Why are the British so anti Europe?

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

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.

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

Most understand this and don't set up the phoney false opposition that the EU must become more democratic, but should not integrate further. That phoney false opposition truly is delusional, and it's about time 'heroic' British Eurosceptics accepted that they are not the sole fonts of wisdom on the matter.

SiegfriedsMum

djpbarry wrote: »

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

Perhaps you misunderstand that I am not interested in getting into an argument to argue one side or the other, and I was merely explaining that a previous post which seemed to claim that Britain’s scepticism was due to delusions, was simplistic, incorrect, and merely seemed to highlight the posters prejudices.

McDave wrote: »

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

Most understand this and don't set up the phoney false opposition that the EU must become more democratic, but should not integrate further. That phoney false opposition truly is delusional, and it's about time 'heroic' British Eurosceptics accepted that they are not the sole fonts of wisdom on the matter.

I look forward to you writing letters to the English newspapers telling the UK that their opposition to what they perceive as lack of democracy is false, delusional and phoney, and hope you get an opportunity to argue that position in a debate with some of the UK’s sceptics. Simply saying they are phoney, false and delusional is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union, then it seems your understanding of the Treaties of Rome differs from many others.

oscarBravo

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Perhaps you misunderstand that I am not interested in getting into an argument to argue one side or the other...

It's a bit disingenuous to stake a claim on one side of an argument, and then, when challenged on it, to insist that you don't want to argue either side. It's almost as if you want to merely say something without adducing any evidence to back it up, which I'm sure you would agree is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union...

If that's what you think he thinks, you might be better served by actually reading his posts.

SiegfriedsMum

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a bit disingenuous to stake a claim on one side of an argument, and then, when challenged on it, to insist that you don't want to argue either side.

In this, as in all things, context is king. Another poster claimed that the UK was anti Europe due to delusions of grandeur, so I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

Subsequently, a third poster asked me to “whip out some of those yardsticks” and, I have to confess, I have no idea what that means. The same poster then asked me to give some examples of lack of accountability in terms of the UK. My observation was that the democratic deficit is the reason behind the scepticism in the UK, and my own personal views on accountability don’t seem relevant.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's what you think he thinks, you might be better served by actually reading his posts.

McDave wrote: »

The EU is not a state. Most would prefer it never becomes one. In that light no one really expects the EU to take on the full democratic features of a state.

As you can see, I was not only reading his post, but replying directly to it. Again, the context is king. The introduction of whether or not some would “prefer” the EU to become a state or not was irrelevant and a red herring to the topic that the aims of every closer political and economic union the EU as stated in the treaties of Rome, and again its this ever closer movement which concerns some sceptics.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Another poster claimed that the UK was anti Europe due to delusions of grandeur, so I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

Subsequently, a third poster asked me to “whip out some of those yardsticks” and, I have to confess, I have no idea what that means.

Let me help you out with that:

djpbarry wrote: »

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...by any yardstick the EU is less accountable and seems to have no desire to become accountable.

Let's whip out a few of those yardsticks, shall we? Could you provide some examples of the lack of accountability within the EU, relative to the UK?

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

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.

Yes, let's get hysterical, exaggerate the point I was making so we can inexorably drive the discussion to the typically inane conclusion that invokes Godwin's law.

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.

Yet the rest of your post fails to debunk the theory that British nostalgia is a factor, you just dismiss the notion and then move on. So you'll forgive me, given I bothered to give an argument why, if I don't take your dismissal too seriously.

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.

Which is of course a red herring, because were euroscepticism in the UK really interested in the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU, then it would be campaigning for the transfer of the powers of the commission to the democratically elected European parliament. But guess what, it's not.

Many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic

No doubt because many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK? I suspect the attitude you betrayed there probably is closer to the real reason for most Eurosceptism.

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.

Your post was a distraction.

It was little more than a basic dismissal (without bothering to debunk the position it is dismissing) followed with your stating an alternative theory (without bothering to submit an argument as to why the British are somehow more in touch with their democratic side than the "Europeans").

Care to try again, perhaps with some substance this time?

SiegfriedsMum

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, let's get hysterical, exaggerate the point I was making so we can inexorably drive the discussion to the typically inane conclusion that invokes Godwin's law.

I have no intention of becoming hysterical. I responded to what you said which was

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.

And if you don’t want to think through the consequences of what you said, that’s your choice. However, I can only respond to what you actually say, which is what I did. However, if you have a point to make which is other than that which you have said, then make it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet the rest of your post fails to debunk the theory that British nostalgia is a factor, you just dismiss the notion and then move on. So you'll forgive me, given I bothered to give an argument why, if I don't take your dismissal too seriously.

The purpose was not to try to debunk anything, and nostalgia may well be a factor, but not a reason. If you wish to be bothered, or not, to argue or give reasons, that’s a matter for you. However, your intemperate tone doesn’t help.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is of course a red herring, because were euroscepticism in the UK really interested in the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of the EU, then it would be campaigning for the transfer of the powers of the commission to the democratically elected European parliament. But guess what, it's not.

You can’t decide how other should react, and then conclude because you decide they don’t react in the way which you find acceptable, then you conclude their position is flawed. (It is, of course, quite possible to be eurosceptical without campaigning for a transfer of powers from one institution to another, and campaign, for example, for a complete withdrawal from all institutions and return powers to ones own institutions.)

The Corinthian wrote: »

No doubt because many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK? I suspect the attitude you betrayed there probably is closer to the real reason for most Eurosceptism.

I don’t agree that many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK. The only “attitude” (to use your unfortunate word) being displayed is you simply making things up which I have not said, and then concluding from your making up that I have “betrayed” something or other.

Terry Wogan put is beautifully when talking about the Eurovision song contest. When asked by other commentators why he was at the contest when the UK evidently hated it, he said that it wasn’t that the UK hated the contest at all, they love it but they just love it in a different way. T

This has an element of truth when applied to the UK attitude to the EU also.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Care to try again, perhaps with some substance this time?

Actually no. I like to discuss and argue, but I don’t like your tone, which comes over as somewhat patronising and headmaster-ish.

oscarBravo

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

...I posted that at the root of the scepticism in the UK is what is known as the democratic defecit in the EU.

[...]

My observation was that the democratic deficit is the reason behind the scepticism in the UK...

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

It is, of course, quite possible to be eurosceptical without campaigning for a transfer of powers from one institution to another, and campaign, for example, for a complete withdrawal from all institutions and return powers to ones own institutions.

Goalpost-shifting is a poor form of argument.

I like to discuss and argue...

With respect, you don't seem fond of discussion and argument as I understand the concepts.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

And if you don’t want to think through the consequences of what you said, that’s your choice. However, I can only respond to what you actually say, which is what I did. However, if you have a point to make which is other than that which you have said, then make it.

Are you still labouring under the delusion that the UK won World War II?

Had the UK lost, Germany would still have likely lost overall against the USSR, such was the scale of her losses on the eastern front. She still would have declared war on the US, in keeping with her treaty with Japan, and dragged American resources and military assets, into assisting the USSR.

Now, of course, without Air Strip 1 to launch a US led invasion of France, this may have drawn out the War, and perhaps resulted in a stalemate (as mooted as Robert Harris), but I certainly would not be as certain of the consequences as you would be, simply because I do not overestimate Britain's importance when compared to either the US or the USSR.

The purpose was not to try to debunk anything, and nostalgia may well be a factor, but not a reason.

Oh, now you're agreeing with me - after all I did say "but this continued delusion of past grandeur is almost certainly a factor". Bit of a climbdown, TBH.

You can’t decide how other should react, and then conclude because you decide they don’t react in the way which you find acceptable, then you conclude their position is flawed.

Of course I can, don't be ridiculous. If someone claims to follow a principle then constantly fails to do so, or even opposes any move twoards it, then clearly they don't follow it - it's a pretty clearly demonstrated conclusion.

The Eurosceptic unfortunately has always come down to this; Brussels is opposed, not because it it undemocratic, but because it is foreign.

But fair enough - if nationalism the reason, that's the reason. But it does get my goat up when I hear pseudo democratic and economic arguments, from those who want to hide the real reason because they're afraid that it won't be welcomed. At least tell the truth, for goodness sake.

I don’t agree that many other countries are not as democratically developed as the UK. The only “attitude” (to use your unfortunate word) being displayed is you simply making things up which I have not said, and then concluding from your making up that I have “betrayed” something or other.

Really? Explain "many other countries don't have the problem and just carry on pretending the EU is just as democratic" then. Why are they "pretending" then? Corruption? Some other moral or intellectual flaw?

Actually no. I like to discuss and argue, but I don’t like your tone, which comes over as somewhat patronising and headmaster-ish.

Would you prefer if I politely accepted your rather transparent attempts to twist the discussion, using unsubstantiated dismissals (that turn out you were actually in agreement with me), and unsupported opinion without even an argument to back them up, let alone evidence?

So if I sound somewhat "patronising and headmaster-ish", then perhaps it is simply because what you've posted called for an intellectual birching.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I look forward to you writing letters to the English newspapers telling the UK that their opposition to what they perceive as lack of democracy is false, delusional and phoney, and hope you get an opportunity to argue that position in a debate with some of the UK’s sceptics. Simply saying they are phoney, false and delusional is not an argument, and is merely rhetoric.

In the considerable meantime, I'm happy to discuss the theme in the OP here on this thread and on other Irish fora, where British sceptics see fit to intervene in sufficient numbers.

As to "false, delusional and phoney", if the cap fits...

In my sentient life the British have pursued a largely antagonistic approach to the EU. Thatcher in particular with her attempt to stiff the 'deepening' strand of the EU by putting on a big push for post-1989 'widening'. She won the short-term battle on that one, but lost out on the longer-term strategy when the single currency was given treaty status and came to fruition.

Blair made his dependence on the 'special relationship', and Britain's underlying antipathy towards the EU plain for all to see. Cameron has merely put the tin hat on it by attempting to block the fiscal compact.

At this point, the the UK should simply get off the pot and allow others to get on with the business of 'ever closer union' as foreseen in the Treaty of Rome all those decades ago. And it would be nice if in the process British politicians would give the posturing about 'democracy' a rest. They didn't invent the concept and have no lien on it above and beyond others.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you think that the EU is not about political and economic union, then it seems your understanding of the Treaties of Rome differs from many others.

The EU is about 'ever closer union'. Political and economic union are obviously key elements are part of it. No confusion there.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

As you can see, I was not only reading his post, but replying directly to it. Again, the context is king. The introduction of whether or not some would “prefer” the EU to become a state or not was irrelevant and a red herring to the topic that the aims of every closer political and economic union the EU as stated in the treaties of Rome, and again its this ever closer movement which concerns some sceptics.

'Ever closer union' has always been on the agenda - on the signing of the original Treaty of Rome, when the UK helped found EFTA, when the UK joined the EEC in 1972 and when the UK endorsed the ratification in 1975.

The UK chose to absent itself from subsequent social policy and economic and monetary union developments by obtaining opt-outs. Fine up to a point. But now the UK is attempting to prevent others from developing policies and competences in which the UK is not an active party. The UK isn't in the Euro, yet it attempted to block a fiscal compact to help underpin it.

The real context, I fear, is that large groupings of EU members want to press ahead with certain policies, but the UK wants to take the ball away on some of them - as evidenced by Cameron's recent behaviour.

Britons are perfectly entitled to be sceptical of the EU. But if the EU has gone beyond what they are now prepared to cooperate with, they should do the honourable thing and leave the stage. Otherwise the EU will evolve away from the UK with the ultimate establishment of a new EU Mark II treaty framework.

The British would also do well to remember that the EEC-EC-EU is not their brainchild. The impetus for European integration comes from other quarters. If the British intent is to play a spoiling game, those in other quarters will just find another way to advance their strategic interests.

E U democratic is a fantasy,18th oct 2012,chancellor angela merkel

.we have made good progress on strengthening fiscal discipling with the fiscal pact, but we are in the opinion, and i speak for the whole german goverment on this,that we could go a step further by giving europe[european commission] real rights of intervention in national budgets it must be stressed that no additional powers for the european parliament accompanied this proposal for the real rights of; intervention in national budgets;. in other words they [EU] not your countries citizens, will decide what is good for you.

Welcome back getz; are you going to address how your earlier claims about somehow avoiding the property bubble would have been possible if only we were not in the EU turned out to be nonsense, or has your absence been simply in the hope we'd forget this?

As to your new claim / rant. Would you like to back that up with anything? A coherent argument might be a good place to start.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Welcome back getz; are you going to address how your earlier claims about somehow avoiding the property bubble would have been possible if only we were not in the EU turned out to be nonsense, or has your absence been simply in the hope we'd forget this?

As to your new claim / rant. Would you like to back that up with anything? A coherent argument might be a good place to start.

how do you know that you would not be better off if you dident join the EU ?are you a clairvoyant ?,the one thing i can tell you for sure is that those countries that did not join the EU are better off than ireland.

getz wrote: »

how do you know that you would not be better off if you dident join the EU ?are you a clairvoyant ?

No, just not ignorant of the facts.

Ireland prior to the 1990's was essentially a Second World nation; laughable infrastructure, high unemployment and a standard of living that was the envy of the Third World - but that's about it. The economic growth that took place was as a direct result of our membership of the EU - there is absolutely no credible economist of business person who will claim otherwise.

So, it is a pretty safe bet that we would have been worse off had we not joined, and stayed the course in, the EU.

the one thing i can tell you for sure is that those countries that did not join the EU are better off than ireland.

And oddly enough some of those, such as Switzerland, have been better off than us even before we joined. And some other nations in the EU are better off than us, and a some are worse off. And many non-EU nations are worse off (or are we only allowed to cherry-pick the one's you like?)

All of which proves... nothing. Why? Because it's the same nonsense about how we could be like Norway or Switzerland or whoever if we just left the EU, without even considering for a moment that we're nothing like either. How much do you even know about either?

Look - if you don't understand basic macroeconomics, fine, but please don't pretend you do. Be honest, your motivations in opposing EU membership are almost certainly nationalistic, is my guess, and it would save us all a lot of time and ridicule if you came clean and we could just argue on that basis.

how can you be better off when you have had to mortgage your childrens future to pay back the debt,there are more young irishmen and women leaving ireland to work in the UK now since the 1960s, irish foreign dept is 1.7 tri ,foreign dept to the GDP 1.93%. goverment dept to GDP is 109%. foreign dept per person is 390,969 euro, it was the cheep credit from the EU that fuelled the unsustainable growth in its housing market, so you are telling me you would have been worse off by not joining ?

getz wrote: »

how can you be better off when you have had to mortgage your childrens future to pay back the debt

At least they have a future in Ireland now. For example, back in the eighties, unemployment was even higher than today:

Add to that, we were also paying significantly more tax. As bad as things are in Ireland, they are significantly better that they were back in the bad old days, prior to the Celtic Tiger and Euro, when leaving was literally the only option most of us (old enough to have been there) had.

there are more young irishmen and women leaving ireland to work in the UK now since the 1960s

Really, can you back that up with evidence? I ask because these types of claims have been going around for a while and tend to include non-nationals too.

irish foreign dept is 1.7 tri ,foreign dept to the GDP 1.93%. goverment dept to GDP is 109%. foreign dept per person is 390,969 euro,

And the UK's foreign debt represents 390% of GDP - even Germany's is worse than ours! As to the level of debt, you don't seem to even understand what that debt actually is.

it was the cheep credit from the EU that fuelled the unsustainable growth in its housing market

No it was not, and this was explained to you a few pages back, which you ignored then shortly after which you ducked out of the discussion rather than address it. Would you like to continue making the same discredited claim?

so you are telling me you would have been worse off by not joining ?

Yes, I already did and unlike you have actually pointed out the facts of the matter. Ireland is infinitely better off having joined the EEC/EC/EU, than it was, as evidenced by the Celtic Tiger which has been attributed to FDI that put EU (and later Euro) membership pretty much at the top of the list (along with our low corporation tax rates).

Let's not forget all the EU money we were more than happy to build our infrastructure on, BTW.

The Euro ultimately may have had some effect in fuelling the bubble, but given the failure of our government to employ fiscal measures to control the bubble (quite the opposite), it becomes clear that even with monetary policy control would have made no difference. Certainly, however, to claim that the Euro was to blame is frankly delusional.

We would be a lot worse off were we not in the EEC/EC/EU; a poor backwater nation on the edge of Europe, with a currency still pegged to the British Pound, with even higher taxes and unemployment than we have today and where most of us would have to emigrate to have any hope for a better life - and I don't mean just now, but on a never-ending basis.

So are you actually going to address some facts or are you going to continue this game of yours, whereby you continue to make spurious claims in the hope that some will stick?

Better still, how about you tell us the real reason for your Eurosceptism?

The Corinthian wrote: »

At least they have a future in Ireland now. For example, back in the eighties, unemployment was even higher than today:

Add to that, we were also paying significantly more tax. As bad as things are in Ireland, they are significantly better that they were back in the bad old days, prior to the Celtic Tiger and Euro, when leaving was literally the only option most of us (old enough to have been there) had.

Really, can you back that up with evidence? I ask because these types of claims have been going around for a while and tend to include non-nationals too.

And the UK's foreign debt represents 390% of GDP - even Germany's is worse than ours! As to the level of debt, you don't seem to even understand what that debt actually is.

No it was not, and this was explained to you a few pages back, which you ignored then shortly after which you ducked out of the discussion rather than address it. Would you like to continue making the same discredited claim?

Yes, I already did and unlike you have actually pointed out the facts of the matter. Ireland is infinitely better off having joined the EEC/EC/EU, than it was, as evidenced by the Celtic Tiger which has been attributed to FDI that put EU (and later Euro) membership pretty much at the top of the list (along with our low corporation tax rates).

Let's not forget all the EU money we were more than happy to build our infrastructure on, BTW.

The Euro ultimately may have had some effect in fuelling the bubble, but given the failure of our government to employ fiscal measures to control the bubble (quite the opposite), it becomes clear that even with monetary policy control would have made no difference. Certainly, however, to claim that the Euro was to blame is frankly delusional.

We would be a lot worse off were we not in the EEC/EC/EU; a poor backwater nation on the edge of Europe, with a currency still pegged to the British Pound, with even higher taxes and unemployment than we have today and where most of us would have to emigrate to have any hope for a better life - and I don't mean just now, but on a never-ending basis.

So are you actually going to address some facts or are you going to continue this game of yours, whereby you continue to make spurious claims in the hope that some will stick?

Better still, how about you tell us the real reason for your Eurosceptism?

as usual you keep on throwing out insults,as a mod i would expect you to behave better,the UK WILL leave the EU at the end of the day,and there is nothing you can do about it, i can assure you most UK citizens will vote out if they get the chance, and that makes me think just how ireland would cope with us out

getz wrote: »

as usual you keep on throwing out insults,as a mod i would expect you to behave better,the UK WILL leave the EU at the end of the day,and there is nothing you can do about it, i can assure you most UK citizens will vote out if they get the chance, and that makes me think just how ireland would cope with us out

In other words you don't intend to actually address any of the facts surrounding your claims. Fair enough, but then you can't blame the rest of us when we ridicule them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In other words you don't intend to actually address any of the facts surrounding your claims. Fair enough, but then you can't blame the rest of us when we ridicule them.

the rest of us ?no the confrontation is only from you,you cannot stand anyone with a anti-EU view

getz wrote: »

...i can assure you most UK citizens will vote out if they get the chance, and that makes me think just how ireland would cope with us out

Pretty well, one would imagine, given that Ireland would be the only English-speaking country in the EU. It is likely we would see a flight of business and jobs from the UK to Ireland.

getz wrote: »

the rest of us ?no the confrontation is only from you

Oddly enough, even this assertion of yours managed to get disproven even before I responded.

you cannot stand anyone with a anti-EU view

Not at all, personally I'm exceedingly critical of the EU and believe that there are a number of countries (e.g. Switzerland) who are better off out - at least for the foreseeable future. What I can't stand is intellectual dishonesty.

Com'on, be honest; you don't really care about the economy, you'd happily weather a century-long recession if it got you out from under the foreign yoke.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oddly enough, even this assertion of yours managed to get disproven even before I responded.

Not at all, personally I'm exceedingly critical of the EU and believe that there are a number of countries (e.g. Switzerland) who are better off out - at least for the foreseeable future. What I can't stand is intellectual dishonesty.

Com'on, be honest; you don't really care about the economy, you'd happily weather a century-long recession if it got you out from under the foreign yoke.

why would the UK face a century-long recession by leaving the EU,it has many options open to it,for a number of years the NAFTA has been in talks about the likelehood of the UK wishing to join it,they even changed their rules for that possibility,the old commonwealth is keen to trade with out the cost of the EU trade restrictions,at least we will not have the french and germans running the country.remember ireland was prepared to suffer for its freedom,whats changed

getz wrote: »

...for a number of years the NAFTA has been in talks about the likelehood of the UK wishing to join it,they even changed their rules for that possibility,the old commonwealth is keen to trade with out the cost of the EU trade restrictions,

All well and good, but it overlooks the fact that a great big chunk of UK exports are to EU countries.

getz wrote: »

...at least we will not have the french and germans running the country.

There it is.

getz wrote: »

why would the UK face a century-long recession by leaving the EU

I never said it would, I simply said you'd still willing to endure one to leave the EU, if that's what it took.

at least we will not have the french and germans running the country.

And finally we get to the the real reason for your dislike of the EU.

remember ireland was prepared to suffer for its freedom,whats changed

We got it with the EEC - no longer dependant on the UK for trade and to underpin our currency, an unequal relationship that was less than friendly at times.

Forgive us if we'd prefer not to return to that arrangement.

wadacrack

djpbarry wrote: »

Pretty well, one would imagine, given that Ireland would be the only English-speaking country in the EU. It is likely we would see a flight of business and jobs from the UK to Ireland.

If Ireland had the chance to join britain and more jobs and economic development. This would benefit the country. It will never happen but if it did how situation would be graetly improved