Why are the British so anti Europe?

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

There are some interesting questions and rumours as regards one of the principal architects of Britain entering the EEC, i.e. Ted Heath.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19740905&id=OtRYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HOUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3027,1190284

Parse the article carefully.

In 1975 the UK voted in a referendum to stay in the EEC or not, the outcome was 67% in favor of remaining a member and consequently it does not matter what the rumor were, they are of no consequence to this discussion.

porsche959

Interesting to see Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP, though not entirely unexpected.

He wrote this letter to Cameron back in June:

http://markreckless.com/2014/07/12/my-letter-to-pm-on-whips-and-child-abuse-inquiry/

porsche959

meglome wrote: »

Also let's not forget Britain was in financial ****e when when joined the EU. They seem to have forgotten why they joined but I have a feeling if they leave they will be reminded quickly enough.

I personally would be surprised if they vote to leave, but having said that, your argument is rather silly as they have been a net contributor to the EU funds for most of their time in it.

meglome

porsche959 wrote: »

I personally would be surprised if they vote to leave, but having said that, your argument is rather silly as they have been a net contributor to the EU funds for most of their time in it.

It's hardly a silly point. Sure the UK is a net contributor to the EU but it also benefits greatly from it's position in the EU in trade and banking. Sure they tend to have a negative trade balance with the EU but a lot of the investment in the UK is due to it's membership of the EU. There are arguments back and forth but they are talking about having the same arrangement as Norway and Switzerland without taking the slightest bit of notice as to what it entails for Norway and Switzerland.

I wouldn't be surprised if they leave at all as the press is the UK has been finding any excuse to stick their noses up at 'johnny foreigner' for years. You've also got a large number of 'true blue' conservatives who are in government actively campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. And that's not even mentioning UKIP and the working classes. They may well walk the plank while overestimating their position.

porsche959

meglome wrote: »

It's hardly a silly point. Sure the UK is a net contributor to the EU but it also benefits greatly from it's position in the EU in trade and banking. Sure they tend to have a negative trade balance with the EU but a lot of the investment in the UK is due to it's membership of the EU.

"a lot of the investment in the UK is due to it's membership of the EU"

Can you provide some research from independent objective sources that demonstrates this?

meglome wrote: »

There are arguments back and forth but they are talking about having the same arrangement as Norway and Switzerland without taking the slightest bit of notice as to what it entails for Norway and Switzerland.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Norway and Switzerland are wealthy countries, one with oil resources, the other with a long established private banking industry. The UK has both, so citing Norway and Switzerland as examples of succesful European non-EU countries buttresses the case for the UK leaving the EU, no?

meglome wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if they leave at all as the press is the UK has been finding any excuse to stick their noses up at 'johnny foreigner' for years.

A very generalised comment. The press includes the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Financial Times - all of which are Europhile - in the latter's case, fanatically so. (The Financial Times argued in favour of a Labour vote in 1992, mainly on the grounds that the Labour Party was more europhile than John Major, who was hardly a Eurosceptic).

meglome wrote: »

You've also got a large number of 'true blue' conservatives who are in government actively campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. And that's not even mentioning UKIP and the working classes. They may well walk the plank while overestimating their position.

That's all true but I think, as Charles Moore alludes to in this article, that it will work out similarly to the Scottish independence vote, i.e., most of the establishment will put their weight behind voting against the UK leaving the EU:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11123773/Eurosceptics-must-learn-serious-lessons-from-Alex-Salmonds-defeat.html

meglome

porsche959 wrote: »

"a lot of the investment in the UK is due to it's membership of the EU"

Can you provide some research from independent objective sources that demonstrates this?

Fair enough it's my opinion based on my reading and certainly I'm not an expert. As I originally said they'll be reminded why they joined if they leave.

This is typical...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/485153/EU-does-not-aid-investment-in-Britain
And the related articles section

A slap in the face for all the voters across the EU
Overwhelming EU immigration is to blame for pressure on British schools
New migrant fears as Albania moves step closer to joining EU
The only way for Britain to be free is to leave the EU
David Cameron is right to fight mighty EU in Brussels

This would be more my view.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/what-if-britain-left-the-eu-7904469.html

porsche959 wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean here. Norway and Switzerland are wealthy countries, one with oil resources, the other with a long established private banking industry. The UK has both, so citing Norway and Switzerland as examples of succesful European non-EU countries buttresses the case for the UK leaving the EU, no?

The Swiss and the Norwegians need to accept all EU rules without having any say in their creation. They are outside the club but still need to follow all the rules. The stated position of the many Euro sceptics in the UK is they don't want EU 'bureaucracy' and want to 'repatriate powers' (whatever that precisely means). All the while claiming the UK will be like Switzerland and Norway, while ignoring completely what Switzerland and Norway have to actual do. And obviously not forgetting they are in nothing like the financial position of Switzerland and Norway. So yes ignoring the absence of reality on what the Euro sceptics are claiming it buttresses the case for leaving the EU.

porsche959 wrote: »

A very generalised comment. The press includes the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Financial Times - all of which are Europhile - in the latter's case, fanatically so. (The Financial Times argued in favour of a Labour vote in 1992, mainly on the grounds that the Labour Party was more europhile than John Major, who was hardly a Eurosceptic).

You're kidding right? The British have been laughing at johnny foreigner for many a year. Most of the media, even the ones who are more neutral are happy enough to throw out some anti-EU stories from time to time. And nearly all the outlets are happy to enough to take a smug tone whenever it suits. There is no way the British public has gotten a balanced view as seen by the number Euro sceptics elected. I don't have the numbers but easily higher than any other EU state. That doesn't mean these media outlets are stupid, they may well appreciate they are actually better off in the EU even if that's not their normally stated position.

porsche959 wrote: »

That's all true but I think, as Charles Moore alludes to in this article, that it will work out similarly to the Scottish independence vote, i.e., most of the establishment will put their weight behind voting against the UK leaving the EU:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11123773/Eurosceptics-must-learn-serious-lessons-from-Alex-Salmonds-defeat.html

Oh I agree with you there. The problem is the majority of the media has spent a long time pointing the finger at the EU for all sorts of things. The public has turned and it may be quite difficult to get them to turn back.

Scofflaw

The "fanatically europhile FT". Heh. At least one of those three terms is being badly misused.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

porsche959 wrote: »

A very generalised comment. The press includes the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Financial Times - all of which are Europhile - in the latter's case, fanatically so.

I'm afraid I fell over laughing when I read that! :pac:

Been reading Gideon Rachman, Martin Wolf or Wolfgang Munchau much?

Scofflaw

McDave wrote: »

I'm afraid I fell over laughing when I read that! :pac:

Been reading Gideon Rachman, Martin Wolf or Wolfgang Munchau much?

Daniel Hannan, I suspect.

That the Daily Mail and the Telegraph think the FT is fanatically europhile, and somewhat less than fanatical europhiles think that's hilariously absurd, might give someone food for thought about the general stance of the UK press.

Or not, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

porsche959

McDave wrote: »

I'm afraid I fell over laughing when I read that! :pac:

Been reading Gideon Rachman, Martin Wolf or Wolfgang Munchau much?

Fair enough, Rachman is somewhat eurosceptic, Wolf more of a pragmatist. Munchau is europhile pro-banskter. I just googled him and every single link that came up is an article from him explaining how to save (i.e., bail out) Europe's banks! The paper's editorial stance is europhile, always has been.

McDave

porsche959 wrote: »

Fair enough, Rachman is somewhat eurosceptic, Wolf more of a pragmatist. Munchau is europhile pro-banskter. I just googled him and every single link that came up is an article from him explaining how to save (i.e., bail out) Europe's banks! The paper's editorial stance is europhile, always has been.

Both Rachman and Wolf are quite snide and cynical about the EU. Munchau has been a qualified but consistent critic. He has regularly argued for politically unrealistic solutions to the EZ/financial crisis, while EZ politicians have refused to be panicked into theoretically perfect solutions that voters overall will not countenance under current circumstances. All mentioned FT commentators have wittered on about QE when every dog on the street knows it's currently formally and politically undoeable in the EZ. None has taken up cudgels to attack QE in the US and UK, even though there are arguable theoretical grounds to do so.

The FT overall advocates primarily for the City and financial interests. Sections within UK business argue for the EU periodically, but mostly on the industry side. On the financial side, business is anti-Euro, and this broad attitude permeates the FT, not to mention most mainstream UK press, and agencies like Reuters. 'Europhile', let alone fanatical Europhilia, doesn't describe it. Perhaps 'pragmatic pro-EU membership' does.

porsche959

McDave wrote: »

Both Rachman and Wolf are quite snide and cynical about the EU. Munchau has been a qualified but consistent critic. He has regularly argued for politically unrealistic solutions to the EZ/financial crisis, while EZ politicians have refused to be panicked into theoretically perfect solutions that voters overall will not countenance under current circumstances. All mentioned FT commentators have wittered on about QE when every dog on the street knows it's currently formally and politically undoeable in the EZ. None has taken up cudgels to attack QE in the US and UK, even though there are arguable theoretical grounds to do so.

Eurozone QE is a reality. Never mind that the ECB has come up with a different formula of words to get it past Merkel and the anti-inflation obsessives. Those journalists were correct to advocate for it, if indeed they did. Their ultimate aim though was probably to save the eurozone. At least in Munchau's case.

McDave wrote: »

The FT overall advocates primarily for the City and financial interests. Sections within UK business argue for the EU periodically, but mostly on the industry side. On the financial side, business is anti-Euro, and this broad attitude permeates the FT, not to mention most mainstream UK press, and agencies like Reuters. 'Europhile', let alone fanatical Europhilia, doesn't describe it. Perhaps 'pragmatic pro-EU membership' does.

There were journalists with the Guardian right into the financial crisis who argued that Britain should join the eurozone as a solution to the crisis! Not sure if I'd desecribe it as fanatical europhilia or just utter economic illiteracy and lunacy. But much of the left in the UK has always quite liked the idea of ceding powers to foreigners, including the crucially important power to control exchange rates.

View

porsche959 wrote: »

There were journalists with the Guardian right into the financial crisis who argued that Britain should join the eurozone as a solution to the crisis!.

As a regular Guardian (& FT) reader, I have to say that I don't recall those journalists (unless it was maybe a one-off article I missed).

I do however recall that they continuously ran a "Eurozone Crisis live" section and indeed they are STILL running it - as they clearly swallowed the Eurosceptic narrative hook, line & sinker.

One journalist in particularly seems very much of the Eurosceptic mould that restating your budget in a different currency will magically solve problems like not having enough government revenue to pay for government expenditure.

The Mirror I can't comment on but a quick perusal online of the latest edition didn't reveal any pro-EU articles. Do they qualify as "pro-EU" because they aren't rabidly anti-EU like most of the rest of British media? :-)

porsche959

View wrote: »

As a regular Guardian (& FT) reader, I have to say that I don't recall those journalists (unless it was maybe a one-off article I missed).

An Observer columnist strictly speaking, but they are part of the same group as the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/if-britain-had-joined-the-euro

Gordon Brown can be criticised for many things, but to argue, as Hutton does, that Brown's main error was not bringing the UK into the eurozone is bizarre IMO!

View wrote: »

I do however recall that they continuously ran a "Eurozone Crisis live" section and indeed they are STILL running it - as they clearly swallowed the Eurosceptic narrative hook, line & sinker.

So merely reporting on an economic crisis is following the eurosceptic narrative hook, line and sinker? Mmmkay. Guess I must have imagined that four eurozone countries had to be bailed out, one on multiple occasions.

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

So merely reporting on an economic crisis is following the eurosceptic narrative hook, line and sinker? Mmmkay. Guess I must have imagined that four eurozone countries had to be bailed out, one on multiple occasions.

Yes but they don't merely report it do they? If they did they have pointed out the substantial resources that are available within the Union to deal with such situations, the fact that the Union stuck togeather and did not break up as they expected and so on.

And probably the biggest endorsement of the lot - the Swiss National Bank has been hosing up Euroland bonds since the beginning to keep the Swiss Franc pegged to the Euro. This has got us to a state where we now hold bonds equal to the combined deficits of the seven biggest Euroland economies! Now if we the Swiss citizens were concerned about it, we could collect a 100K signatures and force a referendum on the issue, but that has not happened because it is not seen as much of an issue.

porsche959

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes but they don't merely report it do they? If they did they have pointed out the substantial resources that are available within the Union to deal with such situations, the fact that the Union stuck togeather and did not break up as they expected and so on.

Substantial resources which apparently did not stop one member going into bankruptcy, and have failed to alleviate mass youth employment in that country and several others, including one of the largest members by population (Spain).

I am not disputing that there are elements of fervently anti-EU opinion in much of the UK media - certainly if one goes to the Telegraph one would have read scaremongering from the likes of Ambrose "The sky is always falling in" Pritchard-Evans, most of his worse predictions didn't come to pass (some did though) but Guardian + FT reporting on the crisis has been evenhanded in my view.

The UK in spite of recession, austerity, etc, never slipped more than 1 or two places off AAA credit rating status, and recently regained AAA rating. More than can be said for most of Eurozone. In my view, this in itself provides a powerful validating indication that if it is true that the British are indeed "so anti-Europe" as the OP suggests, their motivations are grounded in common sense and economic logic to a much greater extent than the xenophobic little Englander stereotype might suggest (without disputing that that element does exist in both UKIP and the Conservative party, and in some of their media).

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean here. Norway and Switzerland are wealthy countries, one with oil resources, the other with a long established private banking industry. The UK has both, so citing Norway and Switzerland as examples of succesful European non-EU countries buttresses the case for the UK leaving the EU, no?

You are missing the point! When they hold up Switzerland as an example they fail to point out that under bilateral agreements, we in Switzerland must accept all the same market conditions as a member state to gain market access, we have to accept the free movement of people rules just like a member state, we have to accept European Court rulings, we have to contribute to the various EU funds and so on. And on top of this we need to peg our Franc to the Euro. For trade reasons. In reality we are an EU member without representation on the decision making bodies.

porsche959

Jim2007 wrote: »

You are missing the point! When they hold up Switzerland as an example they fail to point out that under bilateral agreements, we in Switzerland must accept all the same market conditions as a member state to gain market access, we have to accept the free movement of people rules just like a member state, we have to accept European Court rulings, we have to contribute to the various EU funds and so on. And on top of this we need to peg our Franc to the Euro. For trade reasons. In reality we are an EU member without representation on the decision making bodies.

So you have the best of both worlds! Why should UK not seek likewise? Leave EU and become EFTA member for example?

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

So you have the best of both worlds! Why should UK not seek likewise?

Hmmm.... Seriously, you think that this is what the UK is after? To continue contributing financially, to accept all the EU laws including the free movement of peoples and to have no say in the operation of the EU! Exactly how would DC present this as an improvement in their situation assuming a referendum was held

The Corinthian

porsche959 wrote: »

So you have the best of both worlds!

In what deluded fantasy World is conformity to EU rules, costs and regulations without any representation the "best of both Worlds"?

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

The UK in spite of recession, austerity, etc, never slipped more than 1 or two places off AAA credit rating status, and recently regained AAA rating. More than can be said for most of Eurozone. In my view, this in itself provides a powerful validating indication that if it is true that the British are indeed "so anti-Europe" as the OP suggests, their motivations are grounded in common sense and economic logic to a much greater extent than the xenophobic little Englander stereotype might suggest (without disputing that that element does exist in both UKIP and the Conservative party, and in some of their media).

The same or better can be said for the financially disciplined eurozone countries, though, which suggests that whether it was inside or outside the eurozone the UK would have gone on being a strong economy.

The eurozone doesn't seem to me to have fared any worse during the crisis than the non-eurozone - the idea that there's a special "eurozone crisis" as opposed to specific limitations on crisis responses seems to involve picking the data pretty carefully.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

In what deluded fantasy World is conformity to EU rules, costs and regulations without any representation the "best of both Worlds"?

You're out of the EU and you can still complain about it!

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

porsche959 wrote: »

Eurozone QE is a reality. Never mind that the ECB has come up with a different formula of words to get it past Merkel and the anti-inflation obsessives.

No, it is not a reality. No matter how much Europhobes fulminate over how the ECB has managed to chart a legal path through the crisis.

McDave

porsche959 wrote: »

There were journalists with the Guardian right into the financial crisis who argued that Britain should join the eurozone as a solution to the crisis! Not sure if I'd desecribe it as fanatical europhilia or just utter economic illiteracy and lunacy. But much of the left in the UK has always quite liked the idea of ceding powers to foreigners, including the crucially important power to control exchange rates.

Whether the Guardian journalists were right or wrong, at least they were thinking outside the box most of the rest of the 'fanatical' UK Europhobe press was 'obsessively' conforming within. Not to mention the economic illiterates and anti-foreigners in EEKIP.

Fratton Fred

Today's news that because the UK has managed to sort it's **** out better than the rest of the eu they will have to pay an additional £1.7bn is only going to play in to the eurosceptic's hands.

meglome

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Today's news that because the UK has managed to sort it's **** out better than the rest of the eu they will have to pay an additional £1.7bn is only going to play in to the eurosceptic's hands.

Would that be because of the deal they agreed to? I have no doubt there will be massive moaning about this in parts of the UK media but my suggestion would be don't make an agreement if you have a problem following through on it.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Today's news that because the UK has managed to sort it's **** out better than the rest of the eu they will have to pay an additional £1.7bn is only going to play in to the eurosceptic's hands.

I gather that some of sorting it out was to include rather questionable calculations in their figures for GDP etc... Now the hens are coming home to roost...

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Today's news that because the UK has managed to sort it's **** out better than the rest of the eu they will have to pay an additional £1.7bn is only going to play in to the eurosceptic's hands.

It's not really a case of having "sorted their **** out better than the rest of the EU", but better than the UK had claimed:

The surcharge follows an annual review of the economic performance of EU member states since 1995, which showed Britain has done better than previously thought. Elements of the black economy - such as drugs and prostitution - have also been included in the calculations for the first time.

So it's a surcharge for 20 years - £85m per year - and the UK is not the only country faced with such a surcharge (and some are getting rebates). But, sure, it will be meat and drink for the eurosceptics - almost anything is, looked at the right way, which consists of focusing on the big figure, attributing it to the UK's natural superiority, and ignoring the fact that it's happening to other countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Does that make the U.K the largest contributor with the fourth largest economy and the largest trade deficit? UKIP being gifted and the E.U pushing the UK further towards exit.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Does that make the U.K the largest contributor with the fourth largest economy and the largest train deficit? UKIP being gifted and the E.U pushing the UK further towards exit.

Don't forget their rebate!