Why are the British so anti Europe?

getz

whatstherush wrote: »

It surprises me that some people equate democratic decisions taken by a populace to join and integrate into a political union as similar to being colonized by a belligerent neighbor.

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

whatstherush

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

The commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states. What is undemocratic in that?

Have you someone else in mind that is 'running the EU'?

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule

Still a lot better than London rule, TBH.

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

Ultimately the people running the EU are the national governments, which are elected. The commission, in turn, is appointed by those governments (just like the British House of Lords) and thus accountable to those governments.

Or would you prefer that we transfer power to the elected European parliament, taking it away from the national governments and their appointed representatives in Brussels? I suspect your support for direct democracy will begin to falter at that thought...

Scofflaw

whatstherush wrote: »

The commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states. What is undemocratic in that?

Have you someone else in mind that is 'running the EU'?

The Council is closer to a government for the EU than are the Commission. The Commission proposes, but the Council and Parliament dispose - and the Commission can only propose within the limits set, again, by the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Still a lot better than London rule, TBH.

Ultimately the people running the EU are the national governments, which are elected. The commission, in turn, is appointed by those governments (just like the British House of Lords) and thus accountable to those governments.

Or would you prefer that we transfer power to the elected European parliament, taking it away from the national governments and their appointed representatives in Brussels? I suspect your support for direct democracy will begin to falter at that thought...

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

Scofflaw

getz wrote: »

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

The Greeks are asking the other countries (and the IMF) for money, and are in the usual position of a grossly insolvent debtor country vis a vis its creditors and lenders of last resort. It's nothing to do with the institutional EU, though, or the way the EU generally runs. On the contrary, it's what happens in a Europe of nation states - which is what eurosceptics want.

I appreciate no eurosceptic can admit that to themselves (and certainly not to others), but it's the truth - the unpleasant inter-national horse-trading and the larger nations throwing their weight around is what a non-EU Europe would look like all the time, over everything.

amused,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

What has that got to do with what I posted, and you quoted?

As to your non sequitur, I do find it rather amusing given that you failed to mention Iceland, a non-EU member, who got its assets frozen.

old hippy

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

No, we won't & no they aren't.

McDave

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

Your terminology is all wrong and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the EU.

- 'Brussels rule': there is neither a monarchy nor autocratic government in Brussels;

- 'franco/german government': there isn't even an EU government, let alone a Franco-German one. The EU is still a legal order based on treaties entered into by democratic governments - 27 of them as it happens, with more in the pipeline. German and French influence is very strong in this arrangement. They're more responsible for the concept than most, but most other European countries have signed up to the vision. Influence and vision, however, doesn't constitute rule.

Pray tell how countries are being 'destroyed'.

McDave

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

What are you looking for? A fully federalised or even centralised EU? With a European Parliament with full legislative powers? With a European government with full executive powers? With its own intrinsic sovereignty?

At that point you can talk about EU 'democracy' with real meaning analogous to what we understand in national states. [Add to it a European king, and you can truly talk of EU 'rule'.]

In the meantime we'll all have to settle for an EU in which executive power resides mainly in the individual member states acting through the Council.

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greeks are asking the other countries (and the IMF) for money, and are in the usual position of a grossly insolvent debtor country vis a vis its creditors and lenders of last resort. It's nothing to do with the institutional EU, though, or the way the EU generally runs. On the contrary, it's what happens in a Europe of nation states - which is what eurosceptics want.

I appreciate no eurosceptic can admit that to themselves (and certainly not to others), but it's the truth - the unpleasant inter-national horse-trading and the larger nations throwing their weight around is what a non-EU Europe would look like all the time, over everything.

amused,
Scofflaw

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

What I find amusing is how you and other Eurosceptics repeatedly make sweeping and outlandish claims, have those claims debunked when the actual facts are presented then casually ignore the rebuttal and move onto the next sweeping and outlandish claim - until enough time has passed (or a new thread is started) where you can repeat the same sweeping and outlandish claim that you already know is false.

For example, you imply that the the austerity measures presently facing Ireland are somehow the fault, principally, of the EU and/or Euro. Yet this is something that has repeatedly been pointed out as false; at worst the lower interest rates that came with the Euro may have added to the lemming-like property bubble that caused the bank debts that were then bailed out by the government, yet were we not in the Euro, we still would have had the same bubble, the same failing banks, the same bailout and the same austerity needed to pay for the bailout.

It also presumes that the government would have even done anything to cool down the bubble in the first place, using monetary tools, which given we had fiscal tools to do so and didn't use them, seems very unlikely.

And we could now devalue our currency were we not in the Eurozone, so as to make Irish goods and services competitive. Yet, that would also deepen our debt, requiring further austerity - unless you want to argue that defaulting would solve this - which is another can of worms.

All of which is Euro related criticism and nothing to do with actual EU membership, which has repeatedly been shown to have improved the lives of people in Ireland.

Care to address all that, or would you prefer to come out with more snappy non sequiturs?

KyussBishop

While I agree with the general point, that we would have ended up in this mess euro or not, one point that the EU is totally failing on, and making the problem worse with, is lack of any adequate growth policies.

There are a whole range of policies that would help alleviate the crisis much faster (that you can even use alongside austerity if you like) and possibly keep the EU together in the long run, that are locked out due to political problems/inertia within the EU.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

What I find amusing is how you and other Eurosceptics repeatedly make sweeping and outlandish claims, have those claims debunked when the actual facts are presented then casually ignore the rebuttal and move onto the next sweeping and outlandish claim - until enough time has passed (or a new thread is started) where you can repeat the same sweeping and outlandish claim that you already know is false.

For example, you imply that the the austerity measures presently facing Ireland are somehow the fault, principally, of the EU and/or Euro. Yet this is something that has repeatedly been pointed out as false; at worst the lower interest rates that came with the Euro may have added to the lemming-like property bubble that caused the bank debts that were then bailed out by the government, yet were we not in the Euro, we still would have had the same bubble, the same failing banks, the same bailout and the same austerity needed to pay for the bailout.

It also presumes that the government would have even done anything to cool down the bubble in the first place, using monetary tools, which given we had fiscal tools to do so and didn't use them, seems very unlikely.

And we could now devalue our currency were we not in the Eurozone, so as to make Irish goods and services competitive. Yet, that would also deepen our debt, requiring further austerity - unless you want to argue that defaulting would solve this - which is another can of worms.

All of which is Euro related criticism and nothing to do with actual EU membership, which has repeatedly been shown to have improved the lives of people in Ireland.

Care to address all that, or would you prefer to come out with more snappy non sequiturs?

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

Ahh... the old, "we are not in any way responsible for our actions" defence. I thought the bankers were to blame though? Or the government? Is it all the EU's fault now? God forbid that our own collective hubris had anything to do with it.

Which of course ignores what I already posted above; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Are you going to concede the point that factually your claim is nonsense, or can you rationally defend it in light of the facts?

getz

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.

old hippy

getz wrote: »

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

Yes but too many cooks spoil the broth

The Corinthian

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.

Irrelevant sidestepping and again you ignore what I already posted; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Is there any particular reason you're avoiding the fact that your earlier claim has been demonstrably rubbished?

View

getz wrote: »

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

You are aware that the UK is facing another 5 years of austerity?

And that, according to their own submission to the Commission, the last member states in the EU to reduce their government deficits to the -3% of GDP target are going to be Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK?

It must have the UK's adoption of the Euro that caused the UK to fall so low, right?

The Corinthian

View wrote: »

It must have the UK's adoption of the Euro that caused the UK to fall so low, right?

Actually he goes much further; it's apparently membership of the EU that is the cause of all this austerity, that he has only drawn arguments with regards to the Euro is probably what's confusing you

It's all validatory, self-justifying nonsense, TBH. There's certainly plenty of scope for criticism for the EU and the Euro, not least of all the continuing failure of the bloc to adopt a policy that will actually tackle the economic crisis, however euroscepticism as a position is ideological in nature rather than economic - it's just that the ideological arguments (typically nationalist and generally xenophobic) are not going to find widespread support in most European nations. Hence this desperate attempt to use economic argument to win over people.

gallag

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.

gallag

Because of the faith the world has in the uk and the pound they can now borrow money cheaper than ever, the chanceler today reported that that is saving the uk 43billion (same as the entire military budget) on estimated payments. Fantastic news.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk

You can say the same about Ireland's deficit and borrowing too.

europa11

gallag wrote: »

Because of the faith the world has in the uk and the pound they can now borrow money cheaper than ever, the chanceler today reported that that is saving the uk 43billion (same as the entire military budget) on estimated payments. Fantastic news.

cheaper!!! So how has the rate on their 10yr. sovereign gone up from 1.70 to 1.82 then? Admittedly still low but not the lowest rate in for an EU state by any means.

Source:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-bond-10y


and these guys (BBC) don't seem to share your optimistic outlook, but what do they know!

"Chancellor George Osborne has scrapped a planned 3p rise in fuel duty, but benefits face a further squeeze as he admitted the UK economy was struggling"

source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20600442

old hippy

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.

I hope "we" don't. I don't see this faith in your country that you claim people have? In fact, I don't see it amongst British folk on a daily basis.

walrusgumble

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

In the good times, it allowed Ireland to move away from the dependence of the UK.It is a major reason why we joined . It has, in the past helped us and probably now, fecked us up, but that is mainly our fault. You think America would look at Ireland were it not for EU membership?

We were wrong however to join the currency, Britain were laughed at. SOme of the documentaries highlighting what really went on and why Britain said feck this, are scary. They were right not to adopt the currency. And there was stupid Paddy Irish man (not all) laughing about how they simply wanted to keep their queen on their coins.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

I hope "we" don't. I don't see this faith in your country that you claim people have? In fact, I don't see it amongst British folk on a daily basis.

do you actually meet any british folk,living in london ?

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh... the old, "we are not in any way responsible for our actions" defence. I thought the bankers were to blame though? Or the government? Is it all the EU's fault now? God forbid that our own collective hubris had anything to do with it.

Which of course ignores what I already posted above; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Are you going to concede the point that factually your claim is nonsense, or can you rationally defend it in light of the facts?

To be fair, we didn't exactly ignore the fiscal tools we had at our disposal - all the available ones were used to pump the bubble harder.

cordially,
Scofflaw

old hippy

getz wrote: »

do you actually meet any british folk,living in london ?

Do you?

We must be moving in different circles.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

Do you?

We must be moving in different circles.

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