Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw

StudentDad wrote: »

Perhaps. Begs the question though. How much fun we could have if those 'disaffected' voters actually turned up and put that x in the box?


Something as simple as voting on Sunday could encourage those extra few

SD

It invites the question, certainly - to beg a question means something else (sorry, personal bête noire).

But it's quite possible that Sunday voting would gain some voters and lose others. Compulsory voting might be a better solution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StudentDad

Scofflaw wrote: »

It invites the question, certainly - to beg a question means something else (sorry, personal bête noire).

But it's quite possible that Sunday voting would gain some voters and lose others. Compulsory voting might be a better solution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I can't see compulsory voting as the answer.


SD

Jim2007

Die Frau has spoken:

The prime minister said that freedom of movement would be "at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe", but Mrs Merkel is said by the magazine to have made clear she will withdraw her support for the UK's continued EU membership if he continues to push for migration reform.

Seems like we are heading for the end game!

The Corinthian

I'm not sure the British electorate have really thought this all through, TBH...

ewan whose army

It was an oddly worded question to be fair.

meglome

ewan whose army wrote: »

It was an oddly worded question to be fair.

Why?

Lemming

meglome wrote: »

Why?

The way it has been phrased is loaded to get the desired answer. I'd have thought the two questions side-by-side with their respective results would show that. It's the use of the 'All' word that is trying to lead the response. Is there a distinction between citizens of other EU member nations that requires the use of that word to make the question valid?

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote: »

The way it has been phrased is loaded to get the desired answer. I'd have thought the two questions side-by-side with their respective results would show that. It's the use of the 'All' word that is trying to lead the response. Is there a distinction between citizens of other EU member nations that requires the use of that word to make the question valid?

I'd question that this would be all that leading, let alone so leading that such a large inconsistency would result in the results.

Lemming

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd question that this would be all that leading, let alone so leading that such a large inconsistency would result in the results.

True, also depends the target demographic for the questions and where they were asked. Both questions are, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable questions to ask. But as a first word it's quite notable. Why does the second question need "All" at the start of it when the first one didn't? Neither do. The word is there to give an impression of "lots and lots and lots and lots of other people" and plays right into the hysteria that everyone in the EU is going to move to the UK.

meglome

Lemming wrote: »

True, also depends the target demographic for the questions and where they were asked. Both questions are, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable questions to ask. But as a first word it's quite notable. Why does the second need "All" at the start of it when the first one didn't? Neither do. The word is there to give an impression of "lots and lots and lots and lots of other people" and plays right into the hysteria that everyone in the EU is going to move to the UK.

What better word is there to ask if all EU citizens should have the right to live and work in the UK? I had a good idea when I asked the question what the poster meant but I wasn't sure how else you should ask or would it really slant the figures that much.

Lemming

meglome wrote: »

What better word is there to ask if all EU citizens should have the right to live and work in the UK? I had a good idea when I asked the question what the poster meant but I wasn't sure how else you should ask or would it really slant the figures that much.

Is there a difference between citizens of other EU countries, and all citizens of other EU countries? What are these differences between other countries citizens that matters? In the wake of negatively spun EU drama headlines, or incidents such as the sexual assault/murder of a teenage girl that led for a manhunt looking for a - I think it was Romanian?? - suspect who already had some serious crimes against his name, it's a loaded question.

Scofflaw

Lemming wrote: »

Is there a difference between citizens of other EU countries, and all citizens of other EU countries? What are these differences between other countries citizens that matters? In the wake of negatively spun EU drama headlines, or incidents such as the sexual assault/murder of a teenage girl that led for a manhunt looking for a - I think it was Romanian?? - suspect who already had some serious crimes against his name, it's a loaded question.

I'd tend to agree that the phrase "all citizens" tends to conjure up "uncontrolled immigration" - and you can get quite big differences between support for uncontrolled immigration and controlled immigration.

What's missing in many ways is the point that while all EU citizens have the right to live in the UK, they do not have the right to do so if they cannot support themselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote: »

True, also depends the target demographic for the questions and where they were asked. Both questions are, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable questions to ask. But as a first word it's quite notable. Why does the second question need "All" at the start of it when the first one didn't? Neither do. The word is there to give an impression of "lots and lots and lots and lots of other people" and plays right into the hysteria that everyone in the EU is going to move to the UK.

Fair enough, but this then only adds to my point which is that the UK electorate really may not have thought things through if they are so easily led to such contradictory conclusions, because expecting a right that you would deny of other EU citizens is, frankly, daft. And this has been a problem with the debate; it's stuck on a simplistic LCD level composed of little more than jingoism and FUD.

TBH, it is looking increasingly more likely that the UK could end up leaving, unless the conservatives lose the next election (and a Labour government ditches any proposed referendum) or Cameron is able to get some sort of concession it can sell as having been significant. Of the latter, Merkel's recent comments probably reflect the attitude that the rest of the EU is willing to go some way in accommodating this goal, but that the UK government is in danger of overplaying its hand at this stage.

Don't underestimate the sentiment in much of the EU that the UK has been holding the bloc back and that the EU would ultimately be better off without them.

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't underestimate the sentiment in much of the EU that the UK has been holding the bloc back and that the EU would ultimately be better off without them.

better of in what way? or just more monolithic?

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

better of in what way? or just more monolithic?

Axe to grind there perchance?

It's hardly a secret that the UK has, over the years, been most likely to block any progress in the continued unification of Europe. This is not to say that all member states are as enthusiastic as each other on this, but it is fair to say that the UK has been downright hostile, even compared to some of the more eurosceptic states like Denmark.

It has never had a terribly positive attitude towards Europe and ultimately never really wanted to join it. It really wanted an EFTA type of project, but having failed in getting that off the ground, it has been trying to turn the EU into EFTA single-handedly ever since joining and the other member states are not interested. It was inevitable that some from the other member states would sooner or later see the UK as a fifth column they can do without. De Gaulle predicted this long before the UK even joined.

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

Axe to grind there perchance?

It's hardly a secret that the UK has, over the years, been most likely to block any progress in the continued unification of Europe. This is not to say that all member states are as enthusiastic as each other on this, but it is fair to say that the UK has been downright hostile, even compared to some of the more eurosceptic states like Denmark.

It has never had a terribly positive attitude towards Europe and ultimately never really wanted to join it. It really wanted an EFTA type of project, but having failed in getting that off the ground, it has been trying to turn the EU into EFTA single-handedly ever since joining and the other member states are not interested. It was inevitable that some from the other member states would sooner or later see the UK as a fifth column they can do without. De Gaulle predicted this long before the UK even joined.

No need for the axe comment, you seem pretty immature and frankly display this attitude to any non pro EU post, tiresome.

The rest of your post makes it seem like the main EU goal on inception was full integration, the EU was never meant to be this "super state" that some are pushing for now, mabey that's why anti-EU sentiment is growing rapidly!

can I ask you a direct question? why the need for further integration? and how far to take it? 1 army? 1 government? should one central EU government rule over countries elected government? and why would any of this be better than simple free trade which you seem to spite the British for originally wanting?

Lemming

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but this then only adds to my point which is that the UK electorate really may not have thought things through if they are so easily led to such contradictory conclusions, because expecting a right that you would deny of other EU citizens is, frankly, daft. And this has been a problem with the debate; it's stuck on a simplistic LCD level composed of little more than jingoism and FUD.

Of course. But we don't know where or how the survey was conducted. But to be frank, you could manage quite easily to get similar results with loaded questions in Ireland by leading around things like foreign bank bailouts, etc. As better edumacated on matters EU that the Irish generally are (and we are; the standard of EU knowledge in the UK general populace is shockingly bad), how often did we still have to suffer crazy talk around the recession blame-game? "People" as a group can be awful idiots, regardless of what country you find them in.

TBH, it is looking increasingly more likely that the UK could end up leaving, unless the conservatives lose the next election (and a Labour government ditches any proposed referendum) or Cameron is able to get some sort of concession it can sell as having been significant. Of the latter, Merkel's recent comments probably reflect the attitude that the rest of the EU is willing to go some way in accommodating this goal, but that the UK government is in danger of overplaying its hand at this stage.

I don't think the UK will leave. What we're seeing is a very dangerous game of internal politiking between the Conservatives running scared of the mouse in the room (UKIP), and a leader who has no control over his party (DC) trying to fight for political survival. Not to ignore Merkel will also be looking over her own shoulder on how this plays out.

What will sway the argument to stay/leave is when the big guns start to speak out forcefully, i.e. big business. The city of London will change its tune too when push comes to reality-shove. Everything else is just noise by some woefully ignorant or cynical/manipulative people driving their own agendas.

As for the last bit, I'll take this with gallag's retort:

Don't underestimate the sentiment in much of the EU that the UK has been holding the bloc back and that the EU would ultimately be better off without them.

gallag wrote: »

better of in what way? or just more monolithic?

Only a fool would argue either way on that. Both sentiments are the flip-side of the same coin of simplistic reasoning that are wrong because they are simplistic.

On the one hand, the EU economy is in a fragile place, so suddenly loosing a net contributor and unrestricted access to a global financial hub will not help. Nor will all the faffing about with borders & customs that have to be enacted all over those parts of Europe that do business with the UK help (and vice versa). On the other hand the UK is losing access to a very large market and a louder voice on the international stage because of it.

There's plenty of other ups and downs (mostly downs) for both sides but I'm in work and can't be arsed writing it all up here. Suffice to say, simple sentiment is simple, and usually wrong.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

The rest of your post makes it seem like the main EU goal on inception was full integration, the EU was never meant to be this "super state" that some are pushing for now, mabey that's why anti-EU sentiment is growing rapidly!

From the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome:

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe...

That wording has been in every version of the EU treaties as amended ever since, and as such has been signed up to by every member state. The idea that the member states were not signing up to the idea of ever closer union is demonstrably and blatantly untrue.

Jim2007

Lemming wrote: »

On the one hand, the EU economy is in a fragile place, so suddenly loosing a net contributor and unrestricted access to a global financial hub will not help.

Frankfurt and Zurich will only be too happy to step up! And with all those management risk tests that have been done over the past twelve months we probably will not even notice it for the most part

Lemming wrote: »

Nor will all the faffing about with borders & customs that have to be enacted all over those parts of Europe that do business with the UK help (and vice versa).

There will not be any faffing about because individual states in the EU are not allowed conduct trade negotiations - you have access to the lot or nothing.

Sand

I'm not sure I understand the UK's negotiating position really. Threatening to leave unless core aspects of the EU treaties were rewritten was always going to be a bit of loss for the UK. *Nobody* wants to reopen the EU treaties given the difficulty with getting any referendum passed. So the UKs initial proposal is already unpopular. The "Do this or we'll leave" comes across as petulant - its always going to get peoples back up. I don't know how the UK expected the rest of the EU would react - panic and beg and plead for them to stay, offering concession after concession? I notice the UK press are spinning Merkel's "Alright then, sorry to see you go" as bullying which is ironic. Bluff called.

It seems like DC has just backed himself into a very awkward corner and he may need some help from the likes of Merkel to extricate himself with the least amount of humiliation - and there will be humiliation. Even if the UK does hold a referendum and decides to exit the EU, the only economically sane and legally possible course of action is to apply to join the EEA, which they may not automatically get (not without some concessions of their own I would imagine) where they will be subject to EU laws and directives, particularly on free movement, social policy, environment etc: basically all the stuff that really irritates the Tories and UKIP. And they will have greatly reduced influence in what those policies are.

I'm just bemused at the state the UK is getting itself into. It seems like appalling leadership, but not just by DC - by a generation of UK leaders, since at least the 1990s which have consistently played the EU up as a threat rather than a potential platform for British interests when they are increasingly a regional power, not a global one.

Lemming

Jim2007 wrote: »

Frankfurt and Zurich will only be too happy to step up! And with all those management risk tests that have been done over the past twelve months we probably will not even notice it for the most part

You are assuming that financial activity will decamp by default to those locations. Remember that it is Germany and France that are pushing for financial transaction tax. The world of finance does not like turbulence; but it will try to ride out turbulence over taking a leap into the unknown. So the net effect will be sitting still for a while to see what comes out of any break-up before making a decision either way. That means turbulence for the markets (EU/UK and anyone else using the UK to trade inside the EU) and a significant loss of income to the EU along with free access to said financial hub.

Regardless, it would be idiotic for the UK to have resisted the financial transaction tax only to leave the EU and sign up to the EEA where they would have absolutely no say in Germany & France bringing in such a tax. Not even the city of London, for all its bluster, is that short-sighted.

There will not be any faffing about because individual states in the EU are not allowed conduct trade negotiations - you have access to the lot or nothing.

Who said anything about trade negotiations? I'm talking about border controls. Any point of access that could involve the UK will need policed.

I agree with Sand that this is the culmination of appalling leadership by UK leaders. It shows just how much that EU relations have been neglected over the last few years (in particular) and just how much it has been used as some sort of domestic bogeyman by a media that clearly has no clue (how else could you explain the over infatuation with UKIP?!!). Most of the political leadership of the UK now really has no clue how to engage with the EU.

McDave

Sand wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the UK's negotiating position really. Threatening to leave unless core aspects of the EU treaties were rewritten was always going to be a bit of loss for the UK. *Nobody* wants to reopen the EU treaties given the difficulty with getting any referendum passed. So the UKs initial proposal is already unpopular. The "Do this or we'll leave" comes across as petulant - its always going to get peoples back up. I don't know how the UK expected the rest of the EU would react - panic and beg and plead for them to stay, offering concession after concession? I notice the UK press are spinning Merkel's "Alright then, sorry to see you go" as bullying which is ironic. Bluff called.

It seems like DC has just backed himself into a very awkward corner and he may need some help from the likes of Merkel to extricate himself with the least amount of humiliation - and there will be humiliation. Even if the UK does hold a referendum and decides to exit the EU, the only economically sane and legally possible course of action is to apply to join the EEA, which they may not automatically get (not without some concessions of their own I would imagine) where they will be subject to EU laws and directives, particularly on free movement, social policy, environment etc: basically all the stuff that really irritates the Tories and UKIP. And they will have greatly reduced influence in what those policies are.

I'm just bemused at the state the UK is getting itself into. It seems like appalling leadership, but not just by DC - by a generation of UK leaders, since at least the 1990s which have consistently played the EU up as a threat rather than a potential platform for British interests when they are increasingly a regional power, not a global one.

It could be as simple as the UK not especially valuing the EU, seeing it as something to bat around to suit tactical needs. In this case DC's perceived need to respond to UKIP.

The UK has never had a vision for Europe. As such, it's a prisoner of short term thinking on that level. Cameron now risks painting himself into a corner and looking so ridiculous that he'll only succeed in writing off the Tories' chances next year.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

No need for the axe comment, you seem pretty immature and frankly display this attitude to any non pro EU post, tiresome.

And I find your need to turn to drama, to use terms such as 'monolithic' rather than rational argument rather tiresome, immature and simply designed to play to the cheap seats at the back.

The rest of your post makes it seem like the main EU goal on inception was full integration, the EU was never meant to be this "super state" that some are pushing for now, mabey that's why anti-EU sentiment is growing rapidly!

oscarBravo already responded to this question, although I would suggest you educate yourself on how the EEC came about in the first place, as you seem a tad ignorant on the subject.

can I ask you a direct question? why the need for further integration? and how far to take it? 1 army? 1 government? should one central EU government rule over countries elected government? and why would any of this be better than simple free trade which you seem to spite the British for originally wanting?

I could also ask why not? After all does a nation state have to be ethnically homogenous? If so Britain should not exist, and neither should half of Europe's states.

Then there is one of the original reason - war. European rivalry has caused Europe to be in a state of almost constant conflict for centuries, culminating in the tragedy of two world wars in the former half of the twentieth century. And before you argue that neutrality would keep Ireland out of war, then consider that neutrality has not worked out on that front for most, nor geographical location, as Iceland discovered in the last world war.

And then there is the question of evolving with the modern World; a World which is increasingly one of super blocs and nations and where a fragmented collection of disparate nations have little hope of competing with the USA's, China's, Russia's, India's and Brazil's in the future.

And those are just off the top of my head.

But answer this, why not? If your only response boils down to "the foreigners aren't like us" then you've lost the argument, frankly.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the UK's negotiating position really. Threatening to leave unless core aspects of the EU treaties were rewritten was always going to be a bit of loss for the UK. *Nobody* wants to reopen the EU treaties given the difficulty with getting any referendum passed. So the UKs initial proposal is already unpopular. The "Do this or we'll leave" comes across as petulant - its always going to get peoples back up. I don't know how the UK expected the rest of the EU would react - panic and beg and plead for them to stay, offering concession after concession? I notice the UK press are spinning Merkel's "Alright then, sorry to see you go" as bullying which is ironic. Bluff called.

It seems like DC has just backed himself into a very awkward corner and he may need some help from the likes of Merkel to extricate himself with the least amount of humiliation - and there will be humiliation. Even if the UK does hold a referendum and decides to exit the EU, the only economically sane and legally possible course of action is to apply to join the EEA, which they may not automatically get (not without some concessions of their own I would imagine) where they will be subject to EU laws and directives, particularly on free movement, social policy, environment etc: basically all the stuff that really irritates the Tories and UKIP. And they will have greatly reduced influence in what those policies are.

I'm just bemused at the state the UK is getting itself into. It seems like appalling leadership, but not just by DC - by a generation of UK leaders, since at least the 1990s which have consistently played the EU up as a threat rather than a potential platform for British interests when they are increasingly a regional power, not a global one.

I can't decide if it is bad leadership, or good politicking.

Merkal doesn't want the UK to leave, so I'm wondering if a deal has already been done where DC gets to talk tough and despite tough talking from Europe manages to get a small concession which he can wave around and win the in/out referendum.

It does worry me though, too many people seem to be playing brinkmanship .

Sand

McDave wrote: »

It could be as simple as the UK not especially valuing the EU, seeing it as something to bat around to suit tactical needs. In this case DC's perceived need to respond to UKIP.

The UK has never had a vision for Europe. As such, it's a prisoner of short term thinking on that level. Cameron now risks painting himself into a corner and looking so ridiculous that he'll only succeed in writing off the Tories' chances next year.

I think that's true for UKIP. I think they are only dishonest where they might claim to try secure a better deal for the UK within the EU. They would leave tomorrow, as a point of principal and hope for the best. Even if it led to a worse outcome on pretty much all measures for the UK they honestly place no value on the EU.

But for Tories...I just cannot understand their thinking on this. I understand there is a lunatic fringe in all parties, but I see the Tories lacking so much confidence that they are letting their European policy - the biggest foreign/economic/social policy issue for the UK, by far - be dictated to them by a fringe party that has one seat in the House of Commons. One. It's amazing.

It's also amazing in that UKIP seem to be on the wrong side of the issue as far as the average Briton is concerned. Even the Daily Mail, no friend of the EU, was recently forced to report record UK support for staying in the EU.

From that poll 56% would vote to stay, only 36% would vote to leave. And ironically, 11% of UKIP supporters would vote to stay as well. This is before any concessions or deals are on the table. It does seem like the average Briton does value the free movement, free investment and free trade the EU brings. But the Tories seem to be absolutely terrorised by a small fringe party that scores better in polling than it does in political seats. UKIP is clearly addressing a lack of political leadership from the established parties, but the Tories seem to be responding by displaying even *less* leadership.

I just cant figure the Tory strategy here in any rational terms. It's like they've locked themselves into a bunker where only Nigel Farage, The Sun and the Daily Mail define reality.

@Fratton Fred

I can't decide if it is bad leadership, or good politicking.

Merkal doesn't want the UK to leave, so I'm wondering if a deal has already been done where DC gets to talk tough and despite tough talking from Europe manages to get a small concession which he can wave around and win the in/out referendum.

It does worry me though, too many people seem to be playing brinkmanship .

It could be both - majority of the UK appears to want to stay in with nothing specifically on the table. That majority might think Labour/Lib Dems are the safest option in the next election to avoid risking a referendum. You're right that there is brinkmanship going on, but its one sided. I think the UK leaving the EU (realistically going to the EEA) would be a prestige hit for the EU, but I think the rest of the EU would think it better than the alternative of renegotiating key principles of the EU and trying to get them ratified in 27 states, with referendums in many of them. So Tories are in the position of playing chicken with an oil tanker in a rowing boat.

I think you're right that the EU states, particularly Germany, will try help Cameron to secure some deal that doesn't involve treaty changes. So will be minor by definition. Cameron is then going to have to try celebrate this as a game changer which justifies Tory support for staying in the EU.

But he will take a kicking for it - I don't understand how or why he miscalculated so badly to line himself up for that kicking.

Sand

And if the UK did decide to exit it could suddenly reopen political pressure for Scotland to exit the UK and rejoin the EU - EU membership was a key point the Scottish referendum.

It's just a weird policy from the Tories.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Merkal doesn't want the UK to leave, so I'm wondering if a deal has already been done where DC gets to talk tough and despite tough talking from Europe manages to get a small concession which he can wave around and win the in/out referendum.

I doubt it, because next year it will be right on her front door - the Swiss also want to renegotiate the free movement of people next year and it will have a direct impact on southern Germany where a lot of people work in Switzerland during the week, travelling home at the weekends. Any concessions given to the UK would also have to be given to Switzerland and that could see well paid German voters being turned away at the Swiss border.

As thet say: all politics are local!

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't decide if it is bad leadership, or good politicking.

Merkal doesn't want the UK to leave, so I'm wondering if a deal has already been done where DC gets to talk tough and despite tough talking from Europe manages to get a small concession which he can wave around and win the in/out referendum.

It does worry me though, too many people seem to be playing brinkmanship .

It's defensive politicking, and not very good, I would say, because the problem with the kind of shapes Cameron is throwing at home is that they invite response and reaction from the other EU states, and nearly every time that happens it plays into UKIP's hands, not Cameron's.

He keeps threatening Brexit - he threatened it over Juncker - and digging his heels in on things he can't win, which again plays into UKIP hands.

The only way I can see this as being good politicking is if Cameron actually wants to leave the EU without splitting the Tory party, while fending off as much as possible UKIP. But the europhiles in the Tory party are a pale shadow of what they were, so that seems unlikely.

The only other constituency that's naturally Tory but which would oppose a Brexit in a way that seriously impacts the Tories would be the City...which is a possibility, I suppose.

Short of such a very devious plan, it just seems like idiocy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

masculinist

lets see- we were bullied into voting for Lisbon twice. Bullied into bailing out European banks via the proxy of our own.... it looks like the British were spot on when you see how the EU bullied us with an infamous letter to Brian Lenihan which they refuse to release. so much for democracy and freedom eh ?

StudentDad

masculinist wrote: »

lets see- we were bullied into voting for Lisbon twice. Bullied into bailing out European banks via the proxy of our own.... it looks like the British were spot on when you see how the EU bullied us with an infamous letter to Brian Lenihan which they refuse to release. so much for democracy and freedom eh ?

How does that quote go again? Oh yes,
Nation states, too small to solve the big problems and too big to solve the little ones.

When considered in the round, this little republic is better off in the EC than out.

Freedom of movement, common currency, overarching legal system that protects EC citizens when national govt oversteps the mark. The list goes on.

It seems to me that the tories are using the likes of ukip as a bogey man. The notion of repealing the human rights act for one, doesn't strike me as a step forward at all.

Yes there are issues that need solving, but at the end of the day, EC membership has provided more positives than negatives.

SD