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

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

The Uk is listed as a signatory of the agreement.

True

dlouth15 wrote: »

Therefore it is in the area covered by the agreement.

The area covered by the agreement is the EU + the three EEA EFTA countries.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Where does it say in the agreement that the UK or any EU member must leave the EEA if it leaves the EU?

AFAIK It is not explicitly stated, but if the UK leaves the EU but refused to to negotiate an exit from the EEA agreement, it would be a legal anomaly and become unenforcible in relation to the UK.

dlouth15 wrote: »

And so from this you conclude that there's no such thing as a member of the EEA, that the EEA has no member states? You are being silly here with your nit picking.

Your argument is that EEA is separate from the EU with the term "member of the EEA" when in reality the EEA is mechanism for EFTA countries to opt in to some of the EUs arrangements.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Correct. And the reason for this requirement is because the EU states are members of the EEA in their own right.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the concept of "EU states are members of the EEA in their own right" exists.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Which in turn means that membership is not contingent on membership of the EU.

It is contingent on membership of either the EU or the EFTA.

dlouth15 wrote: »

You have not provided any other answer to the question as to why it is a requirement.

You are asking me to explain the thoughts of some Norwegian civil servant or whoever it was asked for it to be induced in the EEA agreement. I don't see why you would expect me to be able to give a definitive answer to that question.

dlouth15 wrote: »

They would have to set up their own system of adjudication. But the agreement in other respects would still remain. It would still be an agreement under international law.

So it would not be "on the basis of the EEA agreement." but on the basis of a new agreement which sets up new institutions, since the existing agreement only covers EU and EFTA countries.

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

True

The area covered by the agreement is the EU + the three EEA EFTA countries.

Exactly. And if the UK leave the EU they are still in that same area.

AFAIK It is not explicitly stated, but if the UK leaves the EU but refused to to negotiate an exit from the EEA agreement, it would be a legal anomaly and become unenforcible in relation to the UK.

Why is it unenforcible? The UK would still have the same rights and responsibilities under the EEA as it had before the exit and its relationship to the other EEA countries remains unchanged.

Your argument is that EEA is separate from the EU with the term "member of the EEA" when in reality the EEA is mechanism for EFTA countries to opt in to some of the EUs arrangements.

Member of the EEA is just another way of saying signatory of the treaty or party to the agreement. The mechanism is such that the EEA itself adopts EU laws and enforces them itself among all the EEA countries including EU ones. This has the effect of extending EU rules to the non-EU members.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the concept of "EU states are members of the EEA in their own right" exists.

The fact that each member, not merely the EFTA countries are individual signatories to the agreement is evidence they are members in their own right.

The fact that that EEA laws apply equally to all EEA members regardless of EU membership is also evidence of that.

The fact that Norway needs Croatia to be a member of the EEA not merely the EU in order to trade under EEA rules with Croatia is further evidence of that.

It is contingent on membership of either the EU or the EFTA.

Where does it say that. Yes, it is mentioned that countries happen to be either EU or EFTA, but where is it stipulated that if a country ceases to be either, then it ceases to be a member of the EEA?

You are asking me to explain the thoughts of some Norwegian civil servant or whoever it was asked for it to be induced in the EEA agreement. I don't see why you would expect me to be able to give a definitive answer to that question.

Well it was authorized by the PM of Norway if not written by the PM. I would regard the government of Norway as being knowledgeable on these matters.

So it would not be "on the basis of the EEA agreement." but on the basis of a new agreement which sets up new institutions, since the existing agreement only covers EU and EFTA countries.

The agreement would still exist. Yes it would run into problems if a dispute arose. The setting up of a judicial authority would involve an amendment to the treaty and agreement among the parties.

[Deleted User]

Ignoring whether the UK oustide of the EU might or might not be a member of the EEA or EFTA automatically:
What are the practical requirements of being a non-EU member of the EEA and/or the EFTA?

dlouth15

Deleted User wrote: »

Ignoring whether the UK oustide of the EU might or might not be a member of the EEA or EFTA automatically:
What are the practical requirements of being a non-EU member of the EEA and/or the EFTA?

The basic requirement under the agreement doesn't change as far as I can see whether or not it is in the EU. It is the same whether or not a country is in the EEA which is that the state must allow free trade in the specific areas covered by the EEA agreement. Agriculture and fisheries are not included but would still be traded. Other areas such as financial services are included.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

Exactly. And if the UK leave the EU they are still in that same area.

If the UK leaves the EU the will still be in the area of the EU? you'll have to explain that one to me.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Why is it unenforcible?

It is currently enforced by the EFTA court and the EU court. Neither of these courts would have jurisdiction over the UK if it left the EU.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Member of the EEA is just another way of saying signatory of the treaty or party to the agreement.

The EU is a signatory, and signs on behalf of the EU countries.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The mechanism is such that the EEA itself adopts EU laws and enforces them itself among all the EEA countries including EU ones. This has the effect of extending EU rules to the non-EU members.

How does "the EEA" enforce laws?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that each member, not merely the EFTA countries are individual signatories to the agreement is evidence they are members in their own right.

AFAIK, the EU signs the agreement on behalf of the EU Members.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that that EEA laws apply equally to all EEA members regardless of EU membership is also evidence of that.

What are EEA laws?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The fact that Norway needs Croatia to be a member of the EEA not merely the EU in order to trade under EEA rules with Croatia is further evidence of that.

No it just reflects that it is a requirement of the EEA agreement.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Where does it say that. Yes, it is mentioned that countries happen to be either EU or EFTA, but where is it stipulated that if a country ceases to be either, then it ceases to be a member of the EEA?

Where does it stipulate that they are members of the EEA?
Article 44
The Community, on the one hand, and the EFTA States, on the other, shall apply their internal procedures, ...

What procedure would a country which is neither part of the EU or of EFTA follow?

dlouth15 wrote: »

The agreement would still exist. Yes it would run into problems if a dispute arose. The setting up of a judicial authority would involve an amendment to the treaty and agreement among the parties.

That is the point, if the UK refused to renegotiate a new arrangement with the EU and the EEA EFTA countries or it would be excluded from being able to function as part of the EEA.

That wouldn't happen as obviously the UK would negotiate a new trading relationship with the the EU and EEA EFTA countries as part of its exit from the EU.

FURET

Perhaps one of the reasons they're so anti-Europe is that Europe provides an alternative center of gravity to London; and this, in large part, is what makes the prospect of a UK breakup feasible.

Though it must be said, given the recent bickering and surge in national sentiment among the various countries of the UK - a peaceful, wealthy, long-standing, over-achieving monoglot state - it doesn't bode well for those wishing to see a more federal Europe and the emergence of a European gens.

Finnbar01

Coming late to the debate but I don't think the British are anti-European, more like anti-EU.

Scofflaw

FURET wrote: »

Perhaps one of the reasons they're so anti-Europe is that Europe provides an alternative center of gravity to London; and this, in large part, is what makes the prospect of a UK breakup feasible.

Though it must be said, given the recent bickering and surge in national sentiment among the various countries of the UK - a peaceful, wealthy, long-standing, over-achieving monoglot state - it doesn't bode well for those wishing to see a more federal Europe and the emergence of a European gens.

I'm not sure those entirely follow from each other, unless you mean a monolithic EU like a giant copy of a nation-state. A more federal EU with more power shared at the European level by many smaller countries is entirely feasible, and would follow fairly reasonably from the breakup of nation-states.

For those who want a giant uniform Eurocountry, well, many many things don't bode well for them, like public opinion, centuries of history, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Coming late to the debate but I don't think the British are anti-European, more like anti-EU.

Given the emotive and betimes irrational jingoism that seems to accompany the debate over there betimes, it does seem to me that its the former (be it conscious or subconscious) leading to the latter.

micosoft

What bemuses me is that it's the right thing to call for UK independence from the EU (to the point of calling your party the UK independence Party) but then to say NO and actively campaign against Scottish Independence.

Given that the UK government are now preparing to offer Scotland a new Union approach remarkably like the EU, I think it becomes clearer then ever that Unions are OK if they are dominated by English People from the south east of England but not OK if they are funny people from the continent. All the arguments being made to leave the EU are being reversed for the Better Together campaign (Cross Party in the UK).

The Corinthian

micosoft wrote: »

Given that the UK government are now preparing to offer Scotland a new Union approach remarkably like the EU, I think it becomes clearer then ever that Unions are OK if they are dominated by English People from the south east of England but not OK if they are funny people from the continent. All the arguments being made to leave the EU are being reversed for the Better Together campaign (Cross Party in the UK).

I've seen countless eurosceptics argue over the years and probably almost without exception at the core of their rationale is xenophobia.

This is not to suggest that real non-xenophobic eurosceptic arguments exist, only that they're more rare than unicorns. If you read through this and other threads, what you'll generally find is a FUD eurosceptic argument is given, it is rebutted, then it is repeated shortly after by the same poster as if it were somehow never addressed. Occasionally, they'll let the mask slip and come out with some veiled "but they're not like us" comment, which will be closer to their true motivations, but most can avoid this. The arguments they otherwise present are only done so because they know well enough that "but they're not like us" isn't going to win hearts and minds, they don't really believe or care if they're true or not.

The ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions is twofold; firstly it is a conservative stance - one opposing something that does not yet exist and the other supporting an existing union. Secondly it is based on the xenophobia that I detailed above and repeatedly demonstrated by UKIP candidates.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

... and the other supporting an existing union. Secondly it is based on the xenophobia that I detailed above and repeatedly demonstrated by UKIP candidates.

How is supporting an existing union xenophobic?

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

How is supporting an existing union xenophobic?

I didn't say supporting an existing union is xenophobic (if anything I said it is conservative to support an existing union). I said the ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions are due to two factors - one conservative and the other xenophobic.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't say supporting an existing union is xenophobic (if anything I said it is conservative to support an existing union). I said the ironic contradiction between the UKIP's EU and UK positions are due to two factors - one conservative and the other xenophobic.

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance. This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance. This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

Given that they are arguing for a significant alteration to the UK's status quo, they are NOT adopting a conservative position.

Rather their position is that of a constitutional iconoclast, hell bent on smashing something and d*%n the consequences - a radical one in other words.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

Given that they are arguing for a significant alteration to the UK's status quo, they are NOT adopting a conservative position.

Rather their position is that of a constitutional iconoclast, hell bent on smashing something and d*%n the consequences - a radical one in other words.

Remember it is not me that initially called them conservative. The point that was made (not by me) was:

"firstly it is a conservative stance - one opposing something that does not yet exist and the other supporting an existing union"

I'm not saying I agree with that - and clearly you don't either - but if you did hold that view, then you would have to concede that conservatism and not xenophobia was their primary ideology.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

But as you point out being opposed to further EU integration is also a conservative stance.

No I didn't. I don't think you've read what I posted properly.

I pointed out that supporting the British union is principally a conservative stance, as it is an existing union. The stance on the EU is xenophobic principally.

This would imply that their overarching ideology is conservatism not xenophobia.

When did I imply this? One could argue that opposing further union with the EU is a conservative position (as conservatism will tend to oppose change), but to suggest that this is the overarching ideology for this is conservationism is purely your conclusion.

I responded to a question on the contradiction in the two positions; the two are driven principally by differing ideologies. I never suggested any overarching ideology; that's all you.

No Username Yet

Because they are British

porsche959

There are some interesting questions and rumours as regards one of the principal architects of Britain entering the EEC, i.e. Ted Heath.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19740905&id=OtRYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HOUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3027,1190284

Parse the article carefully.

Peregrinus

However carefully I parse the article, I'm not seeing anything remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. Nor am I seeing anything that isn't already very well-known.

Am I missing something?

porsche959

Peregrinus wrote: »

However carefully I parse the article, I'm not seeing anything remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. Nor am I seeing anything that isn't already very well-known.

Am I missing something?

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

oscarBravo

...what?

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

Not once in all my now several years reading the output of the eurosceptical have I heard any such rumour, or anything even suggestive of it. If it comes to it, I daresay most people would only have the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM in question, never mind being able to recall the yachting accident.

a bit boggled,
Scofflaw

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not once in all my now several years reading the output of the eurosceptical have I heard any such rumour, or anything even suggestive of it.

Which rumour are you referring to? The rumour I am referring to is that Heath was a homosexual. He was more or less outed after his death by several former associates, so perhaps the rumour was lent some weight.

http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/24/former-pm-ted-heath-is-outed-308406/

There are much darker rumours about Heath on the recesses of the web, and, granted, mainly from conspiracy sites and the like, but in light of that contemporaneous article from a respected Australian newspaper, can the rumours be entirely dismissed?

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it comes to it, I daresay most people would only have the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM in question, never mind being able to recall the yachting accident.

a bit boggled,
Scofflaw

If it is truly the case that most people have only the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM that took the UK into the EEC, then this merely indicates that most people have remarkably short memories, or alternatively are not bothered even doing the most basic research - or some combination thereof.

But probably most people are also unaware that one of Heath's main political allies in advancing the Europhile case in the UK in the 1970s subsequently was put to trial for murder. He was, as it happens, acquitted of the charge, but there's a serious whiff of sulphur remaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

Look at the third last paragraph. How come they recovered two bodies that weren't officially part of the ship's crew? Bit strange, no?

The bodies were pulled from the sea. There is no suggestion that they came from Heath's yacht, and the fact that they were decomposed means that they died some time before they yacht sailed, never mind before it capsized. They were found during the search for people lost from the yacht; there is no reason to think there is any other connection.

porsche959 wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that rumours that continue to circulate in the UK regarding the former prime minister who brought Britian into the EEC may be a factor in British hostility to the EU.

If this is the kind of foundation on which the rumours are built, I think we can discount them.

porsche959

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bodies were pulled from the sea. There is no suggestion that they came from Heath's yacht, and the fact that they were decomposed means that they died some time before they yacht sailed, never mind before it capsized. They were found during the search for people lost from the yacht; there is no reason to think there is any other connection.

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If this is the kind of foundation on which the rumours are built, I think we can discount them.

Which rumours, precisely, are you referring to here?

The rumours of Heath being gay, certainly, seem to have been vindicated, and it would not have been at all unusual for homosexual politicians to have been blackmailed during the less enlightened era of say, the 1970s - indeed several cases exist.

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened.

Between three and four hundred UK residents are drowned each year, a bit less than half of them at sea. Some are never recovered but, basically, about three bodies a week are pulled from the seas around Britain. And,unsurprisingly, a fair number of these are recovered during search-and-rescue operations. In a search and rescue operation arising out of one accident it's somewhat unusual to find bodies from another unrelated accident, but it's not fundamentally improbable.

There will have been inquests for the two bodies mentioned in the SMH article that you link to. If they remained unidentified, or if there were any factors at all to suggest that they might be linked in any way to Edward Heath, you can be sure that the conspiracy theorists would be drawing our attention to it.

porsche959 wrote: »

Which rumours, precisely, are you referring to here?

The ones that you suggest are connected with the SMH article that you link to.

porsche959 wrote: »

The rumours of Heath being gay, certainly, seem to have been vindicated, and it would not have been at all unusual for homosexual politicians to have been blackmailed during the less enlightened era of say, the 1970s - indeed several cases exist.

It would have been difficult to blackmail Heath, since everyone already assumed he was gay. I believed he was gay, and I was not connected with him in any way, and we had no acquaintances in common. He never married, and had no facade to maintain.

Yes, it's possible that he was blackmailed, but there is no evidence of this, and those who attempt to link his policies on Europe (or any other matters) to putative blackmail cast rather more light on themselves and their own view of the world than they do on Heath and his policies.

[Deleted User]

porsche959 wrote: »

Is it frequently the case that search teams in attempting to recover survivors or bodies from a yachting disaster, by chance, find bodies from some other disaster? I really am no expert on such matters, but it strikes me as a quite remarkable co-incidence, if that is what happened

I think it happened in Galway in the past few years - people searching for a missing person found the body of a different person who had been missing for much longer. I will have a google and see if I can find an article about it.

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

Which rumour are you referring to? The rumour I am referring to is that Heath was a homosexual. He was more or less outed after his death by several former associates, so perhaps the rumour was lent some weight.

http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/24/former-pm-ted-heath-is-outed-308406/

There are much darker rumours about Heath on the recesses of the web, and, granted, mainly from conspiracy sites and the like, but in light of that contemporaneous article from a respected Australian newspaper, can the rumours be entirely dismissed?

If it is truly the case that most people have only the very vaguest idea that Heath was the PM that took the UK into the EEC, then this merely indicates that most people have remarkably short memories, or alternatively are not bothered even doing the most basic research - or some combination thereof.

But probably most people are also unaware that one of Heath's main political allies in advancing the Europhile case in the UK in the 1970s subsequently was put to trial for murder. He was, as it happens, acquitted of the charge, but there's a serious whiff of sulphur remaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe

I would say that, yes, most people would be even less aware of that. Again, I don't think I've ever heard it even hinted at that Heath was personally blackmailed into joining the EU.

Aside from anything else, the UK started trying to join the EEC under Macmillan, continued trying (and failing) to do so under Wilson, and were only let in when de Gaulle was no longer there to veto their entry, following which both the British people and the parliament voted by clear majorities for entry. Heath was the PM who happened to be in power when the French relented under Pompidou.

Swallowing the idea that somehow Heath was blackmailed into making Britain join would therefore require such a huge appetite for complete tosh, and such an appalling ignorance of history, that I think few eurosceptics could possibly manage it.

I would think that the memory of being kept out of the EEC by the French would be a far stronger gall (so to speak).

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that, yes, most people would be even less aware of that. Again, I don't think I've ever heard it even hinted at that Heath was personally blackmailed into joining the EU.

Aside from anything else, the UK started trying to join the EEC under Macmillan, continued trying (and failing) to do so under Wilson, and were only let in when de Gaulle was no longer there to veto their entry, following which both the British people and the parliament voted by clear majorities for entry. Heath was the PM who happened to be in power when the French relented under Pompidou.

Swallowing the idea that somehow Heath was blackmailed into making Britain join would therefore require such a huge appetite for complete tosh, and such an appalling ignorance of history, that I think few eurosceptics could possibly manage it.

I would think that the memory of being kept out of the EEC by the French would be a far stronger gall (so to speak).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Also let's not forget Britain was in financial ****e when when joined the EU. They seem to have forgotten why they joined but I have a feeling if they leave they will be reminded quickly enough.