Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw · 09-02-2013 01:13AM

gallag wrote: »

So if all of the countries agree it means nothing if the euro parliament dosent like it? This is what scares people and makes them skeptical.

As oB says, it rather more exposes the fact that their soi-disant attachment to "democracy" really is just nationalism, because the point of the European Parliament is to be a directly elected European-level check on the actions Member State governments take through the EU, there being often no meaningful domestic check on them.

That the EU Parliament can vote down the budget agreed by the Member States is democracy - after all, you can't vote it down through the Oireachtas. Indeed, you can't even vote down just the Irish government's stance on the EU budget, and would have a very hard time even finding out how it had voted or negotiated, never mind beating the Whip system to change it.

Unfortunately, of course, eurosceptics generally treat the Parliament with contempt, because they usually cannot conceive of democracy except at the national level. But if the governments of Europe are going to cooperate at the European level - and it seems they are going to, one way or another - then it becomes necessary to have a European layer of democratic accountability. Hence the European Parliament.

Unless of course one believes that what one's own national government does is always for the best in the best of all possible democracies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 11-02-2013 12:36AM

View wrote: »

Well, I asked you to prove it couldn't do so but since you can't I would refer you to the TFEU Articles 128.1 & 128.2 which deals with notes & coins respectively plus Article 16 of the ECB statute (dealing with notes).

In TFEU 128.1, we have:

In other words, the ECB has an explicit right to issue money (notes) if it so chooses and the sole right to authorize the national central banks to do so. It also must authorise the issuance of coins by the NCBs under article 128.2 (but is neither explicitly authorized or prohibited from doing so directly itself).

In fact, an ECB report from back in 2004 indicated that the ECB had exercised its right to issue notes and these ECB directly issued notes accounted for circa 8% of the total notes in circulation at the time. That figured could obviously have changed wildly in either direction since then.

PS Please don't get into a pedantic argument about the difference between "issuing notes" and "printing notes" as half the central banks in the world need (legally separate) mints that do the printing or coining for them. There is even a UK private company - De La Rue printers - which handles the physical printing of bank notes for central banks, so they don't even have to do that much if they don't want!

Jesus Christ. You are just quoting the articles that give the ECB the right to print the currency to facilitate the existing money supply, not replace the money supply.

The ECB cannot print money to replace monetary losses. Neither within banks or countries.

All monies it has printed to this date has had a collteral or interest rate applied.

In the case of banks it has taken on securities and in the case of countries it has applied an interest rate and terms and conditions.

Please show me a case where the ECB has actually printed money or an article in an EU treaty whereby it is actually allowed to print money to replace the losses of a state or bank.

Scofflaw · 11-02-2013 02:20AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Jesus Christ. You are just quoting the articles that give the ECB the right to print the currency to facilitate the existing money supply, not replace the money supply.

The ECB cannot print money to replace monetary losses. Neither within banks or countries.

All monies it has printed to this date has had a collteral or interest rate applied.

In the case of banks it has taken on securities and in the case of countries it has applied an interest rate and terms and conditions.

Please show me a case where the ECB has actually printed money or an article in an EU treaty whereby it is actually allowed to print money to replace the losses of a state or bank.

First, printing money to replace the losses of a state or bank is a completely separate issue from "printing" money in general.

Second, the ECB buying securities is money printing. The ECB doesn't go down into its vaults to see if it has enough readies to buy government bonds - it just creates the money to do it. That injects money into the eurozone. When the bond matures, the ECB can decide whether to keep the money the government spends repaying it in circulation, or destroy it. The same goes for loans - the ECB simply creates the money it's lending, and has the choice of destroying it or not on payback. That's what made the three-year loans so unusual - that's a surprisingly long window in which the ECB cannot reverse its choice to create the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave · 11-02-2013 07:47PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

First, printing money to replace the losses of a state or bank is a completely separate issue from "printing" money in general.

Second, the ECB buying securities is money printing. The ECB doesn't go down into its vaults to see if it has enough readies to buy government bonds - it just creates the money to do it. That injects money into the eurozone. When the bond matures, the ECB can decide whether to keep the money the government spends repaying it in circulation, or destroy it. The same goes for loans - the ECB simply creates the money it's lending, and has the choice of destroying it or not on payback. That's what made the three-year loans so unusual - that's a surprisingly long window in which the ECB cannot reverse its choice to create the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And as we can see, the ECBs LTROs are already being repaid to the ECB. And ahead of schedule.

NAP123 · 12-02-2013 12:25AM

McDave wrote: »

And as we can see, the ECBs LTROs are already being repaid to the ECB. And ahead of schedule.

Yipee.

They give us pretend money. We bailout real losers. They force us to use real money to bailout the real losers and they use our real money to cover up their falsehoods.

Illegal, unless you are a central bank.

McDave · 12-02-2013 10:35PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Yipee.

They give us pretend money. We bailout real losers. They force us to use real money to bailout the real losers and they use our real money to cover up their falsehoods.

Illegal, unless you are a central bank.

You're missing the point completely. Same amount of money in the system before and after the LTROs. Temporary situation averted. Mission accomplished.

Amberman · 19-03-2013 02:19AM

McDave wrote: »

You're missing the point completely. Same amount of money in the system before and after the LTROs. Temporary situation averted. Mission accomplished.

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

McDave · 20-03-2013 09:01PM

Amberman wrote: »

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

But that question becomes entirely academic when the LTROs are repaid, as they are being. And there's not actually that long to go on them anyway.

Scofflaw · 20-03-2013 11:34PM

Amberman wrote: »

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

And if zerohedge says they're not, some people take their word on that...

amused,
Scofflaw

giall · 27-03-2013 03:58PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, of course, eurosceptics generally treat the Parliament with contempt, because they usually cannot conceive of democracy except at the national level.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was). Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

View · 28-03-2013 10:26AM

giall wrote: »

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was).

One vote per country isn't democratic in any form shape or size. It is arguably anti-democratic since it completely ignores the (size of the) population in its decision making (i.e. voting).

Also, the EU (and the European Communities) have never used such a system. The only EU institution to come close is the European Council (of heads of government) which operates on a consensus basis where all countries must vote the same way to adopt a position.

giall wrote: »

Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

The various EU institutions - very broadly speaking - use differing variations of regressive proportionality whereby smaller member states have considerable higher votes per head of population than larger member states.

The data from sites such as votewatch.eu clearly show that Ireland (as a state) in the Council of Ministers and the MEPs representing the differing constituencies (and interests) here seem perfectly capable in agreeing positions they believe are favourable to support.

giall wrote: »

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

There is a reason for the ECJ and the enormous amount of negotiation that goes into writing the EU treaties. It is to ensure the rules are agreed to and played to by everyone. That is as good as it gets in real life.

Scofflaw · 28-03-2013 06:46PM

giall wrote: »

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was). Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CptMackey · 28-03-2013 11:24PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is what we have here true democracy tho? We vote in a government based on promises x. They get in and they carry out y. We then wait 5 years or so before we can change them.

Similar problem in Europe. We vote in meps and don't hear much until they come home for reelection.

Suppose my point is that what we have at a national level is very similar to intergovernmentalism at European level.
We vote them in and they do what ever they want without reproach

Scofflaw · 29-03-2013 12:00AM

CptMackey wrote: »

Is what we have here true democracy tho? We vote in a government based on promises x. They get in and they carry out y. We then wait 5 years or so before we can change them.

Similar problem in Europe. We vote in meps and don't hear much until they come home for reelection.

Well, that one has always been part of democracy, since the Agora in Athens. It has a built-in correction device, which is not voting for those people again, but it requires that voters actually use it.

CptMackey wrote: »

Suppose my point is that what we have at a national level is very similar to intergovernmentalism at European level.
We vote them in and they do what ever they want without reproach

Hardly without reproach - but we do have a problem with controlling our government when it's voting in Europe. Actually, in our case, we have a problem controlling our government full stop, but most people don't even understand the problem, or even that there is one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

giall · 29-03-2013 12:17PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your definition of democracy is intentionally narrow. My point is it comes in many forms, and one person one vote in a European context is only one way it can be structured. It happens to be a disastrous way for a small country like ours.

The history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure. Population-based democracy won't avoid that fate.

Frankly, I'm amazed that given the state of the continent at this time anyone can imagine that EMU hasn't been the biggest error in Irish political history since the Act of Union.

And folks can still keep a straight face and accuse the British of having made a mistake by not joining the single currency?

There's really no hope for us at all.

The Corinthian · 29-03-2013 01:55PM

giall wrote: »

The history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure.

Be kind enough to let the Swiss know this. Or the British. Neither seems to have been informed that their multinational unions should be failures.

There's really no hope for us at all.

Not when some are so ill educated - and I don't mean Scofflaw.

Scofflaw · 29-03-2013 02:40PM

giall wrote: »

Your definition of democracy is intentionally narrow. My point is it comes in many forms, and one person one vote in a European context is only one way it can be structured. It happens to be a disastrous way for a small country like ours.

Well, "narrow" in the sense of being limited only to the actual definition of the word, perhaps. And it turns out I can in fact refute your claim there, while perhaps helping answer the OP:

amused,
Scofflaw

getz · 29-03-2013 02:43PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Be kind enough to let the Swiss know this. Or the British. Neither seems to have been informed that their multinational unions should be failures.

Not when some are so ill educated - and I don't mean Scofflaw.

hands up those who do not like the way the EU is run,it seems we are all stupid,

The Corinthian · 29-03-2013 03:32PM

getz wrote: »

hands up those who do not like the way the EU is run,it seems we are all stupid,

Giall claimed that "history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure". Yet you don't have to really go very far to see where this has not been uniformly the case, such as Switzerland and even Britain - indeed, most 'monoethnic' nations that were formed as a process of unification were originally multinational and are alive and well today.

So giall's claim was not only demonstrably false, but laughably so, because it was a product of ignorance of other counties and history with which to be able to make such a comparison with any ensemble of authority.

However, that's not to say that makes him stupid - I never said that. It makes him ignorant and ill educated on the topic, otherwise he'd know that such a claim was nonsense. Neither does not liking the way the EU is run make anyone stupid - you're the only one who's decided that this is what was said.

To be stupid takes a lot more than ill education - not being able to tell between ignorance and stupidity, might do the trick though...

Scofflaw · 29-03-2013 07:25PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Giall claimed that "history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure". Yet you don't have to really go very far to see where this has not been uniformly the case, such as Switzerland and even Britain - indeed, most 'monoethnic' nations that were formed as a process of unification were originally multinational and are alive and well today.

So giall's claim was not only demonstrably false, but laughably so, because it was a product of ignorance of other counties and history with which to be able to make such a comparison with any ensemble of authority.

Overall, multi-ethnic federations and empires have a historically respectable pedigree, lasting for centuries in many cases.

The idea that they must necessarily fall apart is actually a reflection, not of the difficulties of those states, but of the difficulties nation-states have with multi-ethnicity within their borders. While federations or multi-ethnic empires may have a dominant ethnicity within them, nation-states must do - but while federations etc can work around this by allowing a good deal of regional autonomy and variation, nation-states are founded on the principle of homogeneity, and therefore cannot allow such latitude.

The obvious outcome of this is repressive behaviour on the part of the nation-state centre, and corresponding rebellious behaviour on the part of the smaller ethnic groups. However, the imposed uniformity is a sufficient competitive advantage in mass warfare that nation-states eclipsed multi-ethnic ones through the eighteenth to twentieth centuries.

For those whose thinking is framed almost entirely by the nation-state ethos, the EU is mentally framed as a nation-state, and thereby acquires the undesirable characteristics that such a European nation-state would have - over-dominant centre, centrally imposed uniformity, cultural repression of small groups, potentially explosive ethnic tensions - and which would indeed make such a construct unwieldy and likely to fall apart at any moment.

That the EU is not in fact a European nation-state, nor even yet a federation, doesn't seem to register, and possibly can't, if someone has in their head only the nation-state as a model for polities.

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, that's not to say that makes him stupid - I never said that. It makes him ignorant and ill educated on the topic, otherwise he'd know that such a claim was nonsense. Neither does not liking the way the EU is run make anyone stupid - you're the only one who's decided that this is what was said.

To be stupid takes a lot more than ill education - not being able to tell between ignorance and stupidity, might do the trick though...

There are intelligent reasons for disliking the way the EU is run, and there are stupid reasons for disliking the way the EU is run. Unfortunately, the former are rarely presented, while the latter are constantly presented, often by people who think they're intelligent reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave · 05-05-2013 09:16AM

From this

Tebbs wrote: »

I can happily disagree with someone, and their reasons for voting, and often do. However, I hope I never reach the stage of lofty smug satisfaction where I tell others their reasons are stupid, and I am the self appointed arbitrator of what is intelligent and what is stupid when it comes to others voting in a democratic ballot or holding of opinions.

To this

Let’s hope your technical correctness is a comfort to you. Those who live in the real world and are students of history, know that to be technically correct is more often than not to avoid seeing the bigger picture.

To this

While you are here clapping yourself on the back for being technically correct, out in the real world it looks as if the people are mobilising across Europe, fed up with what they see as the smug self satisfied way in which they have been ignored.

And this

it looks as if you spend the majority of your time here arguing with strangers in cyberspace, rather that getting out and discussing with real people, bearing in mind you have contributed around 3 000 posts here per year, which amounts to around 10 a day, for the last seven years.

And this

Internet addiction is now a recognised condition

Fancy being able to evolve to "lofty smug satisfaction" in one post.

Must be the Farage Effect!

Duggys Housemate · 05-05-2013 09:18AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Better to have a republic not a democracy.

Solair · 05-05-2013 04:53PM

I often wonder if they had just called the currency the "European Pound" € would the British have taken more of an interest

The Corinthian · 05-05-2013 06:04PM

Solair wrote: »

I often wonder if they had just called the currency the "European Pound" € would the British have taken more of an interest

If I remember correctly, that was the original idea; that it could be used as a suffix to the existing currency name.

defeffle · 07-05-2013 01:25PM

[MOD]Please do not cut and paste full articles without any source attribution or other suggestion that they're someone else's work.[/MOD]

thomas.frink · 13-05-2013 11:14AM

It seems the argument has moved on from why Britain is so anti EU, to why others have such an apparently irrational preference to cling on to what looks like an out of date, largely non-working and disastrous EU.

The debate in the UK has moved on from the rhetoric about “better in than out” and “we’d lose more by being out than in”. Facts are so much better than rhetoric and the facts seem to show that the UK would be better off outside the current EU, and saving the UK over £5billion per annum in fees, as a start. As the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU, there is no reason to suppose the EU will want to cut off its nose to spite its face and impose tariffs, (even if that were possible as most trade agreements are now made through the offices of the WTO). Those Germans will not want to stop selling Mercedes, BMW’s and Volkswagens to the UK.

What will happen Ireland when the UK votes to leave the EU (as I believe it will) is a question not yet answered.

While I love Europe and the countries of Europe, I see now the EU as an organisation which is detrimental to the Europe I love; wasteful, not accountable (think of all those budgets where our money is not accounted for and can’t be signed off) and unwieldy.

Worse still it is arrogant, and when the UK, and others, warned that the creation of the Euro would lead to disaster, the arrogance of the EU in putting its political desires above common sense has largely led to the current situation. The story is the modern day equivalent of the tower of Babel.

What is obvious is that the EU has no ability to reform itself, no ability to account for its reckless handling of our money, and seems to have no ability to do other than follow events it has started, unable to control them and unable, even, to accept any responsibility.

The best thing that can happen to the EU is for other countries, like the UK, to leave, and to start a new organisation which is accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe, and for the current day EU to implode into itself, as the damage it has inflicted across the continent is heart wrenching, and the lack of accountability disgusting.

The Corinthian · 13-05-2013 01:17PM

thomas.frink wrote: »

It seems the argument has moved on from why Britain is so anti EU, to why others have such an apparently irrational preference to cling on to what looks like an out of date, largely non-working and disastrous EU.

It hasn't. The discussion has moved more onto legitimate flaws and problems with the EU, rather than the emotive diatribe that was being presented earlier. The only person who's gone so far as to interpret this to mean that the EU is an "out of date, largely non-working and disastrous" institution is you.

The debate in the UK has moved on from the rhetoric about “better in than out” and “we’d lose more by being out than in”.

Isn't that much the same debate?

As the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU, there is no reason to suppose the EU will want to cut off its nose to spite its face and impose tariffs, (even if that were possible as most trade agreements are now made through the offices of the WTO).

I'd be more concerned that the UK imports more than they export from everyone, if I were them.

Facts are so much better than rhetoric and the facts seem to show that the UK would be better off outside the current EU, and saving the UK over £5billion per annum in fees, as a start.

£3.8bn - you're forgetting the rebate. The UK would most likely still be contributing financially to the EU, albeit at a much smaller scale, just as Norway presently does.

What will happen Ireland when the UK votes to leave the EU (as I believe it will) is a question not yet answered.

Probably nothing, presuming that the UK is able to retain the same trade agreements under a separate arrangement. Otherwise, you may see some businesses move to Ireland rather than go to or stay in the UK.

Worse still it is arrogant, and when the UK, and others, warned that the creation of the Euro would lead to disaster, the arrogance of the EU in putting its political desires above common sense has largely led to the current situation. The story is the modern day equivalent of the tower of Babel.

The story isn't over yet, so it's a bit early to write an obituary.

What is obvious is that the EU has no ability to reform itself, no ability to account for its reckless handling of our money, and seems to have no ability to do other than follow events it has started, unable to control them and unable, even, to accept any responsibility.

Ironically, one of the reasons for this lack of reform, that's been cited, is that the EU does not have the power to do so. National governments refuse to cede this, just as many of the criticisms of the Euro involve fiscal control that national governments held onto.

Perhaps shedding the more nationalistic states that have been blocking such reform may be just what the EU needs.

The best thing that can happen to the EU is for other countries, like the UK, to leave, and to start a new organisation which is accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe, and for the current day EU to implode into itself, as the damage it has inflicted across the continent is heart wrenching, and the lack of accountability disgusting.

How would it be "accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe"? Directly; bypassing the national governments? Or will those governments seek to retain sovereignty? If the latter, we'll just end up back where we are now.

thomas.frink · 13-05-2013 01:48PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It hasn't. The discussion has moved more onto legitimate flaws and problems with the EU, rather than the emotive diatribe that was being presented earlier. The only person who's gone so far as to interpret this to mean that the EU is an "out of date, largely non-working and disastrous" institution is you.

Isn't that much the same debate?

I'd be more concerned that the UK imports more than they export from everyone, if I were them.

£3.8bn - you're forgetting the rebate. The UK would most likely still be contributing financially to the EU, albeit at a much smaller scale, just as Norway presently does.

Probably nothing, presuming that the UK is able to retain the same trade agreements under a separate arrangement. Otherwise, you may see some businesses move to Ireland rather than go to or stay in the UK.

The story isn't over yet, so it's a bit early to write an obituary.

Ironically, one of the reasons for this lack of reform, that's been cited, is that the EU does not have the power to do so. National governments refuse to cede this, just as many of the criticisms of the Euro involve fiscal control that national governments held onto.

Perhaps shedding the more nationalistic states that have been blocking such reform may be just what the EU needs.

How would it be "accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe"? Directly; bypassing the national governments? Or will those governments seek to retain sovereignty? If the latter, we'll just end up back where we are now.

I agree with your assessment that the story is not over. Certainly, it's not over, and if your view is that the problems which have caused the EURO to all but destroy large parts of Europe have been fixed, then we disagree.

If your view is the UK exports more to the EU, than they import from the EU. then that's your view also. But is seems to disagree with the facts.

A few years ago, people like you were making the same dire pronouncements as to what would happen to the UK if it didn't join the EURO, and your arguments today have the same hollow ring about them.

The world has moved on and the assumption you make, that its better to be part of the monolithic EU no matter what, has been shown up for the bad argument that it always was. So we differ, and you seem to think that the EU is a positive influence and the EURO has been a great success. Or maybe you don't.

Either way, we'll just have to differ. The Old USSR used to pretend all its subjects were happy and smiling and that everything was fine with their system. To not recognise that there are large numbers of people who not only feel disenfranchised, but whose lives, and whose family's lives, have been ruined by the creation of the Euro is to ignore the reality.

The UK is right to be having a debate, and there is a high liklihood that the result will be the UK leaving the EU, which will be left to sink under the weight of it self imposed millstone, the Euro.

The Corinthian · 13-05-2013 01:58PM

thomas.frink wrote: »

I agree with your assessment that the story is not over. Certainly, it's not over, and if your view is that the problems which have caused the EURO to all but destroy large parts of Europe have been fixed, then we disagree.

Did I say that somewhere, or are you introducing a strawman here?

If your view is the UK exports more to the EU, than they import from the EU. then that's your view also. But is seems to disagree with the facts.

Again, I didn't say that. I was simply noting that the UK balance of trade pretty much sucks overall, and I'd be more concerned about that than find solace in the fact that the EU may have more to 'lose'.

A few years ago, people like you were making the same dire pronouncements as to what would happen to the UK if it didn't join the EURO, and your arguments today have the same hollow ring about them.

Oh, another strawman - now you're attributing arguments to me, given my 'people like me', who may or not have ever existed. Please put more words in my mouth!

Actually, having read the rest of your post, you do exactly that and ignore any point I made, before devolving into a pretty standard eurosceptic diatribe; which is a pity, as your first post showed promise.

gallag · 13-05-2013 02:35PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did I say that somewhere, or are you introducing a strawman here?

Again, I didn't say that. I was simply noting that the UK balance of trade pretty much sucks overall, and I'd be more concerned about that than find solace in the fact that the EU may have more to 'lose'.

Oh, another strawman - now you're attributing arguments to me, given my 'people like me', who may or not have ever existed. Please put more words in my mouth!

Actually, having read the rest of your post, you do exactly that and ignore any point I made, before devolving into a pretty standard eurosceptic diatribe; which is a pity, as your first post showed promise.

So arrogant, why do you talk to anyone that questions the EU like this, can you not debate the points without trying to make the poster look small?

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments