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

Fratton Fred

McDave wrote: »

You're confusing the EU with NATO. Continental countries will adjust military spending to meet their needs. Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're raising vague, headline non sequiturs. Don't expect detailed rebuttals on your content-free straw men.

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Afghanistan was a NATO-led operation. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has no implications for its participation in NATO. Afghanistan is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

I wonder do the Irish who voted no on the treaty the first time because they didn't believe it was in Ireland's best interest and foreseen the damage it would do to the economy and saddle generations of Irish with European debt feel glad that it was assumed the were too "uneducated" to form an opinion!

Well, the answer there has to be that they were clearly forming an inaccurate opinion based on ignorance, since Lisbon and the bank debt have nothing at all to do with each other.

Pretty good example, in fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Take up your lack of knowledge with gallag. He's the one confusing the EU and NATO. You can chase each other's tails AFAIC.

Fratton Fred

McDave wrote: »

Take up your lack of knowledge with gallag. He's the one confusing the EU and NATO. You can chase each other's tails AFAIC.

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

micosoft

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

To be fair Frattan, they are two different things. As you well know most EU states (including Ireland) committed resources to Afghanistan under many contexts including the Irish Military under ISAF (which is a NATO entity but given its authority by the United Nations Security Council).

What Gallag has repeatedly brought up is the suggestion by implication that the EU has some form of competency when it comes to military spending. It does not. NATO has set an objective of % of GDP on military spending. Gallag is attempting to make a non sequitur that a Brixit would for some reason cause the remaining EU members to raise defense spending. I don't understand because it simply does not follow. There is no connection.

As an aside, France is nearly up there with the UK on Defense spending and is the only EU nation with a truly independent Nuclear response (i.e. not completely reliant on a third parties launch system). Claims that were it not for the UK, Europe would be defenseless are far fetched. And again, this leaves out the fact that the EU has no competency here.

What I find most unusual is that there have been no complaints about meddling in a nations internal affairs by NATO in it's demands to raise defense spending in Europe. I would have thought that spending on military activities goes to the heart of a nations sovereignty. Why are people who hold the EU to one level of disdain for interference and having "old treaties" yet a far less democratically accountable organisation (with a much "older" treaty that arguably was for a threat that ended in 1990) that could literally lead nations into war is great and you know, if we need to spend more money because NATO demands it, that's OK!

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

and what about the negatives of a Brit exit for the EU?

1. lose there second largest economy (soon to be)
What? The UK economy disappears? As far as I understand the UK will still be there and trading with the EU.
2. lose the most strategically important partner and see the security of the EU massively diminished overnight.
Security is not a particular competence of the EU. Other organisations do that.
3. lose the fastest growing economy of the important economies.
At the moment. Wasn't a couple of years ago, won't be in a few years.
4. lose the highest contributer to eu funds per capita forcing Germany to pick up the slack and fuel the conversation of what's actually in it for them at this point?
Not the highest contributer. The forth largest. If the UK expects to have free trade with the EU it will still have to contribute (potentially more) much as Norway, Switzerland and the other members of EFTA do.
5. potential cash the EU markets overnight.
That's a little hysterical now don't you think? Can you show any respected economist suggesting that his would happen? (I note the word potential)
6. lose the financial capital of the world.
I think New Yorkers would be confused by this, but if you do mean London? Yes but not in the way you think. Goldman Sachs were very clear on this.

But here's my list!

1. Lose being part of the biggest trading block in the world.
2. Lose enormous influence on the 26 nearest countries to you and have absolutely no say in how they proceed.
3. Lose largest GDP countries at 4th,5th (yes, France has a handily bigger economy then the UK), 9th and 13th in the World.
4. Continue to pay an entry fee to the free trade area without any say on how much or how it's spent.
5. Immediate and substantial negative effects on the UK economy according to the Confederation of British Industry.
6. Londons success is predicated on being in the EU. No EU, No London...

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

I wonder if the Irish had respected the will of the people on the first go would things be better for Ireland right now? really very hard to make the argument it would be any worse!

Well to start with it is worth pointing out that unlike the UK, the Irish reserve some powers to themselves concerning the running of their country through a written constitution which they alone can change! In change the constitution on joining the EEC in 1974, it was foreseen that the government might need to consult the people several times on the same or similar issues and that is exactly why there is no limit on such consultations! So to suggest that it is some how unconstitutional to hold an other referendum on issue is total nonsense! This has been challenged in the Supreme Court and found to be fully in line with the constitution.

And let's for a minute consider what actually happened: the Irish government negotiated a treat with the EU which the Irish people found unacceptable. The result was that everyone had to sit down and renegotiate: clarify certain issues, grant concessions etc and the go back to the Irish people and seek their agreement. This is a far cry from the situation in the UK where the people have no possibility to press the pause button.

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

Which is a huge problem. By their very nature, negotiating a treaty between 27 different states is an extremily complicated task resulting in a complex document. As we saw with the Irish referendums, these treaties get delayed by mass disinformation campaigns on every petty grieveance parts of the population have in that country. Coupled with the fact that referendums on dull sounding treaties don't exactly energise the unexercised majority, you have a receipe for the bad legislation we now have. For example, a non-existient threat to our neutrality from Lisbon transmogified into a triple lock that essentially means the permanent security council (Russia, China, US, UK, France) of the UN has a Veto on deploying our troops. A less "neutral" status if you like. It's getting even more concerning now that the Government has blamed the EU for the setting up of Irish Water when that's a gross simplifcation or untrue. It will be very challenging to get any treaty in Ireland on the first go.

Of course, this is what DC has not explained, and was not really explained to the Irish Electorate last time. You are not negotiating with the EU. You are negotiating with the other 26 states. That means negotiate, not dictate. That's democracy for you!

McDave

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

Where did I say 'most EU countries didn't commit resources'? In fact I didn't.

What I said was: 'Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.' Not at all the same thing.

You're going to have to be a good deal more accurate if you want to sustain a competent line of thinking.

Jim2007

micosoft wrote: »

Which is a huge problem. By their very nature, negotiating a treaty between 27 different states is an extremily complicated task resulting in a complex document. As we saw with the Irish referendums, these treaties get delayed by mass disinformation campaigns on every petty grieveance parts of the population have in that country.

Whether we like it or not in Ireland the people retain the right to decide the destiny of the nation and I very much doubt they agree to give it up, thus ending up in the same situation as the UK, where the PM can simply take the country out of the EU without consultation.

Furthermore I would never underestimate the ability of the Irish people to figure out what is in their best interests and that of their country. At the end of the day it is up to those proposing or opposing an amendment to make their case to the people, if they fail to do so, then it is their failure not the peoples!

Our constitution, like so many others, recognises the fact that the people can get it wrong and that is why there is no restriction on how often an issue can be put to the people.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

Whether we like it or not in Ireland the people retain the right to decide the destiny of the nation and I very much doubt they agree to give it up, thus ending up in the same situation as the UK, where the PM can simply take the country out of the EU without consultation.

Furthermore I would never underestimate the ability of the Irish people to figure out what is in their best interests and that of their country. At the end of the day it is up to those proposing or opposing an amendment to make their case to the people, if they fail to do so, then it is their failure not the peoples!

Our constitution, like so many others, recognises the fact that the people can get it wrong and that is why there is no restriction on how often an issue can be put to the people.

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time. The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution. But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds which seems to be a failure in our system espeically with regard to the many other checks and balances (President, Supreme Court and even Seaned) we have. That said, if it's the price we pay for our type of democracy is to run referendums multiple times then so be it. It just makes a for a very time consuming process and creates distrust if not resentment from our partners who have their own electorates who do not want to be dictated to by an ill informed Irish electorate.

Peregrinus

micosoft wrote: »

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time. The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution. But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds which seems to be a failure in our system espeically with regard to the many other checks and balances (President, Supreme Court and even Seaned) we have. That said, if it's the price we pay for our type of democracy is to run referendums multiple times then so be it. It just makes a for a very time consuming process and creates distrust if not resentment from our partners who have their own electorates who do not want to be dictated to by an ill informed Irish electorate.

The UK excepted, all the other EU countries have written constitutions. But they don't necesssarily require a referendum to be amended; in many cases they can be amended by the national parliament, or by co-ordinated action between national and regional authorities.

The Danish Constitution also requires a referendum for amendment (in most cases) and they invariably have a referendum on EU treaties. Denmark has had 16 constitutional amendment referenda compared to Ireland's 38, but this is partly explained by the fact that the Danish Constition was only introduced in 1953.

ewan whose army

micosoft wrote: »

[/B]

6. Londons success is predicated on being in the EU. No EU, No London...

Interestingly most people outside of London would like to see its bubble burst

Jim2007

micosoft wrote: »

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time.

It is up to each country to decide how to run there decisions making process. Some require qualified majorities in parliament, some have provisions that allows the people to challenge the decisions that are taken, but unless challenged the are accepted and so on.

micosoft wrote: »

The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution.

The UK is unique, but not in a good way... they give complete power to their PM and then complain that none of they were consulted on the EU changes over the years!

micosoft wrote: »

But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds...

Not at all, I've been a Swiss citizen for two years and have voted in 9 amendments so far and they just keep coming!

Frank Lee Midere

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well to start with it is worth pointing out that unlike the UK, the Irish reserve some powers to themselves concerning the running of their country through a written constitution which they alone can change! In change the constitution on joining the EEC in 1974, it was foreseen that the government might need to consult the people several times on the same or similar issues and that is exactly why there is no limit on such consultations! So to suggest that it is some how unconstitutional to hold an other referendum on issue is total nonsense! This has been challenged in the Supreme Court and found to be fully in line with the constitution.

And let's for a minute consider what actually happened: the Irish government negotiated a treat with the EU which the Irish people found unacceptable. The result was that everyone had to sit down and renegotiate: clarify certain issues, grant concessions etc and the go back to the Irish people and seek their agreement. This is a far cry from the situation in the UK where the people have no possibility to press the pause button.

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

Au contrarie. Because parliament is sovereign the EU is less powerful in the UK than Ireland.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is up to each country to decide how to run there decisions making process. Some require qualified majorities in parliament, some have provisions that allows the people to challenge the decisions that are taken, but unless challenged the are accepted and so on.

Not at all arguing that countries should not be allowed decide how they do this. I am suggesting that our approach is sum optimal and does not contribute much other then hugely wasteful referendums that aren't necessary for the types of power being transferred. There is a balance - we haven't got it. We have other means and checks, from our courts, presidency and even Seanad.

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK is unique, but not in a good way... they give complete power to their PM and then complain that none of they were consulted on the EU changes over the years!

As one of the oldest democracies in Europe I suspect the British may disagree. A constitutional referendum is a type of check. There are other ways of checking power such as a strong judiciary, a presidency, second chamber etc.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all, I've been a Swiss citizen for two years and have voted in 9 amendments so far and they just keep coming!

[/QUOTE]
Fair enough - I guess I meant to say within the EU which was my though process. If Ireland is an outlier, Switzerland is the extreme. And in fact it would tend to back up my point - it would be nearly impossible for Switzerland to join the EU given the impossibility of the Swiss Government negotiating when they have to hold referenda at nearly every turn.

FreudianSlippers

porsche959 wrote: »

Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?

Well, it's in our law; not stipulated in any EU Directive. We voted on one thing and rejected it, a new proposal was presented and it was more acceptable to the nation.

That's democracy, not calling results you do not like "anti-democratic".

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?

When your argument is predicated on false pretence it may make sense as a comparison, but in reality it isn't an apt comparison.

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?

Actually, this is routine in parliamentary democracies - a government that is returned with a minority, or with an uncomfortably slim majority, calls an early election in the hope of improving its electoral, and therefore parliamentary, position. Dev used to do it all the time.

As a tactic, in modern times it has become unpopular with the electorate and it can be criticised on a number of grounds, but I've never heard it described as "undemocratic". Governments seeking a mandate either to govern generally, or to implement a particular policy which they consider to be in the common interest, is pretty much the essence of democracy.

Scofflaw

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, this is routine in parliamentary democracies - a government that is returned with a minority, or with an uncomfortably slim majority, calls an early election in the hope of improving its electoral, and therefore parliamentary, position. Dev used to do it all the time.

As a tactic, in modern times it has become unpopular with the electorate and it can be criticised on a number of grounds, but I've never heard it described as "undemocratic". Governments seeking a mandate either to govern generally, or to implement a particular policy which they consider to be in the common interest, is pretty much the essence of democracy.

That's true. You could form a coalition which had as its only agreed goal the running of another election on the basis that the results of this one were silly - or, to put it another way, that the election had produced a situation that couldn't provide stable government.

Could happen in the UK next year...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's true. You could form a coalition which had as its only agreed goal the running of another election on the basis that the results of this one were silly - or, to put it another way, that the election had produced a situation that couldn't provide stable government.

Less dramatically, you can have a government that isn't forced into running an election, but decides to. Used to be quite common, in fact.

FreudianSlippers

The problem is a problem of perception for most. A general election is always just called a general election; Lisbon II would have been perceived by the losing side better if it had a different name - was it fundamentally a vote on the same issue? Yes. Was it a vote on the same treaty? No.

I can't get into this again though... if it starts up again, someone help me find my posts from 2009/2010 where it was discussed into the ground in the politics forum... please!?

Jim2007

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Au contrarie. Because parliament is sovereign the EU is less powerful in the UK than Ireland.

First of all I was not talking about the power of the EU, I was talking about the power of the government to commit the country to an agreement. Secondly the power of the EU is exactly the same in all countries.

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance.

But in a way this can happen. The people go to the polls and elect their chosen candidates and send them to the Dail. If they fail to provide an government or more likely produce a stable government, then it may well end up in there being an election much sooner than expected.

StudentDad

Jim2007 wrote: »

But in a way this can happen. The people go to the polls and elect their chosen candidates and send them to the Dail. If they fail to provide an government or more likely produce a stable government, then it may well end up in there being an election much sooner than expected.

Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the cynicism in Irish politics? Election after election the turnout is so low (30% to maybe 50% if the weather is nice) it's hard to call it a true election.

We have a parliament that's essentially a rubber stamp for the whips to lash through legislation that our elected aristocracy aka cabinet decree. With the same old faces getting elected and their strings being pulled by the usual vested interests, you could hardly call what we have 'representative.'

I don't like Sinn Fein, I do not like their roots or their leadership. For all that they seem quite capable of getting people who would not ordinarily vote to do so, simply because they represent an alternative.

This country needs real change and prior to the last election that's what the politicians were very happy to bleat about. I'm still waiting. Senate reform? Nope. Making the govt. of the day more accountable by making Parliament more relevant? Nope. Elections on Sunday so everyone can vote? Nope.

The list goes on. Plenty of new taxes though. Not so much when it comes to accountability.

SD

Peregrinus

StudentDad wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the cynicism in Irish politics? Election after election the turnout is so low (30% to maybe 50% if the weather is nice) it's hard to call it a true election.

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Scofflaw

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Interestingly, that's a very common mistake - see this, for example: http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/IpsosMORI/perils-of-perception-global/19

cordially,
Scofflaw

StudentDad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Perception is important and those figures are hardly anything to crow about. I know far too many people who just won't vote, it's a non-issue for them. They see voting as a pointless waste of time.

Good to see you agree with the rest of my post though

Scofflaw

StudentDad wrote: »

Perception is important and those figures are hardly anything to crow about. I know far too many people who just won't vote, it's a non-issue for them. They see voting as a pointless waste of time.

Good to see you agree with the rest of my post though

SD

The real turnout figures suggest that the number of people who "just won't vote" is as low as the figure you believed to be the turnout, and which you regarded as indicative of a disaffection with voting. Given only about 30-40% of people are actually non-voters (and some portion of that will be accidental non-voters), I think you have to accept that, by your own logic, as indicating a state of disaffection with non-voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StudentDad

Scofflaw wrote: »

The real turnout figures suggest that the number of people who "just won't vote" is as low as the figure you believed to be the turnout, and which you regarded as indicative of a disaffection with voting. Given only about 30-40% of people are actually non-voters (and some portion of that will be accidental non-voters), I think you have to accept that, by your own logic, as indicating a state of disaffection with non-voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps. Begs the question though. How much fun we could have if those 'disaffected' voters actually turned up and put that x in the box?

Something as simple as voting on Sunday could encourage those extra few