingly irrelevent.

As in most things political, the devil is in the detail and there are far too many uncrupulous individuals, as well as governments and corporations too focussed on the short term and simple control based greed to look beyond national concerns. Most of the world has next to nothing, as yourself how that situation has come about, and how it's perpetuated. Europe (the EU) is as guilty as any major player.

Many British folk whine about loss of democracy, well the price of democracy nationally is that sometimes things don't go how a sizable minority want, extrapolate that to a larger (European Parliament) canvas and of course it's possible that a nationinal parliament could find itself having to adopt something 'unwelcome' that a majority of others want.

Human rights legislation for example. Westminster didn't want it - has fought to keep exemptions in Lisbon, but it's proven invaluable as a means to curb their power, abused though the legislation sometimes is, I wonder where we would be without it.

I agree, that's a risk, but what isn't - including withdrawal from the EU. I don't know if Britain could become a Norway or Sweden, or if it should even try.

I am pro Europe, I don't deny that. I know there are risks, as there are rewards, and despite some reservations I would support Lisbon. I suppose, having travelled in dozens [and worked in several] countries not just in Europe, I have a little less attachment to Britain or perhaps, just perhaps a little more objectivity about its true status, strengths and weaknesses than those whose exposure to the world is via mass media, package tours to costa fish 'n' chips [or, insert latest national embarrassment centre] and fringe political groups - they can vote UKIP/BNP and sit in a corner, preferably with a grenade and itchy fingers.

Britain is a great country, but I do believe it's not so great as it likes to think it is (or was), at least much of the time. Ditto for many [most] nations, of course.

On balance, for all its shortcomings, I do believe Britain is better off within the EU than without.

In many respects, I'm with Drifter on this, I am European, and I have zero issues with that (how could I, it's an unalterabe fact of my birth) but I like to think I maintain a more global perspective - at least I try to.

 

[D_Lawhitton Megabutt]

...because we rock?

 

[798686]

I'm sort of in two minds about the anti-federalist grouping. I agree the Conservatives can't stay in the EPP-EG grouping, as it's far too federalist in its stated goals and beliefs.

Oops, meant EPP-ED. Sorry :redface:

 

[798686]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Dong! Would take me ages to reply to every point made, I'm afraid - but I'll do what I can, heheh.

I agree that my view of the '75 referendum campaign isn't first hand (obviously, lol - since I was only born that year). It is based on information and opinions I've read from people who were around at the time.

Yeah, I agree that BS is splattered round constantly by both sides - Eurosceptics constantly leaping on any anti-european story whether it's true or not (often not), and pro-Europeans either swallowing blithely whatever they're told without finding out for themselves (same with sceptics), or eurocrats claiming innocuous reasons for new initiatives which are designed to promote integration.

I do think it's very important to find out the facts for yourself though (though it can take several years of in-depth reading to come to grips properly with the facts and arguments on either side of an issue as complex as the EU). But as you say, if people vote without arming themselves with the facts, they can't complain later on that they've been mislead!

I don't have a problem with the fact that the EU tries to do an awful lot of good things - they do. A lot of the projects are designed to make people's lives better and more prosperous, to make things run more smoothly and peacefully, and to improve many aspects of our lives - although a lot of the projects also have the aim of gradually bringing about closer political and economic integration. Monet himself admitted that many of the economic measures were means designed to achieve a political result. As was the Euro - according to Prodi, etc.

I do take issue though, with the fact that many of the people of Europe were not told this from the outset - sure, ever closer union was mentioned from the beginning of the EEC in 57 - but many people were deliberately kept in the dark on the true end-goal of the European project, presumably because people were very attached to their nations at that point, and wouldn't have appreciated the watering down and pooling of their sovereignty that Europe eventually planned to demand.

I just think it's dishonest, that's all - sure people thought it was a good idea to launch a european project, leading to political integration in order to stop war between european nations. But I dont think it was right to do it behind people's backs and then present it to them years later as something they'd always wanted. Many of them I suspect would have been against it (otherwise Monnet wouldn't have felt the need to resort to presenting it as an economic construct, when the purpose was political) - especially in the UK.
Monnet's idea was to build the edifice of Europe stealthily, and then present it to people once complete. He and others (Willy Brandt, Adenaur, etc) all realised this could only be done if the main purpose was partially concealed.

I have read quite a bit of the Constitution actually - and a lot of commentary on it from various prespectives - I've also read a limited amount of Lisbon, but not in as much depth.

I am still in favour of Nation States, tbh - and I'm not sure the one-size-fits-all mentality works completely. Especially in terms of a single currency - many countries (Italy, for instance) are struggling without the ability to control their own interest rate, etc. I think Britain would manage outside the single currency (we've done fairly well until recently, lol), if we get through the current difficulties, that is.

 

[dong20]

I do take issue though, with the fact that many of the people of Europe were not told this from the outset - sure, ever closer union was mentioned from the beginning of the EEC in 57 - but many people were deliberately kept in the dark on the true end-goal of the European project, presumably because people were very attached to their nations at that point, and wouldn't have appreciated the watering down and pooling of their sovereignty that Europe eventually planned to demand.

I quite agree. But in the defence of those original members, I wonder if even then they had a clear idea of what would happen over the next 50 years. Given that for most of their history the nations of Europe have either been at war or recovering from one, to expect a legacy of centuries (or more) of resentment, hostility and competition to be overcome by a political union within a couple of generations would be insane.

But while I wonder if things have not come a little too far, too fast for many - that so much has been acheived in so short a time, is quite amazing.

I just think it's dishonest, that's all - sure people thought it was a good idea to launch a european project, leading to political integration in order to stop war between european nations. But I dont think it was right to do it behind people's backs and then present it to them years later as something they'd always wanted. Many of them I suspect would have been against it (otherwise Monnet wouldn't have felt the need to resort to presenting it as an economic construct, when the purpose was political) - especially in the UK.

It is dishonest. I never (well very, very rarely) take any utterence from a politician at face value.

Monnet's idea was to build the edifice of Europe stealthily, and then present it to people once complete. He and others (Willy Brandt, Adenaur, etc) all realised this could only be done if the main purpose was partially concealed.

I emapthise with Monnet, sometimes a fair acompli is the best way, once the pain stops that is. Kind of like removing a plaster in one quick yank! That's not a justification for deception, but ...

I have read quite a bit of the Constitution actually - and a lot of commentary on it from various prespectives - I've also read a limited amount of Lisbon, but not in as much depth.

It's hard work. I have read it all, perhaps absorbed a third. I have read much of the most of the other treaties, but can't say it was recent or that I remember the details of them.

I am still in favour of Nation States, tbh - and I'm not sure the one-size-fits-all mentality works completely. Especially in terms of a single currency - many countries (Italy, for instance) are struggling without the ability to control their own interest rate, etc. I think Britain would manage outside the single currency (we've done fairly well until recently, lol), if we get through the current difficulties, that is.

I kind of move back and forth on it. I once wondered that may indicate indecision, but I conclude that it's more indifference. With an EU passport one can travel the world (and the EU at will) with comparative ease, and few beauracratic obstacles.

That's more than can be said citizens of most nations, the nationhood lottery has always seem unfair to me. I have met so many intelligent, motivated people all over the world who are victims of the passport they carry, trapped by a system they were born into. Nationhood has advantages, for those fortunate enough to have the right one.

That's not an EU issue, but the ability to travel freely is something I cannot imagine being without - and I don't mean afforded me in an economic sense, I mean the political sense. I am lucky in that sense, and the EU has afforded me a freedom most can only dream of.

Sorry, wandered off topic a little! When I say I support the Euro I mean as a matter of principle. I wouldn't advocate adoption unless it was favourable. I just have no emotional attachment to name or pictures on the currency I spend, I really couldn't care less.

I suppose it's like the faceless 'credits' so beloved of sci fi ... but in the end if I could spend the same 'currency' all over the world, if nothing else I'd appreciate the simplicity, and the denial of those sharks at the exchange desks their pound (sorry, half kilo) of flesh would be a nice bonus - the amount of money those guys have taken from me over the years!!!!

That's not to say I'd advocate a homogenised world, nothing further from the truth. I think cultures should be encouraged to flourish but that there should be a common minimum set of core standards the peoples of the world can count on. Access to education, health and such like. The EU can help bring those the Europe ... it's a start. The EU needs to be kept in check but, on balance I'd rather have it, than not.

I'm a bit idealistic, beneath my cynicism ... deep down!

 

[798686]

Thanks for the honest, thoughtful post, dude! (Dunno if that sounds patronising - but it's not meant to!). Sounds like you've read more of the treaties than Kenneth Clarke did - before he signed them, lol (Maastrict anyway). Sounds like you're a Euro-realist more than pro or sceptic actually (which is what i aspire to be....but lean a bit too much to the scepticism lol).

Where do you see the EU headed over the next 20 years or so? Personally, I'd expect further gradual integration and possibly encouraging of smaller ethnic or regional units within a stronger EU. Which might not be compatible with a united UK eventually - devolution and regional policy may lead to fragmentation, I guess.

Plus maybe greater commitments for the EU on the world stage - allied with gradually stronger military capabilities and greater influence in world insitutions like the IMF, UN etc. Prodi's 'Building a Political Europe' document from 2004 gives some idea of recent thinking.

I also wonder what it will mean for America's role on the world stage - do you see the EU challenging or eventually taking over them for world leadership? I'm not too sure how long the EU will stick with soft power - maybe indefinitely, or maybe they'll feel the need to be more forceful. Not particularly looking forward to President Blair though.

I am still deeply wary of it tbh - and think countries should be able to hold onto their nationhood if they so choose. But anyway...

This is gonna ruin any independent-thinking image I might've had, but have you ever read 'The Great Deception' by Christopher Booker/Richard North? It's a well referenced attempt to document the EU's progress since it's inception - and the UK's realtionship with it. It's biased in some ways, but still fascinating.