British and the EU

[Winner]

Yes; there is that blue stuff called sea encircling Britain.

There is no reason why us large islanders should think
like the inhabitants of a land locked small Republic.

There is no reason why the 'great' islanders should think, that the blue stuff makes them better.

It's not much of a sea anyway.

 

[Dame Edna]

The British (English) have been fighting wars for the past thousand years (and more) to prevent becoming part of Europe or dominated by Europe - why give in now?

Britain's situation is similar to Australia's, geographically it is part of a region but has far stronger ties to places further away that share the same culture and language.

The reality is both countries will need to develop closer relationships with their neighbours, but that doesn't mean they have to become the same as them.

 

[Winner]

De Gaulle was with the british euro-skeptics, considering that he wanted to keep the UK away from the EU.

Anyway, while I think the EU is a great idea, I don't see why some of the posters here adopt a "with us or against us" attitude.

Well, that's the problem of having the current system of 'government' in the EU. When a large country like Britain decides it wants to hinder the progress, it can go against all other member states who want something else (hypothetically, EU is a bit more complicated).

The problem with British is, that they see their membership as purely practical thing and nothing more, while people in many other countries expect more from the EU.

So what if the UK wants to stay part of the free-trade/free-movement zone, but do not wish to further integrate politically? That is not a problem for anybody, it's a matter of political choice.

As I explained, it is a problem. EU is like a bunch of friends. Most of them want to go to pub, but few want to stay home and watch TV. Moreover, one from the "stay home" faction thinks that the others are morons. As a result, the majority doesn't get what they want and that pisses them off.

And quite frankly I don't see much point in political integration; the important thing here is the free movement of goods, capital and people and I doubt most or even many britons are against that.

That has already been accomplished. Now, it's the time to move to the next level.

Political integration is necessary, if Europe wants to matter in a globalized world. Small nation states are increasingly irrelevant. The British are saying they want to keep their sovereignty, while they act like some kind of a vassal state of the US. They fail to understand that political integration doesn't mean a loss of their identity. You don't give parts of your sovereignty to Brussels and get nothing in return. Yes, you give up some sovereignty in exchange for greater influence.

The EU could easily have different levels of integration for different associates, in fact this could be a good idea when integrating coutries further East like Turkey.

No. That would trash everything we stand for. Can you imagine that in other countries? US wants to invade Iraq and California, Florida and New York say "No, we're not going anywhere." It would cripple the credibility of the whole country.

By analogy, Europe can't be divided this way. Who would speak for the EU? And how could he do that, if half of the members resisted?

 

[Winner]

The British (English) have been fighting wars for the past thousand years (and more) to prevent becoming part of Europe or dominated by Europe - why give in now?

Because world is fundamentally different now?

We've been fighting with Germans for the last 1000 years, so should we start again? Why the hell should we do that? It's history, we have 21st century now. If we want to succeed in this new world, we have to cooperate.

Britain's situation is similar to Australia's, geographically it is part of a region but has far stronger ties to places further away that share the same culture and language.

Australia is really isolated. It's next neighbour, Indonesia, is FAR, FAR MORE different than France is different from Britain.

The reality is both countries will need to develop closer relationships with their neighbours, but that doesn't mean they have to become the same as them.

Nobody wants that! Jesus Christ, why people think that more united EU means people need to give up their culture or traditions? More integrated EU means more freedom for all of its citizens.

 

[Dame Edna]

The problem with British is, that they see their membership as purely practical thing and nothing more, while people in many other countries expect more from the EU.

What's wrong with that? The fact that people in the smaller less influential European nations dream of greater power and influence through a supra-national body like the EU isn't a good reason for the Brits to cede their sovreignty and culture.

You're sounding like a European chauvinist.

 

[Echse]

It´s pretty clear that the average british person and many of the intellectual have no idea what the EU stands for.

Europe is full of archenemys and it´s a miracle that we do have peace now for over 60 years. Furthermore we learned that if we´re working together we can make a shitload of money.
Take a look at Potugal or Ireland, both were poor catastrophic countries in the 80´s. Now thanks to reforms and a lot of money they managed to get a stable economy.
Most britains also seem to forget how their island(economy) looked like before they joined the europeans in 1973.

I know most europeans don´t like to draw a comparison between modern Germany and the EU. But nearly 200 years after the unification we still have our different cultures and languages(dialects).

I see only one solution: the EU has to start a gigantic publicity and information tour and has to demonstrate/show/explain to the british how they benefit from it.

 

[kryszcztov]

The Brits refusing to further integrate the EU because of the loss of their sovereignty just makes me laugh. The UK is quite nothing on the international scene as I speak. It's just an American puppet. The UK had absolutely NO reason to go to war in Iraq, this was just a completely internal problem for the USA : the war had been designed by the Hawks, and the plan was triggered after September 11. The Brits speak of grandeur, but I only see a country with no political personality, on par with English food for the taste.

Oh, the Brits have successfully fought against many for centuries. So what ? Can't change ? Scared ? Germany is France's best friend today (sadly they don't always show the best example, but that's not the point here).

As for Europe's influence on the international scene, the UK today is just a weight. Worth nothing.

 

[Brighteye]

I'd love to see how would Western Europeans react if the former communist countries suddenly started to favour Russia over the Western Europe, saying they have a lot in common.

Nobody said Britain should break its historic ties, but you should at least make it clear who is more important to you. Because Continental Europeans don't like that, you're sitting on two chairs. How can they trust someone who is constantly seeking a way out? They want a sign of commitment.

It sounds very much as though Britain is a man with more than one woman. The woman who thinks that she is closer wants to cement her power over him by forcing him into some sort of commitment which only benefits her, whereas the man wants to live a good life.

Why should he be forced into settling down? If he's doing better just the way he is, why bind himself to further rules and regulations?

 

[Mise]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's focussing entirely on the differences. Winner sounds like a jealous lover, which is simply fuelling the simmering sense of smug self-satisfaction that all Brits possess (but are characteristically reticent about).

We do think we do things well, or else we'd change them. One thing we as a nation overwhelmingly accept is that free trade with the EU is beneficial for everyone, and this is one thing that we don't intend on changing. It's been a long time since we adopted the metric system (formally if not colloquially) -- an unashamedly French system.

But just because we don't take everything that comes out of the EU as good by default doesn't mean we don't want to take part in it at all. Lets not forget that it was the French and Dutch who killed the constitution.

 

[Dame Edna]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's focussing entirely on the differences. Winner sounds like a jealous lover, which is simply fuelling the simmering sense of smug self-satisfaction that all Brits possess (but are characteristically reticent about).

Some Euros are out doing you for smugness - predictably.

We do think we do things well, or else we'd change them. One thing we as a nation overwhelmingly accept is that free trade with the EU is beneficial for everyone, and this is one thing that we don't intend on changing. It's been a long time since we adopted the metric system (formally if not colloquially) -- an unashamedly French system.

One of the strengths of British culture is pragmatism - pity about the sporting side of things.

But just because we don't take everything that comes out of the EU as good by default doesn't mean we don't want to take part in it at all. Lets not forget that it was the French and Dutch who killed the constitution.

Sounds smart to me. And of course the French never act in self interest.

 

[dosed150]

Because world is fundamentally different now?

We've been fighting with Germans for the last 1000 years, so should we start again? Why the hell should we do that? It's history, we have 21st century now. If we want to succeed in this new world, we have to cooperate.



Australia is really isolated. It's next neighbour, Indonesia, is FAR, FAR MORE different than France is different from Britain.



Nobody wants that! Jesus Christ, why people think that more united EU means people need to give up their culture or traditions? More integrated EU means more freedom for all of its citizens.

isnt australias closest neighbour new zealand,

i always notice on the bbc news have your say the comments are usually dumb on the eu theyre nationalistic, yet when talking about the falklands they all hate britain

how has britain been fighting germans for 1000s of years, germany has only been unified for about 130 years and before that none of the states were really our enemies, prussia fought france aongside us a few times, if anyone in europe is britains old enemy its france

i think britain should get more involved in the eu, at times it seems we're not as much in the eu as the other counties

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well, that's the problem of having the current system of 'government' in the EU. When a large country like Britain decides it wants to hinder the progress, it can go against all other member states who want something else (hypothetically, EU is a bit more complicated).

The problem with British is, that they see their membership as purely practical thing and nothing more, while people in many other countries expect more from the EU.

As I explained, it is a problem. EU is like a bunch of friends. Most of them want to go to pub, but few want to stay home and watch TV. Moreover, one from the "stay home" faction thinks that the others are morons. As a result, the majority doesn't get what they want and that pisses them off.

So, how is Britain, the "stay at home" friend, stopping all the other Europeans who "want to go to the pub" going to the pub? They're not, are they? There's nothing stopping the rest of the EU forming a "super-state", so to speak, but themselves.

The UK is quite nothing on the international scene as I speak.
And I guess France is the model world superpower

The Brits speak of grandeur, but I only see a country with no political personality, on par with English food for the taste.

If we're talking cuisine, then I'd rather have a British Roast than frogs legs and snails any day.

Oh, the Brits have successfully fought against many for centuries. So what ? Can't change ? Scared ?

Not changing hasn't done much bad for us for the past 300 years, has it?

As for Europe's influence on the international scene, the UK today is just a weight. Worth nothing.

Worth about as much as France, then, no?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Winner
First you have to understand that we Brits are particularly upset at the moment with Brown for refusing to give us a referendum on the new Constitution after he (and Blair) specifically promised one in the Labour manifesto that they issued for the 2005 General election.

We Brits are, on the whole, pretty ignorant of the EU and will never understand it properly unless we actually have a nationwide, serious discussion on it. This is something that only a referendum can do – ask France and the Netherlands.
It irritates most of us that time and again successive governments, both Labour and Tory, have refused us a proper discussion of the EU.

Many of us hate the EU through ignorance of what it is and do not want to be a member of a club that we don’t fully understand. Just what nasties are they hiding, we wonder, when they refuse to allow a proper discussion?

We all know why we Brits are refused a referendum on the EU – and that is because we will come up with the wrong answer. Is it right, is it democratic to refuse us a discussion because we will give the wrong answer? It just makes us madder and madder and we hate the unknown EU even more.

If I was asked now to vote on the new EU constitution I would reject it out of hand mainly because we are not allowed to discuss it properly. OTOH, if we had a referendum I do not know what my vote at the end of it would be.

Until we have such a discussion, many Brits are going to continue to believe the stories such as these:

Britain is paying £114,000 a minute to be a member of the EU, it is claimed today.
That is £1,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country.
The report, by the right-wing Bruges Group think-tank, is an attempt to conduct the cost-benefit analysis demanded by many MPs and peers since we joined the then European Economic Community in 1973
Successive governments have refused such a study, arguing the benefits are selfevident. But the research concludes Britain has contributed £213billion to the EU budget since it joined - and forecasts that by 2013 this will have risen to almost £300billion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=478858&in_page_id=1770

And then there is this:

Britain will have to give up its seat on the UN Security Council, a leading European think-tank has warned.
The Skeptika group says the fine print of the new EU treaty will force the surrender of a vital diplomatic power.
The Foreign Office claims it is a 'myth' that the UK will lose its seat to an EU representative. But Skeptika has uncovered a paragraph in the treaty, signed by Tony Blair in one of his last acts in office, which it says will eventually force the move.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475630&in_page_id=1770

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The Brits refusing to further integrate the EU because of the loss of their sovereignty just makes me laugh. The UK is quite nothing on the international scene as I speak. It's just an American puppet. The UK had absolutely NO reason to go to war in Iraq, this was just a completely internal problem for the USA : the war had been designed by the Hawks, and the plan was triggered after September 11. The Brits speak of grandeur, but I only see a country with no political personality, on par with English food for the taste.

Oh, the Brits have successfully fought against many for centuries. So what ? Can't change ? Scared ? Germany is France's best friend today (sadly they don't always show the best example, but that's not the point here).

As for Europe's influence on the international scene, the UK today is just a weight. Worth nothing.

@Winner
The above rather pathetic diatribe is another reason we Brits are somewhat eurosceptic. Who wants to be a member of a club with members like that?

 

[Disenfrancised]

So what ? France also has her "Francophonie", even if it's less intense and smaller. We have very important ties with our French-speaking cousins from Quebec, but that doesn't detract us from going full EU.

Meh, couldn't England just play cricket with her former colonies and leave the rest to Europe ?

About de Gaulle : I'm with him. I think he foresaw the thing all way long.

Its different with Britain and France because:

1) France fewer and smaller settler colonies (Quebec doesn't count), and had very little overseas emmigration to those colonies (except Algeria). And the way they were run was very different.
2) French post WW2 decolonization was much harder and nastier than the British, and thus provided a more effective break with the colonies allowing european integration

The problem with British is, that they see their membership as purely practical thing and nothing more, while people in many other countries expect more from the EU.

Right, and why shouldn't the public look for the best deal from their government? Groups working together out of their own self interest within a unitary political framework gives stability, appealling to the emotional heart springs of power, glory and (supra) nationalism hasn't tended to end pleasently in european history. Britain was built on a policy of pragmatic, internally critical self-aggranizement; idealism, especially Continental idealism, worries a lot of people.

Personally I'm for a federal europe, I just don't think europe is ready. I don't trust national politians to get the framework right when creating something out of whole cloth and so want a very gradual evolution of things. Additionally the lack of europe-wide politcal movements to forge parties out of will result in a federal parliament of bickering and national parties.

On a lighter note, lets bring in some "Yes, Minister" Quotes on the EU.

James Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: [laughs]
James Hacker: May we share the joke?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
James Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
James Hacker: Well why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
James Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission into the human race.

Oh, the Brits have successfully fought against many for centuries. So what ? Can't change ? Scared ?

Not changing hasn't done much bad for us for the past 300 years, has it?

Oh lay off the French, they're only on their 5th republic, it'll be another few dozen before they get it right .

 

[Kyriakos]

Perhaps his tone was less than productive, but the UK is not a global power anymore, surely you realise that. In the last years its foreign policy has been little more than being a dog of the US administration. At the same time it disabled any EU unity in a foreign policy.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Perhaps his tone was less than productive, but the UK is not a global power anymore, surely you realise that. In the last years its foreign policy has been little more than being a dog of the US administration. At the same time it disabled any EU unity in a foreign policy.

Indeed, I'm not too keen on the current (seemingly one-way) relationship dynamic with the US. I do see Blairs reasoning - being part of the coalition means you can help direct it, I just don't think it has worked with the current american administration.

Who says the EU would have any unity on foreign policy if Britain didn't 'block' it? And sure our greater involvement would result in a compromise policy somewhere between the national viewpoints, or the EU isn't representative.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Perhaps his tone was less than productive, but the UK is not a global power anymore, surely you realise that. In the last years its foreign policy has been little more than being a dog of the US administration. At the same time it disabled any EU unity in a foreign policy.

But if Britain is so unimportant, then how the hell is it "disabling", as you put it, all the other EU nations forming into some kind of glorious unity? Either you admit that the UK it a global superpower, or you admit the truth, which is the UK is the easy-to-hate scapegoat to pin down the general consensus feeling among the "European Community", which is that they aren't ready for complete unity.

 

[Dame Edna]

Perhaps his tone was less than productive, but the UK is not a global power anymore, surely you realise that. In the last years its foreign policy has been little more than being a dog of the US administration. At the same time it disabled any EU unity in a foreign policy.

You're right the UK is no longer a global power and Iraq was a stupid decision, although I disagree that Blair was merely being a lapdog to George Bush - hopelessly naive perhaps. However this highlights the problem that a united EU faces, its constituent parts acting in their own (perceived) self interest when it suits them - are you suggesting the French, Germans and Italians don't?

'Yes Minister' should be required viewing for anyone wanting to understand the Westminister system of government - very funny and very true.

 

[kryszcztov]

But just because we don't take everything that comes out of the EU as good by default doesn't mean we don't want to take part in it at all. Lets not forget that it was the French and Dutch who killed the constitution.

Having different ways of accepting the Constitution (referendum, parliament...) was lame in the first place. This text sucked, and you know what ? It was written by a former French President. Killing the Constitution was the right move before thinking better about the future of the EU. Some countries thought that it was better not to think about the future and voted for this text right away. Observe the subtile difference between the people and the governments...

And of course the French never act in self interest.

I bet you're talking about the French administration ? You're totally right. The French administration often acts for its self interest, and this angers me a lot. There's really a place to criticize the French administration. Observe the subtile difference between the people and the governments...

And I guess France is the model world superpower

Nope. But the UK is so damn small on the international scene. Smaller than France. Where was the UK in March 2003 while de Villepin tried to prevent the Iraq disaster at the UN ? Now, if Tony Blair had joined Chirac and Schroeder to oppose this war, could the USA have thought about it again ?

If we're talking cuisine, then I'd rather have a British Roast than frogs legs and snails any day.

I've never eaten frogs. And snails very rarely (tastes good though). You surely don't want to continue this discussion, do you ? (I say that, I'm a terrible cooker myself).

The above rather pathetic diatribe is another reason we Brits are somewhat eurosceptic. Who wants to be a member of a club with members like that?

I speak for myself, not for France. I'm being rude for a reason.

Oh lay off the French, they're only on their 5th republic, it'll be another few dozen before they get it right .

Having thought about it more than you over the years probably, we were able to understand that waging war for no good reason in Iraq was definitely stupid.