Why are the British so anti Europe?

Batsy

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

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

Britain will be the largest economy in Europe soon.

The Corinthian

Batsy wrote: »

Britain will be the largest economy in Europe soon.

In which alternative reality?

walshb

One can spend hrs wondnering why they are anti EU. Simple: Britain does not like bowing to anyone, and the thoughts of the Ferench or Germans or anyone else in Europe pulling strings, and their strings, does not sit well at all. Britain at once ruled the world, and are still very very influential; they do not want to lose any of that.

old hippy

Batsy wrote: »

Yeah, those evil Brits, not wanting to pay money to allow the lazy Greeks to lounge about on their arses all day.

If the Greeks actually started working harder, and paid all their taxes on time, they now wouldn't be up **** Creek without a paddle.

And the British - the people who work longer hours than anyone else in Europe - should keep our hard-earned money to ourselves and stop doling it out to basketcases like Greece.

I've lived and worked in your blighted country for 12 years & I can honestly say, you ain't all that. You have a heightened sense of self importance, so I guess you lead in the delusional stakes

Lantus

Britain isn't anti Eu at all. There is a great deal of skepticism about europe though. It's not really debated or discussed that much in general conversation, not many people would not understand it's importance or role in much the same way americans dont take any real interest in the outside world.

They dont need to think about it because they have a very large economy and while it may trade significantly with the EU most people would have little interaction with it. In all the time I lived there with a very varied and bright group of people who did discuss politics and economics europe was never really talked about and if it was a look went around as if the most boring subject in the world had just been brought up.

The other thing to bear in mind is that they are fiercely patriotic about the UK pound. They would rather see the pound devalued than lose it as a currency. The recent events in the last 4 years have probably solidified that belief and re-inforced the idea that a euro currency is not (never) for them.

A referendum would be rejected if they were to vote on adopting the euro.

given how well the UK is doing in terms of the bond market (although I'd argue the overall economy is n bad shape.) they are currently vindicated and right.

I mean if we had retained our punt and had little debt and no real worries about the future we'd all be laughing right?

mlumley

Some of you anti British people seem to forget that Germany and France, Belgum had empires as well, not just the Brits. You are so anti Britain , but seem to forget that they are one of your largest trading partners.

Also lent you £7 billion to help you out in time of need, but then again you denigrated the British saying it was done in self interest.

At what point are you going to forget this 800 year war and get on with sorting your country out?

Hate the country, but you dont mind going over and taking the jobs though do ya?

Britain is Euro sceptic, it sees the way Germany and France are taking controll of the place and turning it into a U.S.E. Thats not what Britain wants. They signed up to a free trade area. But since then things have changed, they are now saying, enough is enough.

Why should F & G tell every one what to do? Why only Two leaders in disscusion on these things, what about the other 25 nations.

Ireland could not waite to give its soverenty away to Europ for a few pieces of gold. The leaders of Ireland should grow a pair and stand up for thier country, but I wont hold my breath.

Rant over.

stringed theory

Lantus wrote: »

europe was never really talked about and if it was a look went around as if the most boring subject in the world had just been brought up.

That just reflects the way things are reported on in the UK - everything good from Europe being somehow "British," any bad news being due to the EU of course. But I guess boredom is better than the hatred found amongst some of the grossly misinformed people. Depends on personality type, I suppose.

Lantus wrote: »

I mean if we had retained our punt and had little debt and no real worries about the future we'd all be laughing right?.

Love the euro, but I'd go for the rest of your wish list!

player20

According to the british they are giving to much to the Union and in the same time they have no benefits of it.

McDave

Why?

For a number of reasons. But the main one, as I see it, is the relationship with the US. For a long time as an imperial power it was easy for Britain to feel an affinity with the US from a sense of historical superiority. As the US grew into a power after WW1, Britain saw its special relationship as the perfect accompaniment to its policy of undermining alliances on continental Europe preventing any one alliance from prevailing.

The basis for the relationship changed during and after WW2. The US extracted harsh terms for Lend Lease and entry into the war, the most significant being the rolling back of the British Empire. In the 1950s the US screwed Britain over for Iranian oil (and Britain and France over Suez), and from that point it was obvious that the US was the dominant partner. By that stage Britain was probably prepared to accept the downgrade in the hope that NATO was still a bulwark against Germany and, to a lesser extent, France.

But in the meantime the continental powers had moved beyond physical rebuilding to political cooperation on a European level. The British worked against the EEC at every level and even when they joined they were divisive from within, hoping to compromise the Franco-German alliance (witness Thatcher's attempts to prevent German reunification, and her pressing for rapid accession for the Iron Curtain countries).

Right through Blair (and his support of Bush in Iraq) and Cameron, Britain has not been able to comprehend the drive behind EU integration, trusting in their ability to play a perpetual spoiling game, all the while being able to rely on the 'special relationship'. This policy has finally and spectacularly unravelled.

Britain's anti-European sentiment is a combination of nostalgic imperial hubris and a gut feeling that they can't actually keep up with the Germans, who they were convinced were subdued by the Allied powers. The world has changed under their feet and they're just not prepared. I think this also feeds into distrust and dislike of continental European powers. And ultimately a kind of inferiority complex.

Jorah

The Corinthian wrote: »

In which alternative reality?

Not any time soon, but according to Goldman Sachs long term forecasts the UK will be Europe's largest economy in 2050.

Not great news considering I will be 60 but forecasts predict we will outperform European neighbours significantly and be the third wealthiest nation per head (only US and Canada above us).

eire4

Jorah wrote: »

Not any time soon, but according to Goldman Sachs long term forecasts the UK will be Europe's largest economy in 2050.

Not great news considering I will be 60 but forecasts predict we will outperform European neighbours significantly and be the third wealthiest nation per head (only US and Canada above us).

Well you are assuming that Britain will even exist in 2050 which is far from a safe assumption. Scotland may well be fully independant long before then. Which then will beg the question of what will Wales do? Will Ireland be reunified? Will there be any change in the Isle of Mann? Who knows.

The Corinthian

Jorah wrote: »

Not any time soon, but according to Goldman Sachs long term forecasts the UK will be Europe's largest economy in 2050.

Hardly "soon" as asserted by Batsy. And hardly a prediction to bet the house on, given that such long term forecasts are highly speculative at the best of times and many things can happen that would put a spanner in the works (such as the dissolution of the union).

It also is a prediction that the UK would be the largest economy in a Balkanized Europe; she would still be dwarfed by a combined EU economy - again presuming this still exists and in what form by then.

The reality is that it will be the economies of the BRIC 'superstates' that will dwarf all the individual nation states, by then - so that even if the UK were to become the largest individual European nation state economy by 2050, it would effectively be the largest cod swimming in a sea of sharks.

This is the challenge faced by the (European) nation state in the 21st century and optimistic jingoism is unlikely to change it.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

I've lived and worked in your blighted country for 12 years & I can honestly say, you ain't all that. You have a heightened sense of self importance, so I guess you lead in the delusional stakes

you can be sure old hippy we are very grateful that you came to work and live among us,it will be remembered by many of blighted brits,as the great years.

Cool Mo D

The Corinthian wrote: »

In reality Britain has been pretty lucky in this regard, in that it has not suffered invasion in a thousand years. So historical rivalries alone are not a sufficient explanation.

A bit off topic, but England was successfully invaded, and the King deposed, by a Dutch army in 1688, although the English like to act as if they were invited in since it gave the English nobility a chance to put a protestant on the throne, rather than the unpopular king of the time.

The Corinthian

Cool Mo D wrote: »

A bit off topic, but England was successfully invaded, and the King deposed, by a Dutch army in 1688, although the English like to act as if they were invited in since it gave the English nobility a chance to put a protestant on the throne, rather than the unpopular king of the time.

Well, yes... although I was really talking about xenophobia as a result of unwelcome invasion rather than welcome invitation. Ironically, and in the longer term, that particular invasion spelled disaster for the Dutch and profited the English greatly.

Cool Mo D

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, yes... although I was really talking about xenophobia as a result of unwelcome invasion rather than welcome invitation. Ironically, and in the longer term, that particular invasion spelled disaster for the Dutch and profited the English greatly.

The invasion was not actually welcomed at first. Most people did not take sides until after the outcome looked clear. It did turn out very well from the English perspective - unpopular absolute ruler gone, parliament more powerful, protestantism firmly established, and the centre of European trade moved from Amsterdam to London.

Jorah

Cool Mo D wrote: »

A bit off topic, but England was successfully invaded, and the King deposed, by a Dutch army in 1688, although the English like to act as if they were invited in since it gave the English nobility a chance to put a protestant on the throne, rather than the unpopular king of the time.

It's not an act, they were invited.

mrD011

OS119 wrote: »

that a level of government greater than our own national government might be a good thing.

you mean undemocratic governments like that of Greece where Lucas Papademos (former ECB vice president) was appointed (not elected) prime minister or maybe your talking about Italy where Mario Monti (advisor to Goldman Sachs) was appointed (not elected) prime minister with his technocratic cabinet that doesn't include a single elected politician.?

Scofflaw

mrD011 wrote: »

you mean undemocratic governments like that of Greece where Lucas Papademos (former ECB vice president) was appointed (not elected) prime minister or maybe your talking about Italy where Mario Monti (advisor to Goldman Sachs) was appointed (not elected) prime minister with his technocratic cabinet that doesn't include a single elected politician.?

Banned re-reg of Dr Emma/davekel.

moderately,
Scofflaw

BettyM

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Just because the UK, for example, forsaw the problems with the Euro and decided not to join it doesn't mean they are anti-EU. They are anti bad decisions, and it seems they must be rejoicing daily at their correct decision to have nothing to do with the Euro.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Just because the UK, for example, forsaw the problems with the Euro and decided not to join it doesn't mean they are anti-EU. They are anti bad decisions, and it seems they must be rejoicing daily at their correct decision to have nothing to do with the Euro.

So the UK foresaw the sovereign debt crisis back in the 1950's? Because they've been eurosceptic since back then, so your 'anti bad decisions' theory does not hold much water.

later12

Actually the poster mentioned scepticism in relation to the Euro. Whether based in truth on her emotional attachment to sterling, or based on sound economic vision, Thatcher did criticise the Euro and explain Britain's reticence from an economic perspective, most lucidly in her autobiography, twenty years ago.

Whether by fortune or not, and I'm not one to encourage praise of Thatcher, her criticisms have been shown to be valid.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

Actually the poster mentioned scepticism in relation to the Euro.

British eurosceptism demonstrably pre-dates the ECU/Euro and it is British eurosceptism that is the topic of this discussion.

paddyandy

Did they foresee the Euro heading for trouble years ago and said no ........? You posters know more than i do about such matters .I worked over there for years .They are not a dreamy sort of people .

later12

The Corinthian wrote: »

British eurosceptism demonstrably pre-dates the ECU/Euro

Of course it does. I'm responding to the fact that the poster mentioned the euro, and you mentioned the debt crisis; the British Government (or figures within it, rather) did express concerns at joining EMU that (by fluke or by foresight) have been validated.

paddyandy wrote: »

Did they foresee the Euro heading for trouble years ago and said no ........?

That's arguable. They criticised the architecture of the Euro, but it is suggested that the real reason for this was emotional attachment to sterling and the preservation of British economic sovereignty as opposed to economic arguments against the single currency.

I think a mixture of both is probably true. William Hague and Martin Wolf (influential journalist) were among those who were probably genuine in their economic criticisms. Thatcher is harder to pin down.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

Of course it does. I'm responding to the fact that the poster mentioned the euro, and you mentioned the debt crisis; the British Government (or figures within it, rather) did express concerns at joining EMU that (by fluke or by foresight) have been validated.

The Euro crisis is the sovereign debt crisis.

The poster cited the Euro as the reason that the British are eurosceptic, I pointed out that this is clearly incorrect given that British eurosceptism pre-dates the Euro or ECU and was already evident before the original treaty of Rome. And ultimately the discussion is about why the British are eurosceptic, not how such eurosceptism may have been validated subsequently through factors that did not even exist when it began.

later12

The Corinthian wrote: »

The poster cited the Euro as the reason that the British are eurosceptic

No I don't believe he or she did. The poster explained that scepticism of the Euro does not mean that Britain is otherwise or completely Eurosceptic (which is a pretty basic, observed fact) and quite rightly pointed out that reticence towards the Euro has been validated.

Your question "So the UK foresaw the sovereign debt crisis back in the 1950's?" is, at best, irrelevant.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

No I don't believe he or she did. The poster explained that scepticism of the Euro does not mean that Britain is otherwise or completely Eurosceptic (which is a pretty basic, observed fact) and quite rightly pointed out that reticence towards the Euro has been validated.

The only suggestion by anyone that British eurosceptisim may be connected to the Euro was made by that poster. Discussion has been on British eurosceptisim of the EU and Europe in general.

So at best raising the issue of British eurosceptisim being connected to the Euro is an irrelevant non-sequitur, at worst it was an attempt to introduce a nonsensical argument to the discussion.

later12

The Corinthian wrote: »

The only suggestion by anyone that British eurosceptisim may be connected to the Euro was made by that poster.

Actually no.

This thread was started on foot of the UK's veto of an EU Treaty on Fiscal prudence and some posters have been interchangeably discussing Britains scpeticism of Europe with Britain's scepticism of the Euro. They are different issues, and as far as I can see, the poster in question was disconnecting perceived scepticism of the EU from scepticism of the Euro, not making a connection.

I would agree that Britain's scepticism of the EU is over-stated and mistaken with its obvious scepticism towards the Euro. That is why I say your 1950's foresight comment is at best irrelevant.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

This thread was started on foot of the UK's veto of an EU Treaty on Fiscal prudence and some posters have been interchangeably discussing Britains scpeticism of Europe with Britain's scepticism of the Euro.

No. This entire discussion has been examining the root origins of British eurosceptism. Current events have not created this, which is why the suggestion by the previous poster that linked the two were erroneous (how could he/she disconnect perceived scepticism when they were the only one who suggested it?), but pre-date the Euro and even the formation of the EEC.

I would agree that Britain's scepticism of the EU is over-stated and mistaken with its obvious scepticism towards the Euro. That is why I say your 1950's foresight comment is at best irrelevant.

If you want to pretend that the root origins of British eurosceptism are recent and frame the discussion accordingly, then the comment was irrelevant. If you want to actually examine those root origins, then it is certainly not.