Why are the British so anti Europe?

old hippy · 06-12-2012 06:56PM

getz wrote: »

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

Yeah, well - Blackpool might as well be another country compared to London.

getz · 06-12-2012 07:27PM

old hippy wrote: »

Yeah, well - Blackpool might as well be another country compared to London.

the young can still afford to buy a house up here

southsiderosie · 06-12-2012 11:39PM

MOD NOTE:

Back on topic, please.

donaghs · 07-12-2012 01:07PM

Maura74 wrote: »

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.:(

Not that simple. As mentioned above, Britain has always been a net contributor so feels more entitled to have a say in what goes on, or disagree with the direction of the EU. Ireland has mostly been a net benificiary so has been happy to rubber stamp the general Frano-German consensus as long as the money kept flowing.

It was the Conservative Party who were most keen to get the UK into the Common Market, starting with MacMillan, and finally succeeding with Heath. The Labour Party, Trades Unions and the Left in the UK were much more wary of the EEC. E.g. in the the 1970s UK referendum on EEC membership, the Conservatives, Heath, Thatcher etc all campaigned to stay in. And the Daily Mail backed the YES vote too. The Labour Party were split, mostly opposed, the NO crowd led by Tony Benn. And the Guardian would have featured articles opposing EEC membership.

One of the main reasons for opposing EEC membership were the fears over plans towards increasing integration into a federal superstate. They were largely dismissed, but now appear more of a reality?

McDave · 07-12-2012 03:05PM

getz wrote: »

who is to blame ?well a quick google tells me,that europe blames the UK for the euro debt crisis, and then again EU chief barroso blames US banks for the eurozone crisis, but again the IMF blames the people and not goverments,ha now i see it now a number of euro countries are now blaming germany . no its greece, some time soon they will get round to blame ireland.

In order to short-circuit a circle of blame, how about a link?

McDave · 07-12-2012 03:17PM

gallag wrote: »

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk, not joining the euro seems to have been the correct choice, I hope we remain sceptical of the euro.

Although I'm a bit sceptical about overuse of the term 'austerity', it seems the British Chancellor is predicting five more years of it:

The healing process will take far longer than Mr Osborne first anticipated in 2010. Then he forecast five years of austerity before Britain’s public finances would be back in balance. This week he again extended his austerity deadline – this time to eight years. Fitch, a credit rating agency, concerned by this apparent loss of fiscal discipline, has placed Britain’s triple A credit status under threat of a downgrade.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1207/1224327612329.html

And although Britain has exited its second recession in recent times, it seems the recovery is likely to be a temporary little arrangement:

Britain's economy has exited recession and official figures show it grew by 1 per cent in the third quarter, although that strength is unlikely to be sustained.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1127/breaking14.html

Now I'm not suggesting all is rosy in Germany, but:

German two-year bond yields dipped to four-month lows today on bets the European Central Bank could cut interest rates further, but a looming US jobs report kept investors cautious and limited falls.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1207/breaking15.html

Indeed, bond yields have been enjoying a sustained reduction in EZ countries across the continent including Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece. This suggests the EZ is making considerable progress.

HowsAboutThis · 09-12-2012 02:46AM

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?

Brits are actually pretty pro-Europe within a very specific definition. They enjoy the free trade and to an extent the travel/movement rights. The issue for many is they were never asked whether they agreed with joining what has now become the "EU" along with all it's baggage.

McDave · 09-12-2012 10:38AM

HowsAboutThis wrote: »

Brits are actually pretty pro-Europe within a very specific definition. They enjoy the free trade and to an extent the travel/movement rights. The issue for many is they were never asked whether they agreed with joining what has now become the "EU" along with all it's baggage.

The UK had a retrospective referendum on EEC membership in 1975. The preamble of the Treaty of Rome spoke of 'ever closer union', so it's clear that a political element to the EEC was foreseen by the signatory parties, and that further steps could be taken along the way. It was up to British citizens and their political representatives to at least consider this aspect in the course of the referendum campaign.

The first really major development in this regard was the 1992 single market, which the UK supported. The UK balked at the proposed social competence and got an opt-out. The UK has been resisting most extensions of EU competence ever since.

The UK is entirely within its rights to determine what elements of sovereignty it is prepared to conditionally cede to the EU. And to mark each step with a referendum if that is what is constitutionally required. Ireland ratifies every single change to the treaties with a referendum. When a change to the texture was proposed under the Nice Treaty, two member states rejected it in referenda. In more recent times, the German constitutional court has dealt with the issue of sovereignty in great, almost philosophical, detail, concluding that any transfer of 'competence' (i.e. a vital, distinct element of sovereignty) will explicitly require a referendum - quite a development in a country where referenda are treated with great suspicion.

Based on the above, I don't see how you can contend the UK is pretty pro-Europe. The UK stated it's anti-EEC/EU credentials by refusing to engage with the establishment of the EEC and founding a competing trading bloc - EFTA. Even since its 1973 EEC accession, the UK has been semi-detached, and since Thatcher, quite hostile to the EU stuff that goes on on the continent. Cameron's attempt to derail the ESM - and effectively undermine the Euro - was the final straw.

I think it's fair to conclude that large parts of the British political establishment, and almost all its press is actively hostile to the EU. I also think that most British people at this stage go along with this opinion-forming consensus. Although I can't help feeling that were there to be a referendum campaign, there'd be a surprising amount of support for the EU, although probably not enough to carry the day.

Will there be a referendum? Hard to say. Sentiment seems to require one. But what question could you ask? Giving the green light to all that has gone before, or provide a green light for Westminster to engage in future developments as they arise? Setting the question could be the trickiest of all.

At any rate, I don't doubt for a second that British people have a strong sense of democracy and sovereignty. That's very much to Britain's credit. However, I'm also of the view that Britain has been less than honest in its dealings with the EU, and is in some way stuck in a more agreeable past where it's role in the world was more definite. Consequently, I see Britain's attitude to the EU as a primarily reactive as opposed to constructive one.

The Corinthian · 12-12-2012 12:24PM

The Economist's cover story this week is an examination of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU.

For those who read it regularly, the publication generally has a very strong Anglo-centric, free market, slant and thus has never been terribly fond of the EU historically. As such, when it concludes that a British exit would be disastrous for the UK, as it does in this article, one would tend to sit up and listen.

Warning: the article contains actual economic arguments.

Scofflaw · 12-12-2012 05:40PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Economist's cover story this week is an examination of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU.

For those who read it regularly, the publication generally has a very strong Anglo-centric, free market, slant and thus has never been terribly fond of the EU historically. As such, when it concludes that a British exit would be disastrous for the UK, as it does in this article, one would tend to sit up and listen.

Warning: the article contains actual economic arguments.

Worth reading the briefing as well - it's referenced and linked in the article, but in case people miss it: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break

The benefits, in fiscal terms, do seem rather paltry, and the claim that the UK would be able to waltz into a free-market arrangement with the EU after exit do seem to have all the desperation and self-delusion of the SNP's claim that Scotland wouldn't have to reapply for membership if it left the UK.

I suspect that the Economist will be accurately reflecting the position of the UK's business leadership, which has already expressed alarm at the possible consequences of an EU exit. I note that they're concerned about, amongst other issues, the way some 40% of their FDI cites being inside the EU as a reason for site selection. Luckily, there is of course another English-speaking, common-law, business-friendly, low-tax jurisdiction left in the EU even if the UK exits...

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian · 12-12-2012 05:56PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Worth reading the briefing as well - it's referenced and linked in the article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break

Actually that's the one I meant, as I originally read the print version - my mistake.

The benefits, in fiscal terms, do seem rather paltry, and the claim that the UK would be able to waltz into a free-market arrangement with the EU after exit do seem to have all the desperation and self-delusion of the SNP's claim that Scotland wouldn't have to reapply for membership if it left the UK.

An interesting point is that Scotland is the least Eurosceptic part of the UK (50% seeking to leave) against England which is the most Eurosceptic (60% seeking to leave).

While I cannot see a Scottish succession referendum getting anywhere at present, were the UK to leave the EU, the fall out of this and difference in attitudes between Scotland and England on membership, would likely increase support for independence (as the only way to get back into the EU).

It'll be interesting to see if Cameron can keep a lid on it all.

djpbarry · 12-12-2012 06:54PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I cannot see a Scottish succession referendum getting anywhere at present, were the UK to leave the EU, the fall out of this and difference in attitudes between Scotland and England on membership, would likely increase support for independence (as the only way to get back into the EU).

I'm not sure about that. While it's true that Scotland is less eurosceptic than England & Wales, it's still pretty damn eurosceptic.

Although, I guess if the UK were to leave the EU, Scottish eurosceptics may be quicker to recognise the damage done to the British economy (which may in turn lead to growing support for an independent Scottish application for EU membership) relative to their English and Welsh counterparts, who I suspect would stubbornly stick to their guns.

The Corinthian · 12-12-2012 07:23PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Although, I guess if the UK were to leave the EU, Scottish eurosceptics may be quicker to recognise the damage done to the British economy (which may in turn lead to growing support for an independent Scottish application for EU membership) relative to their English and Welsh counterparts, who I suspect would stubbornly stick to their guns.

I never suggested that it would cause Scotland to vote for independence, only that it would "increase support for independence" - whether this, combined with other events, changes the playing field come a referendum, is another matter.

djpbarry · 13-12-2012 11:02AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested that it would cause Scotland to vote for independence...

Yeah, sorry - on re-reading it would appear I've sort of just reiterated what you posted.

walshb · 14-12-2012 05:10PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

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.

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

gallag · 14-12-2012 05:14PM

walshb wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

Is there even any British people alive today that would remember being a world dictator?

walshb · 14-12-2012 05:18PM

gallag wrote: »

Is there even any British people alive today that would remember being a world dictator?

These things live long long in the DNA and memory. Are taught too.

gallag · 14-12-2012 05:29PM

walshb wrote: »

These things live long long in the DNA and memory. Are taught too.

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

walshb · 14-12-2012 05:38PM

gallag wrote: »

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Hey, I am not saying that the U.K. is wrong for being anti Europe. I am saying that they were always anti EU. From being so dominant to now having to share their toys. Can't sit well.

djpbarry · 14-12-2012 05:40PM

gallag wrote: »

...has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Has it? I posted this on another thread:

djpbarry wrote: »

The UK's public deficit is similar in size to Ireland's (expressed as % GDP), there are significant unemployment blackspots (particularly in the West Midlands, north east and Northern Ireland), youth unemployment is a massive problem (far bigger than in Ireland) and economic growth has been negative in three of the last four quarters.

It's in the context of the UK's current economic malaise that calls for EU withdrawal look particularly ridiculous – what’s left of the economy would crash and burn pretty damn quickly.

The Corinthian · 14-12-2012 05:48PM

walshb wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. They have been so so used to be being the world power/dictator that the thoughts of sharing, or god forbid, bowing to other nations makes them queasy!

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good. It allowed, in particular, the Germans to reinvent themselves (repeatedly) from scratch and even taught the French (because even they don't try pretending that 'they' won with a straight face) a certain level of caution against hubris.

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

gallag wrote: »

And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

Actually, you appear to know very little about Ireland. Ireland was a lot worse off before joining the EEC/EU than it is even today.

Even in a more modern context, not following the present path would have almost certainly condemned Ireland to a far more disastrous economic future than the present austerity. That this point has been repeatedly been made, with evidence, does not appear to dampen your enthusiastism at repeating the accusation. Is it a case of if you repeat it often enough, it'll stick? Or magically become true? Please let me know as I'm curious as to the psychology behind and/or reasoning of some of these arguments.

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am not saying that the U.K. is wrong for being anti Europe. I am saying that they were always anti EU. From being so dominant to now having to share their toys. Can't sit well.

They always had to share their toys and it never sat all that well. One of the reasons for World War I, TBH.

gallag · 14-12-2012 05:55PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Has it? I posted this on another thread:

It's in the context of the UK's current economic malaise that calls for EU withdrawal look particularly ridiculous – what’s left of the economy would crash and burn pretty damn quickly.

In your opinion, the UK has a stronger more diverse economy than Ireland so comparing dept/GDP per capita etc is pointless, this is bore out in fact by simple things like the UK having a far better credit rating (if we adopted the euro we could have a terrible rating like Ireland) and actually being in a position to lend to Ireland. There has been a lot of good news for the UK at the min, sharpest drop in unemployment in decade, out of recession for now at least, all bucking the euro trend.

It seems that people believe trade blocks by other eu countries is the main reason the UK would have trouble out of the eu, I tinder that unlikely because the UK is a net importer.

gallag · 14-12-2012 06:04PM

I don't know why that stupid smiley face is appearing ahead of my post, does anyone know how to get the forums back onto mobile mode?

gallag · 14-12-2012 06:07PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good. It allowed, in particular, the Germans to reinvent themselves (repeatedly) from scratch and even taught the French (because even they don't try pretending that 'they' won with a straight face) a certain level of caution against hubris.

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

Actually, you appear to know very little about Ireland. Ireland was a lot worse off before joining the EEC/EU than it is even today.

Even in a more modern context, not following the present path would have almost certainly condemned Ireland to a far more disastrous economic future than the present austerity. That this point has been repeatedly been made, with evidence, does not appear to dampen your enthusiastism at repeating the accusation. Is it a case of if you repeat it often enough, it'll stick? Or magically become true? Please let me know as I'm curious as to the psychology behind and/or reasoning of some of these arguments.

They always had to share their toys and it never sat all that well. One of the reasons for World War I, TBH.

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

The Corinthian · 14-12-2012 06:36PM

gallag wrote: »

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

No, in the case of World War II, Britain was able to hold on long enough for Russia and the US (thanks to Japan) to get involved and turn the tide. In short the UK didn't lose it - it was won by the US and Russia - as evidenced by the fact that subsequently geopolitics turned twoards those countries and the UK was no longer able to act without the de facto permission of the US (Suez being a case in point).

Loosing one of the World wars would ironically have released Britain from the shackles of her imperial past, that she needed to behave in a manner which was no longer reflected in reality. This is what happened with Germany and France (which effectively lost and only won by default). Of course, this is an arguable point, but I did make it fairly clear I was simply musing.

As for massive debts being inherited - you'll find every Western nation will be bequeathing one of those to the next generation, regardless of whether they're in the EU or not.

Now, there's nothing 'anti-British' about this, it's simply an observation of the national psyche, just as I often make about other nations. You are welcome to argue against this, but preferably have some substance in your argument if you do.

djpbarry · 14-12-2012 07:05PM

gallag wrote: »

In your opinion, the UK has a stronger more diverse economy than Ireland...

The UK has a larger economy, but by what metric is it “stronger”?

gallag wrote: »

...this is bore out in fact by simple things like the UK having a far better credit rating...

Which is based on little more than “confidence” and besides, the UK is on the verge of losing its AAA rating.

gallag wrote: »

...if we adopted the euro we could have a terrible rating like Ireland...

Ireland has a terrible rating because of how it managed its own affairs, not because of the Euro.

gallag wrote: »

...out of recession for now at least...

Growth has been negative in three of the last four quarters?

gallag wrote: »

It seems that people believe trade blocks by other eu countries is the main reason the UK would have trouble out of the eu, I tinder that unlikely because the UK is a net importer.

You don’t think the British government will slap import tariffs on imported goods from the EU? Seems pretty unlikely given that British products (agricultural produce in particular) are likely to attract hefty tariffs in the EU.

McDave · 15-12-2012 07:55PM

gallag wrote: »

Are you for real? We never "won the war" and would better if we lost? And how is Ireland better today when every child is born with a massive dept that their children will inherit? Just so anti British about here.

Surprising comment. Considering you wrote...

McDave · 15-12-2012 07:56PM

... this:

gallag wrote: »

DNA does not hold memory and I was not taught to be a world dictator in school, has it not been bore out that the u.k is better of for being Euro sceptics? And Ireland is worse of for rolling over at every opportunity?

SiegfriedsMum · 23-12-2012 01:48PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've often thought that had Britain lost either one of the two World Wars, it would have done them the World of good.

I am sure you are right and wouldn't it be exciting to speculate what europe would now look like had Hitler won, and probably even free from all those jews, gypsies and nasty homosexuals, for a start, even in Britain. What a World of good that would be.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, Britain managed not to lose (note I don't say it won, because it didn't) the last World War and thus never fully accepted the post-war reality where they were no longer a top-tier player. You'd think Suez would have subsequently given them the message, but alas no.

Of course, Britain's euroscepticism is much more complex than that, but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor.

You are , of course, quite right, that Britain's euroscepticism is complex, but to ascribe, in whole or in part, it to delusions of grandeur seems in itself to miss the point. Even if we were to accept it as true, to have some delusions of grandeur seems like a harmless hobby, and unimportant.

Britain is a complex country, with no written constitution and a monarch, yet it seems to work pretty well. The main reason for euroscepticism in the UK is that Britain is a democracy which is ill at east smundging over the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU.

Many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic, open and accountable as national parliaments are (just look at Scofflaw's many posts here on the topic), but by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

This is the real reason at the heart of Britains Euroscepticism, and to pretend it's because the british have delusions of one sort of another is merely name calling and a distraction.

McDave · 23-12-2012 03:02PM

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Britain is a complex country, with no written constitution and a monarch, yet it seems to work pretty well. The main reason for euroscepticism in the UK is that Britain is a democracy which is ill at east smundging over the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU.

Most large countries are complex and many of them, especially those in the OECD, work pretty well. The large EU states are all democracies with their own understandings of history, and are happy enough to devolve certain powers to the EU under certain legal conditions. All feature some form of Eurosceptic opposition. But none to the extent manifested in the UK.

Britain seems to be a bit different. And long may they remain so. By all means should they have an internal debate on the EU. But it's probably best not conducted from a high horse.

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments