Why are the British so anti Europe?

thechanger · 10-12-2011 08:46AM #1

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

robd · 10-12-2011 08:59AM

thechanger wrote: »

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

I would have thought that's rather simple.

They see themselves as a Net Contributor to the EU and question what benefit they get out of membership that they wouldn't get as being on the outskirts/periphery anyway.

The current problem for them is that 75% of Europeans finance/banking is done in London so a financial transactions tax would disproportionately affect them. As they're not part of the EURO they want no part of rescuing it.

It's all about self interest.

Maura74 · 10-12-2011 09:00AM

Rule Britannia brigade is doing well now.... Brits still thinks that they are still an Empire has sad....:o

I do not think the Liberal party that are in the coalition are not too happy about it.

Heard on the radio that they do not want to pay for counties like Greece that can still retire at the age of 50 whereas in other courtiers workers have to works another 15 years before they can retire.:(

PCPhoto · 10-12-2011 09:02AM

because they understand what it means to be part of a united nations of europe and want to keep their soverignty(spelled wrong).

if they join up to europe they loose control of their country (with the recent referrendums here the no campaigners were shouting that out but were branded as wasters/conspiracy theorists).

the way I see things going at the moment is that we have little power over the running of our country....and we will have even less power after the current deal is brought in to "save the euro" .... someone needs to ask Gilmore/Kenny what exactly did Ireland need to give up to "save the euro" and we all should wonder why the english dont want in ....I believe its because they want to have control over their own affairs and not allow other states in europe see where their money is spent (military/research etc)

god I sound like one of the bloody conspiracy theorists now .... thats it ...no more CSI

OS119 · 10-12-2011 09:07AM

thechanger wrote: »

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

they don't, the vast majority of Brits are aware of how important the EU is for UK trade, and not many believe that we can unilaterally change our relationship to a 'free-trade only' basis with the other EU states meekly accepting that. however they aren't that keen on the supranational set-up, they would far prefer a hotch-potch, ala carte version of Europe where you make agreements on the things you want to agree on (like, for instance the UK-French agreements on defence co-operation, which go far beyond anything that any other countries agree on in defence terms), and steer clear of agreements on the things we want to decide for ourselves.

the more emotional 'gut' feeling is that the UK has been the biggest beast on the European bloc for 300 years. for those 300 years it has dominated european strategic politics by dint of its economic and military might - whichever side in Europe that the UK was on won. we unsurprisingly haven't quite got used to the idea that within the EU we're all supposed to be equals - albeit with some more equal than others, and we certainly haven't acceded to the idea that a level of government greater than our own national government might be a good thing.

you also need to contextualise the UK's reason for joining the EU - for us it was about trade, and frankly keeping an eye on a French/German dominated power bloc. for the French it was about ensuring that never again would it have to fight Germany, and for Germany it was about re-joining the Human Race.

Ellis Dee · 10-12-2011 09:10AM

I suspect a lot of them are still living in the days when Kipling boasted that the sun never set on the Empire.*:D

*To which George Bernard Shaw replied that it was because God wouldn't trust the English in the dark.

moceri · 10-12-2011 09:13AM

Hmmmmmm....
I wonder if it is a case that when compared to the Irish Government who love to fawn to our European Over-masters, the British seem Euro-skeptic by comparison. Every time Enda meets with Frau Merkel, he loves to wag his tail and roll on his back so that she can tickle his tummy.
He is now looking for every possible way to avoid putting the latest EC treaty changes to a referendum.
Since Ireland Joined the EEC (EU) in 1972, the net inflow of funds has been €50 Billion. We now have to repay €45 of Bank Debt as ordered by Jean-Claude Trichet. To say nothing of the estimated €500 Billion of the fishing rights we signed away.

JoeGil · 10-12-2011 09:39AM

The reasons that strike me are are

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

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

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

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

Amtmann · 10-12-2011 10:55AM

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

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

carveone · 10-12-2011 12:50PM

Tremelo wrote: »

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

Not as far as I can tell. My brother in law was at a civil engineering meeting in Brussels of all places with a bunch of different nationalities. He said it was like a selection of national archetypes. The French guy wouldn't stop monopolising the conversation and managed to insult several people, the Germans just wanted to get on with it and go home and the two English fellows wouldn't speak to anyone including each other. But the brother in law, the Welsh guy and a few others (Italian and Spanish maybe) went off to the pub afterwards and had a great time.

Probably means nothing except that the Irish can do business with anyone.

steve9859 · 10-12-2011 03:08PM

JoeGil wrote: »

The reasons that strike me are are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 03:38PM

Britain is an island race - used to being independent and seeking it's power world wide. France and especially Germany have always sought their power and control in Europe.

Most other EU members are either scroungers looking for hand outs, or else small countries looking for protection - or both.

A European elite buys the admission of new nations to 'the club' thus enhancing their own wealth and prestige.

It doesn't keep the peace - an increase in European prosperity coupled with a collapse in religious/patriotic values in key states does that.

meglome · 10-12-2011 04:27PM

trendyvicar wrote: »

Britain is an island race - used to being independent and seeking it's power world wide. France and especially Germany have always sought their power and control in Europe.

I think you need to reread a history book. Not that I agree with anything about your post.

As for the OP

Lord Ashdown, an ally of Clegg, told the Guardian: "The deep and sustained anti-European prejudice of some in the Tory party backed by anti-European papers has now created anti-British prejudice in Europe, especially in Paris.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty

For years there has been an anti-EU media in the UK and it's got worse. They frame the debate in the 'EU stole our babies' mould. We are seeing more here from individuals as evidenced by the comments in the Journal. When you frame a debate that way from the beginning it's not difficult to see why the general public will eventfully buy in. Unfortunately most of it is total bull.

When you think about arch Euro-sceptics you think of Margaret Thatcher but even she didn't use the veto like this.

tonycascarino · 10-12-2011 04:43PM

Fair play to them

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 04:45PM

meglome wrote: »

I think you need to reread a history book. Not that I agree with anything about your post.

As for the OP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty

For years there has been an anti-EU media in the UK and it's got worse. They frame the debate in the 'EU stole our babies' mould. We are seeing more here from individuals as evidenced by the comments in the Journal. When you frame a debate that way from the beginning it's not difficult to see why the general public will eventfully buy in. Unfortunately most of it is total bull.

When you think about arch Euro-sceptics you think of Margaret Thatcher but even she didn't use the veto like this.

Why do Irish posters like The Guardian so much? It's practically the only UK paper quoted on Irish forums. It's a figure of ridicule in The UK.

mike65 · 10-12-2011 05:02PM

The Guardian is just about the most respected and respectable paper in Britain even if its politics do at times stink of socialism.

As for Anti-Europe, the British are sceptical about a superstate of disparate nations full of competing interests, the Irish just say "give us the money".

meglome · 10-12-2011 05:10PM

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do Irish posters like The Guardian so much? It's practically the only UK paper quoted on Irish forums. It's a figure of ridicule in The UK.

We like the Guardian because it generally takes a reasonably level view of any situation. Many newspapers in the UK have an editorial slant which will always show in the stories.

Like the daily mail for example.
"Day PM put Britain first: Defiant Cameron stands up to Euro bullies... but French plot revenge for historic veto"

Remembering the Margaret Thatcher didn't even use the veto.

or
"How Europhile BBC turned triumph over Britain's veto into disaster"

Because the BBC asked everyone what they thought and didn't come up with the same answer as the daily fail.

matthew8 · 10-12-2011 05:24PM

Because the British have their heads screwed on, care about independence and don't want to be sucked into a socialist superstate.

musings · 10-12-2011 05:24PM

I am amazed by the reaction to Cameron's brave decision to stand up for his country's interests. There seems to be only petty sneering and sniping at Britain for this mainly along the lines of "oh,..they can't accept not having an empire anymore so they're out to damage Europe"

In reality Cameron was being bounced into accepting a proposal which was damaging to his country and he said no. Whats so bad about that?

Merkel has done the exact same thing by ruling out the concept of Eurobonds because they're not in Germany's interest.

meglome · 10-12-2011 05:39PM

musings wrote: »

I am amazed by the reaction to Cameron's brave decision to stand up for his country's interests. There seems to be only petty sneering and sniping at Britain for this mainly along the lines of "oh,..they can't accept not having an empire anymore so they're out to damage Europe"

In reality Cameron was being bounced into accepting a proposal which was damaging to his country and he said no. Whats so bad about that?

Merkel has done the exact same thing by ruling out the concept of Eurobonds because they're not in Germany's interest.

I think the issue is many people here believe he stood up for the city of London and his Euro-sceptic party members and not the UK.

matthew8 · 10-12-2011 05:54PM

meglome wrote: »

I think the issue is many people here believe he stood up for the city of London and his Euro-sceptic party members and not the UK.

Are you having a laugh? The UK as a whole is more Eurosceptic than London.

OS119 · 10-12-2011 05:54PM

meglome wrote: »

I think the issue is many people here believe he stood up for the city of London and his Euro-sceptic party members and not the UK.

i have yet to hear what in the propsals was supposed to be good for the UK, rather than just good for the UK to do for other people.

if you can educate me?

my understanding is that the proposal was two pronged - firstly it talked about a mechanism for the EU to supervise national budgets/deficts so as to help stabilise the Euro in the long term. well, we're not in the Euro, so piss off - and secondly it wanted to collectivise financial regulations, as well as financial industry taxation.

thats fine if your financial services industry is pretty small beer, but a) the financial industry in the UK is larger than anyone elses in the EU, b) we'd be coughing up €40bn of the €57bn total european Tobin tax take - so, no we'll be staying in charge of that thank you very much.

we've acted in our best interests, in the same way that Germany is acting in its best interests by not paying off the debts of chaotic countries where they retire at 50 and don't pay tax, and in the same way as Ireland is pushing for a lower interst rate over a longer term.

thebman · 10-12-2011 06:04PM

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

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

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

mattser · 10-12-2011 06:12PM

musings wrote: »

I am amazed by the reaction to Cameron's brave decision to stand up for his country's interests. There seems to be only petty sneering and sniping at Britain for this mainly along the lines of "oh,..they can't accept not having an empire anymore so they're out to damage Europe"

In reality Cameron was being bounced into accepting a proposal which was damaging to his country and he said no. Whats so bad about that?

Merkel has done the exact same thing by ruling out the concept of Eurobonds because they're not in Germany's interest.

Spot on. Let's go sterling.

meglome · 10-12-2011 06:21PM

matthew8 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? The UK as a whole is more Eurosceptic than London.

The City of London as in the financial district, as in the largest donator to the tory party.

OS119 wrote: »

i have yet to hear what in the propsals was supposed to be good for the UK, rather than just good for the UK to do for other people.

if you can educate me?

my understanding is that the proposal was two pronged - firstly it talked about a mechanism for the EU to supervise national budgets/deficts so as to help stabilise the Euro in the long term. well, we're not in the Euro, so piss off - and secondly it wanted to collectivise financial regulations, as well as financial industry taxation.

thats fine if your financial services industry is pretty small beer, but a) the financial industry in the UK is larger than anyone elses in the EU, b) we'd be coughing up €40bn of the €57bn total european Tobin tax take - so, no we'll be staying in charge of that thank you very much.

we've acted in our best interests, in the same way that Germany is acting in its best interests by not paying off the debts of chaotic countries where they retire at 50 and don't pay tax, and in the same way as Ireland is pushing for a lower interst rate over a longer term.

The UK taxpayer has just supported the banks with massive financial supports. So it would be right and fair that a financial transaction be put in place. I agree fully that the UK has more to lose but that doesn't mean Cameron should walk out of the discussion he should stay and negotiate. Even if the tax is not the right way to go he should stay and negotiate. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't take this route and to me she is stereo typical British Euro-sceptic. So I know he has a lot to lose I just think the walkout was not necessarily for the right reasons, I think he had to.

K-9 · 10-12-2011 06:51PM

moceri wrote: »

Hmmmmmm....
I wonder if it is a case that when compared to the Irish Government who love to fawn to our European Over-masters, the British seem Euro-skeptic by comparison. Every time Enda meets with Frau Merkel, he loves to wag his tail and roll on his back so that she can tickle his tummy.
He is now looking for every possible way to avoid putting the latest EC treaty changes to a referendum.
Since Ireland Joined the EEC (EU) in 1972, the net inflow of funds has been €50 Billion. We now have to repay €45 of Bank Debt as ordered by Jean-Claude Trichet. To say nothing of the estimated €500 Billion of the fishing rights we signed away.

Just a comparison of fishing catches pre EU day and after, other countries would fish here regardless of the EU:

dnc-vl04c4qk.png?634591097656083842

meglome · 10-12-2011 07:25PM

moceri wrote: »

Since Ireland Joined the EEC (EU) in 1972, the net inflow of funds has been €50 Billion.

Sounds about right.

moceri wrote: »

We now have to repay €45 of Bank Debt as ordered by Jean-Claude Trichet.

How exactly did he order this? Our government, the one we repeatedly elected, guaranteed the bank debt thus making it our debt. We might not like that but our government did it.

moceri wrote: »

To say nothing of the estimated €500 Billion of the fishing rights we signed away.

Think about this logically. Even with all the bank debts we've taken on and even with all the overspending our total debts are not even half that 500 billion figure you are using. The fish would have to be gold and diamond encrusted for that to be the case.

As K-9 points out the real figures are a tiny fraction of what you think they are.
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx?d=1 (show tabular data).

cheesehead · 10-12-2011 08:17PM

The British realize the obvious: "You know Europe's in trouble when they have an Italian Central Banker and a German Pope"

carveone · 10-12-2011 09:26PM

OS119 wrote: »

i have yet to hear what in the propsals was supposed to be good for the UK, rather than just good for the UK to do for other people.

Keeping Britain at the heart of Europe as John Major would have put it. More sarcastically if the EU has to exist at all it should be as British as possible

All kidding aside I think the future of the Eurozone affects everyone in the EU and total self interest at this point isn't helpful. Besides, Cameron looks to have ruffled the feathers of his coalition partners (remember them?) I also wonder do Wales and Scotland get a say given that they're supposed to have some degree of autonomy (I'm getting that wrong aren't I...).

"Rather than glorying in isolation, our Prime Minister should have been building alliances" as Ed Balls put it on his blog..

thats fine if your financial services industry is pretty small beer, but a) the financial industry in the UK is larger than anyone elses in the EU, b) we'd be coughing up €40bn of the €57bn total european Tobin tax take - so, no we'll be staying in charge of that thank you very much.

I'll agree with that. I dislike the approach been taken to taxation of financial transactions. I don't think it has been thought through properly - putting a 0.1% tax on stocks but a 0.01% tax on derivatives is ill advised.

People figure that they can tax the hell out of transactions (gets the banks!) and use that money to fund other things like school and roads. That's a poor approach. I've always been of the opinion that a small fixed tariff (like $1 or even 50 cents), on all buy side transactions whether stocks/bonds/derivatives/what have you, installed by the exchanges and used to fund financial regulation itself is the way to go. Kill the damn HFT bots, they're bloody wrecking the place. Once the regulators are properly funded, they can go around kicking people's ass. And if GS, MS, and the rest of the Gang of 12 want to go to Asia by all means go. They might get a bit of a shock when they discover that the penalty for destroying economies is a bullet to the back of the head.

OS119 · 10-12-2011 11:20PM

carveone wrote: »

..."Rather than glorying in isolation, our Prime Minister should have been building alliances" as Ed Balls put it on his blog...

Mr Balls couldn't talk me out a burning car - if he told me it was raining i'd put my shorts on. substantively i'm not sure what alliances there were to be made - no one else in Europe, and certainly none of the 'wavering' countries, have the exposure to financial survices that the UK has, so none of them has anything like what the UK has to lose on this issue, so they could be pressured/bought off by France and Germany for relatively little. sure we might have had half a dozen friends a few days ago, but how many in 6 months?

obviously i'd have prefered the diplomacy to be better - i'd far rather that the BG had spoken to Germany privately and said 'we're not interested in this - but this is what i can do and this is what i need in return to push it through' so that even if a deal could not be reached, it wouldn't neccesarily have been as public a falling out as it was. that said, the papers - and not tory-friendly papers - are indicating that France was pushing for this in a way that brooked no compromise, and that Cameron was left with a 'take it or leave' decision.

i'm no head-banging, swivell-eyed loon on the EU, i'm quite keen on it - but i'm not prepared to sacrifice UK interests in the interests of France and Germany just because both of those government have political problems at home. Sarkozy needs to be the big man in Europe to get re-elected but hasn't got deep enough pockets to pay for the suit, and Merkel won't get re-elected if she promises to guarentee non-German debt, or allows the ECB to print funny-money that reminds Germany of 1932. that, to me, is not a good enough reason to allow any danger whatsoever to a body that, while it helped get us into this mess, still provides 10% of UK GDP.

carveone · 11-12-2011 12:42AM

OS119 wrote: »

Mr Balls couldn't talk me out a burning car - if he told me it was raining i'd put my shorts on.

Lol! Someone closer to the UK than I am evidently

Yeah, I forgot that Ed Balls was the Shadow Chancellor, not in the Lib Dems. I'm finding it hard to keep up at this stage. BBC Radio 4 comedy hour is helpful in this regard! However, I think the Lib Dems weren't all that happy either. I'd agree with your position in that it should have been more a matter of diplomacy and negotiation than anything else - Cameron didn't start out well by stating his position was to get the most for the UK out this, but the intractability of the German and French positions is, to put it bluntly, pissing me off at this stage and I'm fairly sympathetic to the German position.

i'm no head-banging, swivell-eyed loon on the EU, i'm quite keen on it - but i'm not prepared to sacrifice UK interests in the interests of France and Germany just because both of those government have political problems at home.

It's a mess and the lack of involvement of all 27 nations isn't helping me believe it's going to get better. The Polish PM put it well earlier in the week:
"You’re either at the table or you’re on the menu.".

Scofflaw explained on another thread:

Germany and France get to throw their weight around because there isn't a "European" system for dealing with a crisis like this - so we're back to intergovernmentalism, with all that that implies in the way of national interests paramount, political posturing, and so on.

(I'm wandering a bit off topic here now but, er, might be relevant):

This is all very well but I'm wondering what will happen when the markets open Monday. Will they realise that the agreement (more or less) on a new treaty sounds great but that's a solution to future deficits not the rather more pressing present ones?

As far as I can tell, they have nothing. The EFSF was supposed to be leveraged up to €2 trillion. Nope. The ECB was supposed to buy trillions in sovereign bonds. Not happening.

And now we're dancing down a road of referendums and political wrangling and more months of delay that isn’t realistically available? The S&P are going to kick our ass they really are.

Beeftotheheels was (somewhere around here) profoundly negative about the future of the Eurozone - not in silly time spans like 10 days but in 6 months. I was fairly opposed to that view but I'm coming around to it. The Central bank intervention bought the EU time which it appears to have squandered. Each day of time bought gets more and more expensive.

A day will come when an EU country will elect a guy based on the promise of not paying back and they'll actually follow through with it.

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments