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

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

To conclude that the UK is anti europe because it questoins, and does not do as it is instructed by the EU on every issue, is to misunderstand. Sometimes our better friends are the ones who are brave enough to tell us the truth, rather than those friends which prefer flattery to the awkwardness of truth.

The UK is not 'instructed' by the EU.

It's sad that you see one of the most powerful countries in Europe as a passive actor.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

I wasn't planning on claiming it. I was explaining what some in the UK think, and the idea of the democratic deficit is one often discussed in the UK. This thread is about the UK and not about me.

Some people in the UK think that the royal family are alien lizards. A discussion forum isn't about what "some people" think, it's about discussing what you believe, and why.

I didn't mention anything about accounts being signed off or not, so you are simply incorrect to say i did.

If you're going to use your weasel words as a way to make points without having to stand over them, there isn't really the basis of a discussion here.

I am afraid you are simply wrong, and many in the UK believe that money is wasted by the EU. They may well be wrong to believe it, but believe it they do. This thread is about why the UK is anti EU, and that belief is just one reason why the UK appears to be so.

So your point, in essence, is that the UK is anti-EU because "some people" believe bad things about the EU, and the question of whether or not those bad things are true is not something you consider in any way germane to the discussion?

Lemming

thomas.frink wrote: »

I am afraid you are simply wrong, and many in the UK believe that money is wasted by the EU. They may well be wrong to believe it, but believe it they do. This thread is about why the UK is anti EU, and that belief is just one reason why the UK appears to be so.

The major cuplrit in the UK regards why "many" believe the EU to be some great satan is the British media; or rather segments of it, as so eloquently displayed today with this response from the EU commission office in the UK to claims of the EU planning to mandate car speed limiters.

Having lived in the UK for several years now; there is a strong bias against the EU in media articles; however subtle that bias may be at times from even the more "respected" company names. In part because of that - and in part due to government incompetence/inaction - the general population of the UK is woefully ignorant of even the most basic structures of the EU and its relationship with its member states. If you're told time and time again by some newspaper that isn't challenged, that x is good, and y is bad, you will eventually believe it.

On top of that; the media (more so the red-top brigade + Murdoch empire) try to frequently steer the politics of the day. The end result is depressingly predictable in that you have a population falling hook line and sinker for any old nonsense.

thomas.frink

Lemming wrote: »

The major cuplrit in the UK regards why "many" believe the EU to be some great satan is the British media; or rather segments of it, as so eloquently displayed today with this response from the EU commission office in the UK to claims of the EU planning to mandate car speed limiters.

Having lived in the UK for several years now; there is a strong bias against the EU in media articles; however subtle that bias may be at times from even the more "respected" company names. In part because of that - and in part due to government incompetence/inaction - the general population of the UK is woefully ignorant of even the most basic structures of the EU and its relationship with its member states. If you're told time and time again by some newspaper that isn't challenged, that x is good, and y is bad, you will eventually believe it.

On top of that; the media (more so the red-top brigade + Murdoch empire) try to frequently steer the politics of the day. The end result is depressingly predictable in that you have a population falling hook line and sinker for any old nonsense.

The democratic deficit is widely discussed politicially and across the country and in the press.

But even if it were not, the media has every right to be as biased, or not, as it wants to be within legal parameters. I see a more balanced media than your do, with some papers being anti Eu, some being pro Eu, and organisations like the BBC being largely pro EU and stations like LBC being, largely, neutral or at least balanced.

Bearing in mind the majority of the population across the EU now say they distrust the EU and would possibly vote to leave it, an argument could be made that the press in the rest of the EU, including Ireland, is biased in that the overwhelming reportage of EU issues does not reflect that opinion. Bias is not just seen where it disagrees with ones own position, but is also there when it flatters ones own opinions.

In the UK issues like the democratic deficit are argued by many outside the media, such as by politicians and in forums up and down the country, in tv studios and on the national airwaves, and ferocious debates are had, and not just in the media.

View

thomas.frink wrote: »

But even if it were not, the media has every right to be as biased, or not, as it wants to be within legal parameters. I see a more balanced media than your do, with some papers being anti Eu, some being pro Eu, and organisations like the BBC being largely pro EU and stations like LBC being, largely, neutral or at least balanced.

The BBC has been found to have an anti-EU bias in its reportage by independent media studies so if you regard it as pro-EU your bias is hardly neutral.

Likewise the Leeveson report found clear bias in the UK newsprint media - and it wasn't "spin", it was actual fabrication - which goes a long way to explain the "debate" in the UK. You can't have a balanced debate if one side is fabricating "information" since people are responding to lies in that case.

thomas.frink

View wrote: »

The BBC has been found to have an anti-EU bias in its reportage by independent media studies so if you regard it as pro-EU your bias is hardly neutral.

Likewise the Leeveson report found clear bias in the UK newsprint media - and it wasn't "spin", it was actual fabrication - which goes a long way to explain the "debate" in the UK. You can't have a balanced debate if one side is fabricating "information" since people are responding to lies in that case.

Of course, non of us has a neutral bias, and it would be absurd to think any of us has.

I know its entirely possible to have a debate about, for example, the democratic deficit, even if one "side" is making up stupid stories about straight bananas. In fact, I know it's possible because I see and hear it in the UK reasonably regularly, and the fact that one newspaper or newspapers are making up stories about straight bananas has little to do with a debate about a democratic deficit. None of the arguments made for or against the democratic deficit include stories about straight bananas or other stuff invented by some media.

micosoft

thomas.frink wrote: »

the media has every right to be as biased

The media and you have a right to your own opinions.

You don't have a right to your own facts.

What we are clearly discussing here is the fact that the English populace are fed a steady stream of lies about the EU to support the anti EU "opinion" in the UK media. These lies have been done to death on many threads. That's not balanced.

micosoft

thomas.frink wrote: »

Of course, non of us has a neutral bias, and it would be absurd to think any of us has.

I know its entirely possible to have a debate about, for example, the democratic deficit, even if one "side" is making up stupid stories about straight bananas. In fact, I know it's possible because I see and hear it in the UK reasonably regularly, and the fact that one newspaper or newspapers are making up stories about straight bananas has little to do with a debate about a democratic deficit. None of the arguments made for or against the democratic deficit include stories about straight bananas or other stuff invented by some media.

Not really no. It' not possible to have a fair and impartial debate when one side spreads disinformation. I think it says a lot about your mindset that you'd even write the above. These stories are deliberate and malicious propaganda to discredit the EU. It has worked and will have serious geopolitical consquences for the UK and Europe including Ireland.

thomas.frink

micosoft wrote: »

Not really no. It' not possible to have a fair and impartial debate when one side spreads disinformation. I think it says a lot about your mindset that you'd even write the above. These stories are deliberate and malicious propaganda to discredit the EU. It has worked and will have serious geopolitical consquences for the UK and Europe including Ireland.

The UK situation, like every other country, it as it is. If you judge it impossible to have a fair and impartial debate, then that's what you judge.

What do you propose? That debate should be banned? Or that the media should be censored in a way of which you approve? Or something else entirely?

In the world in which I live, its usually both sides which spread propaganda, and not just one side. And the duty of an adult is to try to see through the propaganda to the issues. If someone can't do that (as you imply many or most in the UK can't) then in a democracy we still have to accept that. Thats how a democracy works. (Fascism or a dictatorship works partially by banning others from having opinions informed by the "wrong" evidence, or of which opinions are not approved, and by banning discussion of certain topics).

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

The UK situation, like every other country, it as it is. If you judge it impossible to have a fair and impartial debate, then that's what you judge.

What do you propose? That debate should be banned? Or that the media should be censored in a way of which you approve? Or something else entirely?

In the world in which I live, its usually both sides which spread propaganda, and not just one side. And the duty of an adult is to try to see through the propaganda to the issues. If someone can't do that (as you imply many or most in the UK can't) then in a democracy we still have to accept that. Thats how a democracy works. (Fascism or a dictatorship works partially by banning others from having opinions informed by the "wrong" evidence, or of which opinions are not approved, and by banning discussion of certain topics).

You're invoking the "teach the controversy" fallacy: the idea that an objective fact and a bare-faced lie have equal validity, and that if more people believe the lie than believe the facts, then the lie wins.

Aggressive marketing doesn't make a lie true, and any decision made on the basis of believing something that isn't true is ipso facto a flawed decision.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're invoking the "teach the controversy" fallacy: the idea that an objective fact and a bare-faced lie have equal validity, and that if more people believe the lie than believe the facts, then the lie wins.

Aggressive marketing doesn't make a lie true, and any decision made on the basis of believing something that isn't true is ipso facto a flawed decision.

I dont know what your "teach the controversy" is, and so find it hard to believe I am invoking it. If someone chooses to believe what I may view a lie, then that's their choice. Obviously not one I agree with. I assume we all agree with that.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think there is something called "the truth", and anyone who does not agree with your version of the truth must be making flawed decisions. I know there are many versions of the truth, and am content if others do not agree with my version.

And so if the UK decides to leave the EU for reasons you, or I , think are flawed, that doesn't mean the reasons are flawed for those making the decision. If they, for example, think there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU which makes the EU, for them, a bridge too far, thats a valid viewpoint even if you, or I, disagree with it.

oscarBravo

If your core argument is that nothing is objectively true or false, we don't have the basis for an intelligent discussion.

View

thomas.frink wrote: »

Where we disagree is that you seem to think there is something called "the truth",.

If a newspaper reports David Cameron has made a proposal to turn the UK into a communist state, then it is either true if he has or false if he has not.

thomas.frink wrote: »

and anyone who does not agree with your version of the truth must be making flawed decisions.

If a dedicated Communist votes for Cameron on the basis of such a newspaper report then he clearly is making a flawed decision if the truth is Cameron has made no such proposal.

thomas.frink wrote: »

I know there are many versions of the truth, and am content if others do not agree with my version.

If you want to believe in reports that are factually wrong - false in other words - and regard them as being equally valid as factually correct reports that just makes you delusional.

thomas.frink

View wrote: »

If a newspaper reports David Cameron has made a proposal to turn the UK into a communist state, then it is either true if he has or false if he has not.

And if I were 6 foot 2 I could have been a model. That comes under the category of coulda-shoulda-woulda.

I hope you don't mind me saying that you seem quite idealistic if not a little naive, in that much of the political coverage in most newspapers comes from off the record briefings or nudge nudge wink wink relationships between politicians and journalists. Much of what is reported is designed to sway opinion and much of it untrue or largely untrue.

In the rather ludicrous example given, it would be childishly simple to find out if the speech you talk about was made or not, and for your "dedicated communist" to simply believe one source for what seems an unlikely story seems to suggest he is willing to be deceived, as he could simply find out, as such a highly unlikely story would be easy to corroborate.

View wrote: »

If a dedicated Communist votes for Cameron on the basis of such a newspaper report then he clearly is making a flawed decision if the truth is Cameron has made no such proposal.

Actually, he's making a pretty stupid decision being a "dedicated communist" on the available evidence. Politicians lie. Newspapers make up stories. Some people believe what they read in the newspapers. If anyone is shocked to just now discover any or all of that, then that's probably a good lesson learned.

I still don't know what you propose to do about all that. Politicians lie every day. Newspapers make up stories every day. People vote for things of which I, and probably you, disapprove regularly.

View wrote: »

If you want to believe in reports that are factually wrong - false in other words - and regard them as being equally valid as factually correct reports that just makes you delusional.

I believe little of what I read in newspapers as I know how newspapers work, so your assumption that I want to believe them is not accurate.

What I regard as valid are the opinions of others when they are sincerely held, and what I also regard as valid are the votes of individuals to decide their own future.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

In the rather ludicrous example given, it would be childishly simple to find out if the speech you talk about was made or not...

It's pretty straightforward to find out that most of the euromyths peddled in the UK press are quite simply untrue (that is, objectively untrue, as opposed to a 'valid' opinion), but that doesn't seem to stop them gaining a great deal of traction.

What I regard as valid are the opinions of others when they are sincerely held...

If someone has a sincerely held opinion that the world is six thousand years old, do you regard that as valid?

ewan whose army

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

At least the guys over here were asked, we weren't. People like Van Rumpy came out of nowhere with alot of influence. Its the way it was bullied through by a then very unpopular Prime Minister.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's pretty straightforward to find out that most of the euromyths peddled in the UK press are quite simply untrue (that is, objectively untrue, as opposed to a 'valid' opinion), but that doesn't seem to stop them gaining a great deal of traction. If someone has a sincerely held opinion that the world is six thousand years old, do you regard that as valid?

Sure, but the democratic deficit as perceived in the UK is not a myth and is perceived as a real problem to many in the UK. You and I may disagree that there is a democratic deficit, but then its really not up to us to tell others what they can and cant believe.

There are many who do believe that the world is as recent as six thousand years old. I don't agree that the evidence supports their views which are generally based on religious texts and not based on the best scientific evidence. However, I think it entirely valid they can choose to believe religious authorities over scientific evidence. I am quite relaxed about disagreeing with others, and don't expect everyone else to share my views.

oscarBravo

ewan whose army wrote: »

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

You've illustrated the problem perfectly. Who didn't give you a say on Lisbon? The government of the UK. Who does that leave the people of the UK angry with? The EU.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Sure, but the democratic deficit as perceived in the UK is not a myth and is perceived as a real problem to many in the UK. You and I may disagree that there is a democratic deficit, but then its really not up to us to tell others what they can and cant believe.

I'm never going to tell anyone what they can't believe: I simply reserve the right to consider people who make decisions on the basis of their belief in myths to be idiots.

There are many who do believe that the world is as recent as six thousand years old. I don't agree that the evidence supports their views which are generally based on religious texts and not based on the best scientific evidence. However, I think it entirely valid they can choose to believe religious authorities over scientific evidence. I am quite relaxed about disagreeing with others, and don't expect everyone else to share my views.

Here's the problem with your highbrow tolerance: anyone who believes that the world is six thousand years old is wrong. They are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts.

People can choose to believe that the world was created in a week by a bearded sky fairy; they can choose to believe that the EU prevents them from having referendums. Both beliefs are objectively untrue, no matter what frilly knickers you try to dress up those untruths with.

Lemming

ewan whose army wrote: »

Personally I believe most of my home country's anti-EU idea is due to the fact that we were never given our say on Lisbon.

At least the guys over here were asked, we weren't. People like Van Rumpy came out of nowhere with alot of influence. Its the way it was bullied through by a then very unpopular Prime Minister.

Whose fault is that exactly? Could it have been the individual member nation perhaps?

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm never going to tell anyone what they can't believe: I simply reserve the right to consider people who make decisions on the basis of their belief in myths to be idiots.

Of course, no one disputes you can consider anyone to be anything you choose. Where we differ is that I am open to the possibility I might be wrong, and if someone decided to believe that the world was made by fairies dancing around a toadstool at midnight chanting Bach cantatas, then I choose to find that charming, rather than deciding they are idiots.

You may well be right to consider such people idiots, but in a democracy even idiots are allowed to vote, and their votes are as valid as members of Mensa.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

Of course, no one disputes you can consider anyone to be anything you choose. Where we differ is that I am open to the possibility I might be wrong, and if someone decided to believe that the world was made by fairies dancing around a toadstool at midnight chanting Bach cantatas, then I choose to find that charming, rather than deciding they are idiots.

And if someone makes a decision that ultimately has an affect on your life on the basis of that belief, that's every bit as valid as someone who makes their decisions on the basis of facts and evidence?

You may well be right to consider such people idiots, but in a democracy even idiots are allowed to vote, and their votes are as valid as members of Mensa.

As are the votes of racists, wife beaters and child molesters.

Your point seems to be that it doesn't matter whether what people believe is true or false, well-informed or hopelessly ignorant; we should pander to everyone's beliefs, because they are all equally valid. That way lies idiocracy, and if that's how you want your country run, you're welcome to it.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

And if someone makes a decision that ultimately has an affect on your life on the basis of that belief, that's every bit as valid as someone who makes their decisions on the basis of facts and evidence? As are the votes of racists, wife beaters and child molesters.

People vote all the time who have different opinions form me, and whose votes have made real differences to my life. Many of them may well vote because they like a politician's nice curly hair, or for whatever reasons they choose. I can't stop anyone choosing their own criteria to vote. I don't have to remind anyone that the Irish economy was, in part, ruined because people voted for politicians for reasons which were not in accord with mine. Everyone in Ireland has had their lives affected by that. That's how democracy works.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your point seems to be that it doesn't matter whether what people believe is true or false, well-informed or hopelessly ignorant; we should pander to everyone's beliefs, because they are all equally valid. That way lies idiocracy, and if that's how you want your country run, you're welcome to it.

Of course it matters what everyone thinks, although why you claim I think we should “pander” to anyone seems a mystery.

Unfortunately, that is how our countries are run, and merely wringing our hands and despairing of it isn’t going to change that.

It’s called democracy, and even those you decide are idiots, hopelessly ignorant and who believe things you think are false all have an equal say in voting as you do. That’s why Ireland chose the politicians it did and why Ireland is in the appalling state it finds itself in. it’s the same in many countries.

Where we seem to differ is that you seem to want to impose some sort of IQ test for voters, and prevent anyone who falls below whatever IQ level you choose from voting. Or if not an IQ test, you seem to want to only let others vote so long as you can be assured they use facts in the same way that you do.

I am not a hand wringer, and know that in a democracy, we must let everyone vote and know that hand wringing is of little value in changing anything.

ewan whose army

Lemming wrote: »

Whose fault is that exactly? Could it have been the individual member nation perhaps?

Well yeah it is.

I didn't say it wasn't, we do blame our government. Its one of the reasons why Gordon Brown was so unpopular. Its made it defacto law now that any new EU treaty would have to be given a referendum.

You are thinking we are all Daily Mail readers, only those lot blame Europe for it. The rest of us blame the government.

I am not anti-EU at all, I just think it needs reform. If two countries say Ireland and the UK both said no to it, as what would have probably happened in that case they would be under pressure to change it, not just have another referendum over here.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

Well yeah it is.

I didn't say it wasn't, we do blame our government. Its one of the reasons why Gordon Brown was so unpopular. Its made it defacto law now that any new EU treaty would have to be given a referendum.

You are thinking we are all Daily Mail readers, only those lot blame Europe for it. The rest of us blame the government.

I am not anti-EU at all, I just think it needs reform. If two countries say Ireland and the UK both said no to it, as what would have probably happened in that case they would be under pressure to change it, not just have another referendum over here.

What kind of reform? Generally speaking.

I mean, if there is an alternative vision it has to be feasible and work more effectively than the incremental, pragmatic one we have at present.

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

What kind of reform? Generally speaking.

I mean, if there is an alternative vision it has to be feasible and work more effectively than the incremental, pragmatic one we have at present.

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

micosoft

ewan whose army wrote: »

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

But which reform are the responsibility of the "EU" and which are the responsibility of the member state?

Pay/Benefits - Herman Van Rompuy is the president of the European Council. He gets pay and conditions commiserate to that position. He is president of a council of the heads of state of every EU country - they decide and elect him in. Therefore there is a democratic link. That said, if the UK wants to, it could hold a vote on it's nomination as president if it wants to.

Waste - there is no evidence that the EU is any more wasteful than say, the UK govt. and indeed likely less so. No cleaning of moats in the EU that I have heard of. The Strasbourg shuttle is wasteful but that was negotiated between governments - the French government insisted on it. It's up to the EU member states to negotiate that with France. Most Eurocrats would be delighted to dump that circus.

Ireland has held second referendums many times on many topics including Divorce. The only people that oppose these democratic decisions are anti-democrats like yourself who oppose giving people the right to choose their mind.

Constituencies in a country are entirely decided by the country or it's electoral commission - nothing to do with the EU.

What gets taught in UK schools is entirely to do with the British Dept. of Education and nothing to do with the EU.

Serious and truthful coverage or lack thereof of the EU is entirely to do with the British Media and nothing to do with the EU.

Greece so desperately tried to get into the EU despite objections from Germany and most reasonable economists that their official statistical agency lied about their economy for a number of years prior to Euro entry. Nothing to do with the EU other then we should not have taken the Greeks at face value. But that would have gone down as EU interference in your book.

You have no clue what you mean by reform because as usual when you look at your complaints they all boil down to:

Unreasonable standards apply to the EU as compared to standards expected for national governments
Complaints about things that are in the remit of the national governemnt and nothing to do with the EU

The above is your problem and the UK's problem and I can't take your "I've nothing against the EU line" seriously - you do have a problem.

The issue is that the UK will leave the EU due to misinformation at a grand scale and this will damage every bodies interests. Mostly the UK's but lots of collateral damage.

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

Its all the bureaucracy of the EU.

You have people like Van Rumpy given really senior roles, huge paychecks etc. but they are not even elected.

There is so much waste in the EU, things like the Strasbourg Shuttle which is an absurd concept.

I hate to bring it up but look at Lisbon, when the Irish rejected it first time they just asked them again so they could get the answer they wanted.

Then you have the whole mess of EU elections, its proportional Representation which is a problem for elections that don't get much interest, I mean thanks to the way its run my home town in the far North of England has NICK GRIFFIN (for those who don't know a neo fascist) as one of its MEPs.

Also another point not many people in the UK at least has any idea what the EU does, I mean we are taught the mess of UK politics in school but there is no mention of EU stuff. I remember the last EU elections was the first time I could vote (I was 18) , I saw the ballot slip and the "guide" and was like "who are any of these people" and just submitted an empty ballot since I had NO idea who or what I voting for.

They have a habit of bullying through ideas, the Euro is a classic example. Countries like Greece were allowed in even though they were not in a fit state but it served this idealised "European Project" mindset that comes from those at the top.

I guess for reform, make the whole thing more accountable, more transparent etc.

I don't think its fair to say the UK is anti Europe, we are not. Alot of us (me including) identify as European as well as British we are European we have a Germanic language etc. , I am a supporter of the EU in principle and I think the UK should remain in, if there ever is a referendum I would say Yes to the EU. We are just naturally more skeptical of Europe but I just think that is our mindset.

We are not all imperialistic that some people accuse of us, England at least is one of the most accepting places on the planet. I know being gay and all and I have friends from all around the world, just sometimes we want to do what is best for the UK, we get slack for that but doesn't every country do the same. I mean Germany vetoed the Eurobonds because they weren't right for Germany!

The EU suffers from a lot of sensationalist scaremongering in the UK by the likes of the Express and The Mail .

TBH this mostly reads like a list of dislikes, not a coherent alternative. It's not enough to say the EU needs to be more accountable and transparent. That's a criticism that can be levelled at practically any western democracy.

Indeed, if there's a problem with transparency and accountability, it's the practice of disinformation practiced by many national politicians against the EU. After all, national governments like the UK's have more real influence over the EU than they ever say to their citizens.

It's my view that EU powers are strictly delineated and very heavily inspired by national initiatives. Accordingly EU action is often very technical, and difficult to sell. That's no excuse though for the quite rancid sneering thrown the EU's way by too many British politicians and press types.

As for Eurobonds, there's no current legal basis for them. There is no sustainable economic or political basis for them either at present. There's no way in the world any creditor EZ member like Germany, Austria, Finland or the Netherlands is going to write a blank cheque for countries in economic difficulty under current circumstances. Neither would the UK had it a dog in the Euro race.

Which is not to say there won't be Eurobonds when the appropriate structures are in place, and all participants are Maastricht-compliant.

ewan whose army

Just a side point.

Why are people so bothered if the UK does pull out the EU, its not going to affect Ireland. Okay my points are based around the UK but its an UK matter not an EU matter.

Is it going to affect Ireland? Probably not

micosoft

A side point that illustrates how very wrong the "debate" in the UK is....

No effect on Ireland or Europe? Did you seriously think that? This isn't a Golf club that you might decide to leave on a whim. The UK leaving the EU will have enormous geopolitical implications as well as economic implications for everyone. Important enough that the US feels the need to intervene: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal

The real question is how individuals like yourself know so little about the wider world and the EU indicating a massive failing in both British Media and Education to impart even a tiny understanding on an institution which is massively influential in their lives.

ewan whose army

micosoft wrote: »

A side point that illustrates how very wrong the "debate" in the UK is....

No effect on Ireland or Europe? Did you seriously think that? This isn't a Golf club that you might decide to leave on a whim. The UK leaving the EU will have enormous geopolitical implications as well as economic implications for everyone. Important enough that the US feels the need to intervene: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal

The real question is how individuals like yourself know so little about the wider world and the EU indicating a massive failing in both British Media and Education to impart even a tiny understanding on an institution which is massively influential in their lives.

The EU isn't making us a case to remain in which I find surprising. The fact that Obama has got involved in UK politics something that isn't to do the US isn't doing them any favours. Alot of people in the UK don't care about the "Special Relationship" and want to see the back of the Americans messing with the UK. Obama is just going to make the EU even more unpopular.

I can't say anything about the EU in schools, we were never taught it. General Studies was an option that nobody took