nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are the British so anti Europe?

thechanger

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KyussBishop

McDave wrote: »

You're the one raising the 'sovereignty' criterion. You need to express yourself a bit more accurately as to what that actually *means*, rather than throwing out half-baked received wisdoms.

I don't see where the confusion is. A country that gives up control over its currency, loses an enormous amount of political and economic power over itself (and thus loses a huge portion of its sovereignty); that country no longer has all the options needed to safely work its way through an economic crisis (when a big enough one hits), but instead becomes subservient to the political power it handed over monetary sovereignty to.

McDave

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't see where the confusion is. A country that gives up control over its currency, loses an enormous amount of political and economic power over itself (and thus loses a huge portion of its sovereignty); that country no longer has all the options needed to safely work its way through an economic crisis (when a big enough one hits), but instead becomes subservient to the political power it handed over monetary sovereignty to.

Maybe you're overly confusing your own arguments and ascribing too much orthodoxy and received wisdom to a traditional conception of sovereignty.

For instance you assume there needs to be full union to underpin the single currency. Although it's a widespread contention, I'm not at all sure the case for such an assertion has been demonstrated. It may be adequate to establish key elements such as banking union and a single regulator without proceeding to a political union/federal set-up, where member states would still have control over budgets, all be they within Maastricht criteria. That would be a hybrid arrangement falling far short of a single entity solution.

Were such an approach to succeed, then a whole new type and level of sovereignty would evolve directly related to the strength of the currency, giving participants in the EZ the kind of international autonomy they would not enjoy vis-a-vis international market players were they running their own currencies.

A simple example. The UK within the single currency could never again be played the way it was when Soros broke the Bank of England over the ERM.

Sovereignty isn't all about national autonomy any more. It exists on many levels, and can be won or lost there too. I think many in the EZ appreciate this. As indeed do some outside the single currency who are pegged to the Euro without being formally inside - like Denmark.

KyussBishop

There needs to either be an extremely well-oiled collaborative system that is not prone to deadlocks and which readily enacts pre-agreed (and effective) recovery policies during crisis, or there needs to be a single fully-sovereign government at the helm, which is not subject to such deadlocks; that simple really.

The strength of the currency (the determinant of which, is severe economic crisis) depends on this, because as we are seeing now, political deadlock threatens the very existence of the Euro.

There are no two way about it: When a country gives up control over its currency, it hands over a significant portion of its sovereignty too, and if that currency is not managed well, that may enormously impact on that countries politics, society and economy, in a way that compounds the loss of sovereignty over all these affected areas of the country.

McDave

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are no two way about it: When a country gives up control over its currency, it hands over a significant portion of its sovereignty too, and if that currency is not managed well, that may enormously impact on that countries politics, society and economy, in a way that compounds the loss of sovereignty over all these affected areas of the country.

I'm afraid that's not a very realistic point of view. What control did Ireland have over its currencies during its existence as an independent state? Certainly none when linked to Sterling. And very little when it linked to the ERM.

No, Ireland took a very pragmatic view of its place in the financial world. It took a conscious decision to move out of the orbit of Sterling and into the orbit of the Euro. It's a judgement call.

As for the management of the Euro, it's doing fine as a currency. Some of its constituent countries are experiencing severe difficulties with their economies and finances. However, this is not the fault of the Euro. If anything, the Euro is exposing the inadequacies of the economic and political cultures of places like Greece and Italy.

Were countries like these not in the Euro, they would still be suffering economically and socially, possibly even moreso. Just look where Greece's so-called sovereignty left it even before the Euro. Always the tail-end Charlie, even back in the days of the EEC. Similarly, Italy has presided over a slow industrial decline and a loss of competitiveness that it was only able to hide through devaluations, each of which ratcheted the economy down another level, while it's national debt slowly got out of control.

meglome

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

Research shows public opinion often deviates from facts on key social issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

Full details here http://www.rssenews.org.uk/2013/07/rss-commission-new-research-into-public-perceptions-of-statistics/

Not specific to Europe but indicative maybe.

thomas.frink

While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.

The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.

To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.

Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.

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.*

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

(25) thanks from:
Artur Foden, cristoir, CucaFace, Daniel S, deccurley, DoesNotCompute, doopa, europa11, Green Diesel, jimmymal, johngalway, K-9, leonidas83, MadYaker, MrGeneric, newmug, Oregano_State, Paddysnapper, realies, Sound of Silence, Strummerville, Swarly45, the scrote, TiGeR KiNgS, walshb

It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.

It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.

The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.

As has distrust of national governments and political parties.

thomas.frink wrote: »

To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.

Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.

Hmm. Where did being "good Europeans" get Ireland? It got us an extensive softening of the consequences of our own lunacy - it couldn't prevent the collapse of the construction sector and house prices, but compared to what we'd be feeling if we didn't have European money to cushion the blow, we've come out well ahead.

thomas.frink wrote: »

It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.

It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.

A continued decline is highly unlikely, even within the current timeframe. If we're on the up and out before the UK, will you change your mind? I rather doubt it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

downonthefarm

I would have to agree with engerland on this one. Europe is like a weed strangling our recovery .the quicker we get out of the euro and back to the Sterling the better.let merkel et all keep their toxic Utopia

thomas.frink

Scofflaw wrote: »

As has distrust of national governments and political parties.

Yes indeed, but this thread is about the British and the EU, and to claim they are "so anti europe", when they seem to be on the same side as the majority of the citizens in the EU, seems to suggest they are actually so in agreement with 60% of the citizens of the EU.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Where did being "good Europeans" get Ireland? It got us an extensive softening of the consequences of our own lunacy - it couldn't prevent the collapse of the construction sector and house prices, but compared to what we'd be feeling if we didn't have European money to cushion the blow, we've come out well ahead.

If your view is that saying yes to everything the EU has demanded has benefitted Ireland, then thats your view.

For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.

Well, that's largely because Ireland agreed to support the Irish banks which have the bad loans, and take their mammoth debts from the banks and give them to every Irish taxpayer. You may well believe Ireland did this with no pressure or demands from the EU and you may well even believe that it was the right thing to do. HOwever I suspect you'd be in a minority of 1 or 2 if thats what you do believe.

Sure you can pick some things you this were and are good for Ireland which came from the EU. But in the round, the debts Ireland has been saddled with as a result of this one example, are so large they really outweigh almost everything else.

Scofflaw wrote: »

A continued decline is highly unlikely, even within the current timeframe. If we're on the up and out before the UK, will you change your mind? I rather doubt it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your expressed doubts rather expose your own bias.

Is a continued decline likely? Who knows and we'll have to wait and see. "on the up and out" is not really measurable, but a country with the per capita debt Ireland now has, with few natural resources, little heavy industry, seems to be destined to a lengthy period stagnation rather than economic recovery of any noticeable kind.

What I'd like is both countries to recover, and my guess is that the UK, outside the dead weight of the Euro, is more likely to make a good recovery quicker. But I could be wrong.

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

Yes indeed, but this thread is about the British and the EU, and to claim they are "so anti europe", when they seem to be on the same side as the majority of the citizens in the EU, seems to suggest they are actually so in agreement with 60% of the citizens of the EU.

I take your point that currently the EU is well down in the popularity stakes, but that doesn't show that the rest of Europe is now as perpetually eurosceptical as the UK. We're currently in a crisis, which means "the establishment" has screwed up, the EU is part of the establishment, and like all the other parts of the establishment, it's down in the polls.

thomas.frink wrote: »

If your view is that saying yes to everything the EU has demanded has benefitted Ireland, then thats your view.

For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.

Er, yes - UK and US banks, primarily, during a global credit boom. The involvement of eurozone banks in the Irish economy was minimal - their involvement was with the IFSC, the money from which flows through Ireland without touching the sides. Even mainstream journalists are beginning to understand the difference.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Well, that's largely because Ireland agreed to support the Irish banks which have the bad loans, and take their mammoth debts from the banks and give them to every Irish taxpayer. You may well believe Ireland did this with no pressure or demands from the EU and you may well even believe that it was the right thing to do. HOwever I suspect you'd be in a minority of 1 or 2 if thats what you do believe.

Heh. No, I'm no longer in a minority, because the evidence is overwhelming that the Irish government supported the Irish banks for exactly the same reasons the UK government supported the UK banks, requiring no outside pressure. Yes, some people will continue seeing the complete absence of any evidence of EU involvement in our guarantee (disapproval and shock, even) as merely evidence of how well concealed that involvement was, but those people, God love us, will always be with us.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Sure you can pick some things you this were and are good for Ireland which came from the EU. But in the round, the debts Ireland has been saddled with as a result of this one example, are so large they really outweigh almost everything else.

And unfortunately were our own choice, which is why the EU is not quite as sympathetic about them as we might like. Again, while the "a big EU made us do it and ran away" story remains popular in some quarters and always will, it has been both debunked and shown to be part of a particular political agenda.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Your expressed doubts rather expose your own bias.

Is a continued decline likely? Who knows and we'll have to wait and see. "on the up and out" is not really measurable, but a country with the per capita debt Ireland now has, with few natural resources, little heavy industry, seems to be destined to a lengthy period stagnation rather than economic recovery of any noticeable kind.

What I'd like is both countries to recover, and my guess is that the UK, outside the dead weight of the Euro, is more likely to make a good recovery quicker. But I could be wrong.

My expressed doubts reflect the fact that the Irish economy is not currently in decline, but stable. As such, while we may have stagnation, or fitful growth, a "continued decline" seems very much less likely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thomas.frink

Scofflaw wrote: »

I take your point that currently the EU is well down in the popularity stakes, but that doesn't show that the rest of Europe is now as perpetually eurosceptical as the UK. We're currently in a crisis, which means "the establishment" has screwed up, the EU is part of the establishment, and like all the other parts of the establishment, it's down in the polls.

Wherever "we" are, to claim the UK is "so anti europe" seems at this point to actually be saying the UK seems to be "so in tune" with 60% of the attitudes of the EU citizens.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh. No, I'm no longer in a minority, because the evidence is overwhelming that the Irish government supported the Irish banks for exactly the same reasons the UK government supported the UK banks, requiring no outside pressure. Yes, some people will continue seeing the complete absence of any evidence of EU involvement in our guarantee (disapproval and shock, even) as merely evidence of how well concealed that involvement was, but those people, God love us, will always be with us.

So you seem to agree and say that it's your view the irish government was not pressured in any way by the EU, or the European Central bank, to take on the debts of the Irish banks. Ok, so that's clear at any rate. I don't know anyone who has studied the situation who agrees with you, and in any case ist nor really relevant, but your views are clear.

Scofflaw wrote: »

My expressed doubts reflect the fact that the Irish economy is not currently in decline, but stable. As such, while we may have stagnation, or fitful growth, a "continued decline" seems very much less likely.

Here is a little basic economics:

The Irish national debt now stands at just over €171 billion

The interest at 5% per annum on €171 billion is €8.55 billion per annum

With 4 million people in Ireland every man, woman and child has to find €2137.50 every year to pay the interest in the debts.

13.6% are unemployed

1.836 million are employed

That means for everyone employed, the first €4656 of their tax every year goes to paying the interest on the national debt. The national debt is still rising and that figure increases every day.

If your judgment is that with tens of thousands who have been forced to emigrate, tens of thousands of others in debt, poverty and hunger and fear, and a national debt the interest which accounts for the first €4656 of every workers tax is a stable economy, then some might conclude that's a rather unusual idea of what constitutes a stable economy.

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

Wherever "we" are, to claim the UK is "so anti europe" seems at this point to actually be saying the UK seems to be "so in tune" with 60% of the attitudes of the EU citizens.

Well, no, it doesn't. That's the equivalent of saying in 2011 that FF were currently unpopular with the electorate, who were therefore "in tune with" Fine Gael. That's certainly the kind of thing that's very tempting to believe if you were a FG supporter then, just as your repeated claim is tempting for a UK eurosceptic. Unfortunately, in both cases, it's also self-deceit.

The question "why is the UK so eurosceptic" isn't something that is rendered meaningless by the current wider unpopularity of the EU. The EU is least popular in a very predictable set of countries - those countries which have needed an EU bailout, and the UK. So, bottom 6 countries for trusting the EU:

Cyprus: 13% trust, 83% distrust
Spain: 17% trust, 75% distrust
Greece: 19% trust, 80% distrust
UK: 20% trust, 68% distrust
Portugal: 24% trus71% distrust
Ireland: 29% trust, 61% distrust

Now, the reasons why the EU is unpopular in the bailed out countries is hardly difficult to work out - but the UK is not a bailed out country.

thomas.frink wrote: »

So you seem to agree and say that it's your view the irish government was not pressured in any way by the EU, or the European Central bank, to take on the debts of the Irish banks. Ok, so that's clear at any rate. I don't know anyone who has studied the situation who agrees with you, and in any case ist nor really relevant, but your views are clear.

I'm sure you don't, but that's partly because I suspect your preferred sources tend to agree with you, and partly because you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding me.

We know that the Irish government came under pressure from the ECB to honour the remaining senior bonds in the Irish banks as a condition of the Irish bailout. We also know that the Irish government agreed with the ECB - and why not? Their policy up to then had been to honour not only the senior debts, but absolutely all debts. Indeed, one of the reasons for the bailout was that the Irish government's policy of honouring all bank debts had proven to be something that the state couldn't actually sustain. When the ECB stepped in, it required that the Irish government continue its policy in respect of the c. 5-10% of senior debts as yet unpaid by the Irish government, and abandon it in respect of the junior debt, which previously it had been unwilling to do.

So, yes, there was EU pressure with respect to Irish bank debt, but it was pressure that went the same way as Irish government policy for the previous two years, and accounted for a very small proportion of the bank debts the Irish government took on.

It's undeniably convenient for a good number of people (all of FF's supporters, for example) to pretend that the Irish bank debt is somehow entirely the result of EU pressure, but you won't find a reputable economist who would agree.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Here is a little basic economics:

The Irish national debt now stands at just over €171 billion

The interest at 5% per annum on €171 billion is €8.55 billion per annum

With 4 million people in Ireland every man, woman and child has to find €2137.50 every year to pay the interest in the debts.

13.6% are unemployed

1.836 million are employed

That means for everyone employed, the first €4656 of their tax every year goes to paying the interest on the national debt. The national debt is still rising and that figure increases every day.

If your judgment is that with tens of thousands who have been forced to emigrate, tens of thousands of others in debt, poverty and hunger and fear, and a national debt the interest which accounts for the first €4656 of every workers tax is a stable economy, then some might conclude that's a rather unusual idea of what constitutes a stable economy.

Here's some even more basic economics - not everybody even pays income tax, nor is income tax the sole source of government revenue. And some basic figures: the interest on general government debt currently stands at 10.8% (latest NTMA figures) of general government revenue. Its previous high-stand was at 25% of general government revenue in 1992, shortly before a period of the most rapid and real growth in Irish history.

Sure, if you're 30 or under, this may look like an incredible back hole, total crisis, omg we'll never get out of it - and if you're not, it doesn't. It looks like a time when some actual effort and clever thinking might be required, and we have done that before. Your 'projections' are based on classic straight line extrapolations into the future, which were nonsense when they were used by the Victorians to work out the planet would be 6 foot deep in horse crap by 2000, and are an equally useful guide to the future now.

Ireland will get out of the current mess, and will do it with European assistance, and will do it without fundamentally breaking anything - sadly, we'll also probably do it without any fundamental political reform, too. Whether the same can be said for the UK I don't know, because the UK measures its own success by different lights from Ireland, and its internal dynamics are very different too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.

The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.

Link please. So at least *your* bias can be accounted for.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.

To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.

Even if your claim is true [no link provided], it's hardly surprising that in the midst of economic crisis, the citizens of problem states who are being sold a pup on the EU by their own useless leaders, are going to to harbour some resentment against the Euro bogey man.

As for the English, Westminster politicians and the London press have been peddling such a negative line on the EU, negative opinion poll data on 'Europe' can hardly come as a surprise to anyone.

Personally, I'd be keeping an eye on Eurobarometer polls after the international private and public financial and economic crises abate. I think we may well find that continental EU countries become better disposed towards the EU, while England probably won't - although in the end, I don't think they'll actually vote to exit the EU.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.

More like, look where domestic incompetence and corruption got Ireland. I think at this stage most Irish people would settle for being "good Irish people", and aspire at some later point to being good at being competitive with the more competent parts of Europe.

As for being good boys in class, I think we should safely leave that to the likes of poodles like Blair and Cameron who are so eager to impress their US, ahem, "peers".

dlouth15

McDave wrote: »

Personally, I'd be keeping an eye on Eurobarometer polls after the international private and public financial and economic crises abate.

When do you think that is going to happen?

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.

It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.

Snigger away yourself TF. But along the way you might unblock your nose and advance some facts.

Like for instance, how can you demonstrate that Ireland is "bankrupt". Large debt doesn't equate to bankruptcy. We're currently paying interest on substantial debts. As long as that continues to be the case, bankruptcy doesn't enter into it.

Of course the money spent on interest repayments would be better spent elsewhere. But that's another issue entirely, isn't it Thomas?

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.

Mostly outside the *Eurozone* actually: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/how-much-european-particularly-german-money-was-in-the-irish-economy-when-the-music-stopped-1.1339877

Whether Ireland had been inside the EZ or not, we would have been able access credit internationally. As was the case with other non-EZ countries which had asset bubbles. Including Iceland, and of course the UK.

McDave

dlouth15 wrote: »

When do you think that is going to happen?

As I see it, the recovery timeline will be mostly influenced by the following sequence of events:

- The result of the German elections in September [where I expect Merkel to be returned as Chancellor with a mandate to resolve the Eurozone crisis]

- Agreements on banking regulation and supervision

- Major EU investment programmes on infrastructure and energy

- Once the problem countries have demonstrated a capacity and willingness to put their economies on a sustainable basis, steps will be taken to deal with particularly egregious situations. In our case that will mean some kind of deal on banking debts/costs which will have an immediate and substantial impact on our overall national debt, bringing it down to a more manageable level.

I think these steps will slowly inject confidence back into the EU. And I'd suspect this will be reflected in more positive Eurobarometer figures in about 18 months' to two years' time.

PeadarCo

Its actually interesting that the USA, Australia and Japan have come out against Britain leaving the EU. Whether the UK heeds those warning is its own business but obviously allies outside the EU see the Britain in the EU as a very good thing and a net positive in its relations with them.

Recently there was a review of the powers the UK had given the EU. The financial times have a summary. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f722ac4-f37d-11e2-942f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aFh59vaN

In one of their opinion pieces one the FT columnists said that as a whole the report shows the EU and the powers it has broadly benefits the UK. I realise the FT is UK participation in the EU but I find it interesting that given the problems the EU issue has posed the UK government the UK press didn't give it more attention. That would lead me to believe that the report doesn't lend itself to the argument of the UK leaving Britain. Even reading the summary by and large the plus points for the EU outweigh the negatives. Apparently this is the first of a series and there are more similar reports to come on the EU/UK relationship.

McDave

PeadarCo wrote: »

Its actually interesting that the USA, Australia and Japan have come out against Britain leaving the EU. Whether the UK heeds those warning is its own business but obviously allies outside the EU see the Britain in the EU as a very good thing and a net positive in its relations with them.

Recently there was a review of the powers the UK had given the EU. The financial times have a summary. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f722ac4-f37d-11e2-942f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aFh59vaN

In one of their opinion pieces one the FT columnists said that as a whole the report shows the EU and the powers it has broadly benefits the UK. I realise the FT is UK participation in the EU but I find it interesting that given the problems the EU issue has posed the UK government the UK press didn't give it more attention. That would lead me to believe that the report doesn't lend itself to the argument of the UK leaving Britain. Even reading the summary by and large the plus points for the EU outweigh the negatives. Apparently this is the first of a series and there are more similar reports to come on the EU/UK relationship.

One one level, membership of the EU is a simple and pragmatic deepening of a country's commitment to trading with neighbours. When countries are routinely exposed to each other's ways of doing business, it's not much of a step to comparing economic approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

For its part, Britain had its major experiment with 20th century laissez faire, and after a couple of international crashes, the deregulation model and free market mantras have been found wanting. So too has the overly dirigiste state approach of the French, and the protectionist and devil-may-care approaches of the Italians.

After all the experiments of recent decades, the more sober economies of northern Europe with their commitment to both market and social mechanisms have fared quite well. Germany stands out in particular.

Consequently, Britain's continued pitching of brickbats at the Continent seems more and more outdated and pointless. The countries you mention would much prefer to see the UK participating constructively, even if this means resorting to regular criticism. Instead, Britain is stuck in a rut and finds it hard to develop a narrative that enables it to cooperate straight up with other countries.

The world has moved on. In particular, the 'Western' world has mostly moved on from imperialism and from WW2. It's time Britain did too. They've lost so much ground to Germany in particular, the longer they postpone the attitude readjustment the more painful it will be in the end.

petronius

If a referendum was held today the UK would leave the EU?
It would be a bad thing for the EU, and the UK and Ireland!

Why are the UK so anti-EU?
In my mind the reasons why are
1) The media is laden with anti-EU types, any faux-pas by the EU is highlighted and any benefit is ignored or not portrayed as being from the EU
2) The EU does itself no favours by some crazy laws e.g. the straight banana fodder for the sun et al, also by encroaching on matters that are not in its remit
3) Even positive measures can be labeled non-sense bureaucracy - throwing fish back into the water when they wont survive etc.
4) Lack of the EU advocating where it can benefit UK subjects, by availing of EU healthcare rather than be on NHS waiting lists
5) Consumer benefits of being in the EU no tariffs open market

The EU needs to get its act together
State that it brings more benefits to the UK than people perceive
Get rid of the non-sense laws
Include UK more rather than default to franco-german axis
Respect the votes of people in referenda in Holland, France and Ireland and not repackage to get through or hoodwink by threats or obfuscation

McDave

petronius wrote: »

The EU needs to get its act together
State that it brings more benefits to the UK than people perceive
Get rid of the non-sense laws
Include UK more rather than default to franco-german axis
Respect the votes of people in referenda in Holland, France and Ireland and not repackage to get through or hoodwink by threats or obfuscation

It's my own view that most people misunderstand what the EU actually is. What it is not is a truly autonomous entity with its own identity and sovereign will. It is a strictly rules based entity which can only operate in specific fields of endeavour laid out by international treaty. Of course these fields of endeavour are broadly familiar to many, having been activities pursued by *many* countries at national level, for decades, if not centuries.

I highlight the word "many" for a reason. Much of what is laid down in EU treaties has been pre-EU performed successfully at national level in some countries. In reality, it is a core of countries which takes leadership in developing the legal, policy and technical standards around certain activities. What the EU typically does is harmonise existing national rules. For some countries this means minimal adaptation to their own rules and customs. For others it means introducing instruments and practices which have never existed before - something we Irish are well familiar with.

Of course, in recent decades more activities have come within the purview of regulation, such as equal treatment, consumer rights, environmental regulation, and latterly macroeconomic standards. None are without intellectual or philosophical underpinnings, and all are open to debate. But the EU process is about identifying ground which can be worked to common purpose and coming to agreement. It is a process which by definition can never end, because human endeavour and cooperation never comes to an end, let alone a state of perfection.

Which in a way brings us nicely to the issue of the UK. I'm well familiar with both the UK and with continental Europe, through family connections, career and personal interest. I take media in many languages - English, French, German and Spanish. I consider myself conversant enough with European cultures and histories to make sufficiently balanced comparative judgements.

I'm afraid when all is said and done, and I've been around the block a few times, I'm not very sanguine about the UK and its relationship with the EU. On a broad institutional and political level, the UK makes precious little effort do real business with the continent. While the French and Germans were constructing their post-war rapprochement through the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC, the UK set up a directly competing entity, EFTA. This entity failed in pretty short order, and the UK jumped ship into the EEC not much more than a decade later.

Once in the EEC, the EEC went to great lengths to adapt the way it did business, particularly in the European Court of Justice which took on many of the common law ways of doing court business under the leadership of Justice McKenzie. But the UK was barely a decade in the door when Thatcher's Tories set about undermining the EC, not least in pushing for broadening membership to dilute the ability of the EC to legislate in the aftermath of 1989. Subsequently the UK stayed out of social policy and the single currency. And when it came to Iraq, Blair explicitly opted to throw his lot in with a reactionary right wing US president, rather than side with mainstream EU opinion and policy.

I'm afraid the 'EU' is done waiting for the UK to 'come on board'. The last amendments to the EU treaties have seen to that, allowing sets of EU countries to proceed with certain policies which others do not wish to participate in. At this point Britain has three choices, only two of which are realistic:
- Leave the EU (realistic, but unlikely);
- Stay a semidetached member (realistic and likely);
- Become a leading core member alongside Germany and France (unrealistic and unlikely).

At this stage, I'm rather agnostic about which path Britain chooses to take. I'm tired of the snide press whining, smart-arsed political types, and the permanent inability of the country as a whole to accept their diminished importance in the world.

In particular, the largely destructive and even derisive position adopted by the British establishment on the Euro and the crisis leads me to believe its better for the EU to slowly move away from Britain. With the Euro, the UK had a chance to get in on the ground floor on a truly historic development they could have done much to mould. But, let's face it, the British just can't let go of the US's apron strings, and don't seem confident of doing real political business with France and especially Germany.

In reality, there's not much bureaucrats in Brussels can do to change this. Their roles are much more limited than what most people think. The real work is done in the powerful European capitals. By opting out of cooperation and policy formulation, London has effectively written itself out of the game.

petronius

I just think the EU and its member states need to be aware of the concerns of ordinary voters.
Particularly in the UK where they are very suspicious of all things non-british

One major way is for the EU to be seen not as authoritarian dictating insane policy items
Overtly politically correct measures
The straight banana etc.
Some Health and Safety Measure which are not beneficial and not common sense
Dumping healthy fish
Waste of funds
Subsidies which are seen to promote inactivity

And emphasis things like
Transfer of health care- how would those on waiting lists in the south of england feel if they were able to get their appointment, operation brought forward, and delivered in France, Holland, Belgium or Germany rather than waiting months and years on waiting lists
Celebrate where EU law has brought advances in safety such as the Motor industry or electrical consumer goods
That the EU has delivered cheaper travel by its open market

McDave

The EU passes truckloads of technical measures every year. The British red top press is pretty much alone in making mountains out of molehills on stuff like the so-called "straight bananas" story [check out the myth behind this particular piece of Eurosceptic rubbish at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth and http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/take_part/myths_en.htm ]. In this case there was actually no 'insane' policy, let alone 'authoritarian dictating'.

Which overtly 'politically correct measures' are you talking about?

Both nation states and the EU propose rafts of policies, some of which require revisiting. It's really silly to pick out the EU in this regard. You may as well level the charge of 'authoritarian dictating' at states as well.

On your positive thinking point, the EU does attempt to promote its successes, but in reality good news rarely trumps a good old bunfight. Same goes for the referenda campaigns here. The pro-Lisbon camp attempted to spread the good word, albeit in a really half-assed way, especially in the first referendum. They had to contend with deeply negative anti-Lisbon campaigns. In reality, they only got real traction in Lisbon 2 when they went for the jugular. Which they did very effectively, especially on the night of the big TV debate when Michael O'Leary trashed Declan Ganley.

It's my experience that people on the continent see the EU in the round as a generally good thing. Of course it's not all sweetness and light, and when a proposal for a European constitution was put to voters, it was decisively enough rejected. But that demonstrates that EU citizens are prepared to support an EU which integrates, but does not become a state-type entity.

There is no such nuance in the EU debate in the UK, which is characterised by dissension, dismissiveness, disinformation and disrespect. In the end, it's not the EU's job to advocate the path Britain should take. That's for British people alone. They could, however, make a constructive start by leaving out all this defensive, malign rubbish about 'straight bananas' and giving jingoistic buffoons like UKIP the heave-ho.

petronius

I think it is very rich to try and portray the anti-lisbon treaty as negative only.
The pro-lisbon side used more negative campaigning

Remember the slogan "Vote Yes for Jobs" FG claiming it would result in NEW jobs
Other Groups (the disappeared Civic Groups!) claimed a No would result in FDI jobs being lost
Or even threats that voting no would result in Ireland being evicted from the EU!?
Do your remember the Solemn Guarantee? (and National Guarantee probably not Solemn!)
That the EU would not interfer in Ireland's Corporation Tax Laws, or our Abortion/Pro-Life laws .
The lisbon debate was laden with tacit or overt threats by the Yes side

It is the misinformation campaigns used by pro-federal-eu and lazy Irish Politicians which make people suspicious.

Rather than state, the common new social policy benefits all since it does such and such! common policy on reducing bureaucracy benefits citizens and business by...
we have safer cars because of EU law
we have transferable education and trade qualifications because of a eu measure
we have health care available to citizens of the eu in different states because of the eu laws
Rather than issue threatening slogans, if you dont endorse the change in the EU treaties all hell will break loose

petronius

One other major negative publicity which the EU rightly gets from the british media is the fact for a lot of the quangos and officials it is a gravy train. the waste of money in phenomenal
How much does a EU Commissioner, an MEP get in pay(tax free) and expenses - these are the equivalent to a lottery win.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

I think it is very rich to try and portray the anti-lisbon treaty as negative only.
The pro-lisbon side used more negative campaigning

It's my view. The No campaign was IMO very negative.

Especially during Lisbon 1, I was looking to Libertas for an alternative vision. It never materialised. In fact it got worse during the reactionary European Parliament campaign when Ganley came across more like a Farage mini-me associating with all kinds of ragbag Eurosceptics across Europe, and making a play for Dana transfers.

By the time Lisbon 2 came around, Libertas were widely seen as a reactionary ginger group, which is on of the reasons the No campaign got so little traction.

micosoft

Petronius - you tell some outright porkies like the "straight banana". This is pointed out to you. Rather then addressing the fact you told an easily verifiable untruth you then move on to claiming that the pro -federal-eu are lazy politicians who told lies during the Lisbon 2 treaty?????

Let's be very clear here, while some of the claims on the pro EU side were simplistic (not lies, just simplistic) the sort of guff you posit are straight out untruths that are so easily verified that it's hard to take your opinion as being sincere. On the other hand the anti-treaty side had no proposal on how a better treaty could be negotiated with 27 other member states. That's the very definition of negative campaigning. We know what we are against but not what we are for.

- Remember the slogan "Vote Yes for Jobs" FG claiming it would result in NEW jobs. No I don't, because you just inserted the word "NEW" right there.
- FDI would suffer - true - all the major multinationals came out including Intel and Microsoft to suggest Ireland not being at the heart of Europe would negatively impact FDI investment by their companies in Ireland. Of course your type then suggested it was interference in our internal affairs.... In any case, so far proved right as FDI is one of the few successes in our moribund economy.
- No significant member of the Yes campaign, party or EU official suggested we were going to be kicked out of the EU if we voted no. Show me a link with some form of evidence.
- Nor have the EU interfered with our corporation tax or had any influence on the availability or otherwise of Abortion in Ireland. Other EU member states are perfectly entitled to be unhappy about our tax rate especially if we are asking for money from them.
- The EU is no more and no less "corrupt" or "full of quangos" then any national government. Moat cleaning in the UK anyone? Actually for the most part the EU seems to be less corrupt then many member countries and far more professional.

It's the deliberate misinformation by individuals such as yourself that make people confused. You deliberately create this confusion to subvert our ability to have reasoned debates during referendums over important & complex treaties seriously, which ultimately had the effect of undermining our democracy.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

It is the misinformation campaigns used by pro-federal-eu and lazy Irish Politicians which make people suspicious.

I don't think people are as suspicious as you make out. First of all, European federalists don't get much of a look in these days. Second, the EU gains to date which you outline elsewhere are like eaten bread. Soon forgotten. And an almost impossible sale.

Finally, every time a major new issue presents itself, the EU has to somehow make a case on the merits of the proposed change. Something like a single currency is hard enough to sell. But in the end, I think enough people understand that a single currency will somehow give us more strength on the international economic stage and go along with relative blandishments like better growth prospects and more jobs. No matter which decision is taken, no-one will be able to prove the efficacy of the path not taken. So people take it largely on trust, probably on the basis that if the whole affair goes belly up, we'll just revert to our national systems. So what's to be lost by giving it a try? Especially as the EU has worked out quite well in the round for most.