Why are the British so anti Europe?

The irony as I see it is that the UK itself is a supranational power in which national power is ceded and centralised in London. Are the Scots and Welsh as anti-EU as the English tend to be?

I've met but a few pro-European Englishmen. The majority were vitriolically against the idea. I think there's something of an island nation siege mentality afoot, a sense of superiority, and definitely a sense that in terms of politics, the continent means only one thing: trouble.

JoeGil wrote: »

The reasons that strike me are are

1. Lack of understanding of what Europe is all about. The concept of peaceful respectful cohabitation and as fair as possible distribution of wealth among it's people is difficult to to understand for the british bulldog mentality.

2. Colonial past means that Britain became accustomed to telling everybody else what to do and can not work easily in a club where everybody else has a say.

3. The loss of Britain's economic power is made more transparent through European integration and this does not sit well with British pride.

4. Bigotry towards cultures which deviate from the British norm.

Im half British myself and have just moved to London from Dublin to take advantage of better job opportunities and far better pay

Your post just smacks of anti britishness. What about the fact that the British dont want to lose their economic sovereignty (just like the Irish don't, the difference being the Irish have no choice), and want to protect London from the German and French agenda to take it down.

Everyone goes on about the UK now being on the periphery, and won't be able to influence European decisions. I would ask, the periphery of what? A eurozone that is no closer to solving its problems than it was 2 years ago. And what decisions are these that people speak of, that the UK is going to suffer from so badly.

The Irish voted no to Lisbon remember, before it was steamrollered through. Hardly the mark of a completely pro-European nation!!

And since when does Europe represent a "fair distribution of wealth"?!?!?

The reality is they aren't anti-Europe, they are Euro-skeptic.

Irish people tend to take a why should we not vote for it approach with the default position that it is probably okay which is basically a pro-EU stance.

British people tend to take a why should we vote for it approach with the default position that there is probably not okay which is basically a Euro-Skeptic point of view.

That would be rather irrational though because I don't think Germany has the capacity to say 'yes' in any case.
I mean there is the whole moral hazard thing. Why should they come in and back the fallout from other countries recklessness one may ask, especially when say in Greece's case this recklessness seems deep rooted in their political culture and is unlikely to change?
One may argue the Germans have a moral obligation to do so as they have caused havoc in Europe and had received help themselves and there is indeed voices in Germany going along with that. But would it not send the wrong signal to the budget offenders and more importantly would it not stress Germanic economic power beyond breaking point? Germany has accumulated significant debt herself and the stricter rules with regards to debt ceilings are badly needed in Germany too because they were the first to break the stabilty pact rules. Germany received a ratings warning from S&P only the other week.
Would the markets not just have us by the throat then as we're all-in then with no more reserves and no more wiggle room left?

I agree with that funny enough and I think that political union will mean all-in for all members. The downside for being one if not the economic powerhouse in that setup is that you're going to be more all-in than others. Obviously Germany has more to lose in this than e.g. Greece.
I'm beginning to come round to the opinion that the €uro may have been a case of putting the cart before the horse. I fully sympathise with Germanies position of trying to revert that to some extent before they throw in their lot.
The problem is that cart and horse are accelerating on a steep downslide and we're not sure our brakes are working either. Not a good climate for well thought out treaty changes and an unhurried debate.

I also fully sympathise with the UK position on a financial transaction tax as it would impact one of their industries unfairly but from what transpires the UK position went far beyond that. They were apparently looking for their right to veto all financial regulation matter embossed into the treaty and that does not sound reasonable but more like a free ticket to obstruct anything and everything from here on in. It seems it sounded unreasonable to most if not all other EU members too.

OS119 wrote: »

'Europe', far from being the petrie dish in which we experimented with a collective where all were equal, where solidarity and group interest over-came narrow self-interest, has become an essay on the need for, and use of sheer, brute power, intergovernmental intimidation and national self-interest.

Something which - if true - is a lamentable indictment of humanity's inability to get past the primitive tribalism that is responsible for so much of our woes.
The effort to do just that - to move beyond nationalism/tribalism - is what the idea of European integration is actually about. That's why I think European union cannot be allowed to fail.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Britain, hummm, if it was the largest economy in Europe maybe their attitude would be more different.

It could be down to long historical reasons, such as England loosing all it's territory on the continent to modern day France.


We don't know


Or it could be that it sells newspapers, and scaring people is the best way to do that.

You could re-phrase the question as "why is Ireland, Spain, Portugal etc so happy to blindly throw their sovereignty in with Merkozy". Brits wanting to be more independent I don't see as a sinister / xenophobic / empire related thing at all. Just a proud country not wanting to become part of some german ruled superstate, which at this stage seems inevitable

Britain, in particular England, and Europe have had a long and uncomfortable relationship. Being an island nation and Anglo-French rivalry have been at the centre of much of this in the last thousand years and has resulted in a sense of mistrust and xenophobia that is ingrained in the British psyche far more than you'll find on the continent.

The legacy of the British Empire has further compounded this problem. Britain still believes itself to be a superpower on some level, despite the last century, and so an element of pride is also a factor.

When the European 'project' began, Britain sent diplomats to the table, but it instructed them not to sign up to anything, because of this mistrust and it's own belief that is was still a superpower. As a result, France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries signed up and Britain abstained.

What followed was a number of events that brought the reality of the post-war World to Britain. The first was the Suez Crisis, which actually happened one year before Treaty of Rome, and demonstrated how the age of European imperialism was well and truly over.

As a reaction to this new reality Britain latched onto the 'special relationship' with the US, epitomized by Harold Macmillan's appeal to the UK parliament that they should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans". The French, who were also burnt by the Suez Crisis, turned to Europe instead.

It is interesting to note that Suez also marked the last major military joint venture between the UK and France until Libya this year. This divergence in policy was probably the de facto end of the entente cordiale that had weathered through two World Wars, returning them to the traditional relationship of rivals - as exemplified by the French veto of British entry into the EEC a few years later.

Britain tried to get around this with EFTA but ultimately gave up and was finally admitted into the EEC. However, Britain still was only interested in a trade organization, because it's political and foreign policy was aligned to the 'special relationship', while France and, increasingly, Germany, saw a European 'superbloc' as the only long term solution to their dwindling influence.

Coming up to the present, the fall of Communism and the Iraq war had profound influences on Europe. The former resulted in the accession of Eastern Europe to the fold and the latter irrevocably damaged European trust in the US; if they were able to act unilaterally and against all objections, then to place too much faith in them to safeguard your political, military and economic future was foolish. I still maintain that Bush did more for European unity than half a century of the EEC/EU.

Add to all this, decades of the British tabloids drip-feeding jingoistic and xenophobic nonsense to the population, which has further distanced the UK from any hope of European integration.

I think the British failure came at the birth of the EU and Suez. They bet on the 'special relationship' while the French bet on Europe and, so far, it looks like France ultimately made the better bet. But the damage was done, and as a result Britain has been increasingly out of step with the aspirations of the other 26 EU members, leaving them sidelined and ultimately (I expect) out altogether.

But they're kind of stuck now with the consequences of these policies and this leaves them little room for maneuver.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Britain, in particular England, and Europe have had a long and uncomfortable relationship. Being an island nation and Anglo-French rivalry have been at the centre of much of this in the last thousand years and has resulted in a sense of mistrust and xenophobia that is ingrained in the British psyche far more than you'll find on the continent.

The legacy of the British Empire has further compounded this problem. Britain still believes itself to be a superpower on some level, despite the last century, and so an element of pride is also a factor.

When the European 'project' began, Britain sent diplomats to the table, but it instructed them not to sign up to anything, because of this mistrust and it's own belief that is was still a superpower. As a result, France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries signed up and Britain abstained.

What followed was a number of events that brought the reality of the post-war World to Britain. The first was the Suez Crisis, which actually happened one year before Treaty of Rome, and demonstrated how the age of European imperialism was well and truly over.

As a reaction to this new reality Britain latched onto the 'special relationship' with the US, epitomized by Harold Macmillan's appeal to the UK parliament that they should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans". The French, who were also burnt by the Suez Crisis, turned to Europe instead.

It is interesting to note that Suez also marked the last major military joint venture between the UK and France until Libya this year. This divergence in policy was probably the de facto end of the entente cordiale that had weathered through two World Wars, returning them to the traditional relationship of rivals - as exemplified by the French veto of British entry into the EEC a few years later.

Britain tried to get around this with EFTA but ultimately gave up and was finally admitted into the EEC. However, Britain still was only interested in a trade organization, because it's political and foreign policy was aligned to the 'special relationship', while France and, increasingly, Germany, saw a European 'superbloc' as the only long term solution to their dwindling influence.

Coming up to the present, the fall of Communism and the Iraq war had profound influences on Europe. The former resulted in the accession of Eastern Europe to the fold and the latter irrevocably damaged European trust in the US; if they were able to act unilaterally and against all objections, then to place too much faith in them to safeguard your political, military and economic future was foolish. I still maintain that Bush did more for European unity than half a century of the EEC/EU.

Add to all this, decades of the British tabloids drip-feeding jingoistic and xenophobic nonsense to the population, which has further distanced the UK from any hope of European integration.

I think the British failure came at the birth of the EU and Suez. They bet on the 'special relationship' while the French bet on Europe and, so far, it looks like France ultimately made the better bet. But the damage was done, and as a result Britain has been increasingly out of step with the aspirations of the other 26 EU members, leaving them sidelined and ultimately (I expect) out altogether.

But they're kind of stuck now with the consequences of these policies and this leaves them little room for maneuver.

Or maybe it is a lot simpler than that.

Maybe it is just that for the past 2000 years, europeans have been nothing but a pain in the arse for the people of England and now, through its own folly, europe has gotten itself into an absolute ****ing mess and Britain is again being asked to help foot the bill to sort it out.

How is it that three G8 countries can enter into fiscal unions with countries that blatantly lied to get into bed with them. The big question is not "how do you sort out Greece?", it is "how the hell was Greece allowed to join the eurozone in the first place?".

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or maybe it is a lot simpler than that.

What I proffered wasn't that complicated, TBH. Certainly it makes more rational sense that the Daily Mail school of political science.

Maybe it is just that for the past 2000 years, europeans have been nothing but a pain in the arse for the people of England and now, through its own folly, europe has gotten itself into an absolute ****ing mess and Britain is again being asked to help foot the bill to sort it out.

Actually Britain is not really being asked to help foot the bill; it may contribute, but it would be principally Germany that takes the biggest hit. Additionally Britian, even outside of the Euro, does very well out of the collective trading bloc; and there's a price to that.

As to the '2000 years comment', that's actually just dreadful xenophobic nonsense. Britain, as with the rest of Europe (it is still in Europe even if it wishes it were a few thousand kilometres further west) is as much a product of the various migrations and invasions of Europe as everywhere else on the continent - Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, to name but a few in the last 2000 years.

That may be a "pain in the arse" for the British, but without them, they wouldn't be 'British'.

How is it that three G8 countries can enter into fiscal unions with countries that blatantly lied to get into bed with them. The big question is not "how do you sort out Greece?", it is "how the hell was Greece allowed to join the eurozone in the first place?".

No argument there. Never should have done so with Greece.