British and the EU

[Winner]

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.

Germany or France are small, less influential European nations? Wow, you really don't suffer from low self-esteem...

Anyway, this is exactly the old type of thinking that must go away, if Europe wants to play a significant role in the future. It's not about which European nation will gain more, it's about whether we all will profit.

 

[Virote_Considon]

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...

So where's the argument about the British not wanting to accept this new treaty which we have been told is almost exactly the same as this failed constitution?

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 ?

I do believe we were in Iraq not listening to a word Chirac and Schroeder had said. So much for your bigger-than-us attitude.

And maybe we didn't want to avoid this Iraq "disaster". I certainly support the war to this very day, thinking it right that we liberated Iraq from the Despot Saddam. The fact that the country has plunged itself into shows not how much the invasion was bad, but that both sides (mostly Sunni and Shi'ite (SP?)) are very, very paranoid that the power vacuum will be filled by either another Sunni Saddam, or a vengeful Shi'ite hellbent on repaying the Sunni community for what Saddam had done to them. I think they will eventually sort this out when they realize that neither side actually wants a new despot filling the void!

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).

Then I have won

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.

I don't see what was wrong about furthering our interests in Iraq. We didn't like Saddam in power, and because of some disastrous policy of "boxing him in" so he could rule for a further 10+ years in the early 90's, we could only do one thing about it, which was finally disposing of him.

At the very best, in the region we could have earned a powerful ally and trading partner in the region, and at the very worse, a movement supporting Saddam could have formed and put into power either him again or a like-minded thinker, which would have mean no gains, but of course, option A. has yet to possibly play itself out, and option B. doesn't look like it's coming any time soon!

 

[Winner]

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?

Because if he don't settle down, he'll die as a lonely moron nobody cares about.

 

[Disenfrancised]

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.

a) Where the hell do you get off making assumptions about what I've thought about? We're just avatars and post histories here - you don't know me.
b) I too objected to the war in iraq as it was proposed, went on protest marches and wrote letters and what not. The idea was flawed and the methodology terrible.

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 ?

Smaller impact than France? I'd say its about the same. The UK government was supporting the Iraq war, didn't you notice?

Now, if Tony Blair had joined Chirac and Schroeder to oppose this war, could the USA have thought about it again ?

Nope, the Bush administration were pretty damn set on the war (with 70%+ approval ratings), which is why Blair tired to join with the Americans in order to influence their policy...didn't work of course.

Germany or France are small, less influential European nations? Wow, you really don't suffer from low self-esteem...

He wasn't talking about germany or France, and you know that .

Because if he don't settle down, he'll die as a lonely moron nobody cares about.

Actually Britain could do rather well as a neutral independent nation, like Norway or Switzerland, gaining from our premier financial instituions. We wouldn't have impact on the world stage but no one would mess with us and Britain would be prosperious.

 

[Winner]

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).

I merely explain the views some people have.

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.

Look at the OP. The people there don't seem to understand, that EU brings any benefits at all.

It reminds me of that "Yes, minister!" epizode in which Jim Hacker tried to win votes by defending the traditional British sausages. When he learned what are they made from, he almost threw up, but still defended them against the evil Brussels

This show explains much about the British and the EU: Why Britain joined...

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.

If it hadn't been them, Britain would have killed it for sure.

 

[Winner]

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.

Because it is impossible. To do what you propose would mean that the "go to pub" members would have to form another organization and integrate on its basis, while the EU would become an extended, redundant organization existing only to appease the few troublemakers.

No, thanks.

 

[Virote_Considon]

If it hadn't been them, Britain would have killed it for sure.

Still! Even when Britain wasn't involved in killing this constitution, they're still blamed for its failure! I bet if Britain became the #1 Pro-Euro nation, they'd still get blamed for their lack of embracing and general attitude towards Europe!

 

[Disenfrancised]

Look at the OP. The people there don't seem to understand, that EU brings any benefits at all.

Look, we've been over this - the people who post in HYS are idiots and jackasses . They are only a few rungs above youtube comments.

If it hadn't been them, Britain would have killed it for sure.

Perhaps - if we'd been allowed a referendom on it .

 

[Winner]

@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?

Well, I disagree on how he put it on, but you must admit that there is some truth in that.

Brits say they only follow their national interest and that's why they oppose further integration. So how exactly was the war in Iraq in their interest? From the outside point of view, it looks like that Britain went to Iraq just to appease the US, don'T you think?

 

[Virote_Considon]

Because it is impossible. To do what you propose would mean that the "go to pub" members would have to form another organization and integrate on its basis, while the EU would become an extended, redundant organization existing only to appease the few troublemakers.

No, thanks.

No they wouldn't! If I'm going out for the night, and some of my friends don't feel like it (which is quite common for them!), then I say "oh, well, maybe next time", and go out and have my fun night out!

Just because Britain might not want to fully integrate into the EU yet, it doesn't mean that no-one else can! Some of my friends not going out one night doesn't control what I do for the rest of the night! And neither should this supposed British attitude where Britain is only dabbling its toes in the water! They may not feel like jumping around without their armbands just yet, even in the shallow end of the pool, but that shouldn't stop the rest of this "united" Europe plunging in head-first from the highest diving board into the deep end!

 

[Winner]

No they wouldn't! If I'm going out for the night, and some of my friends don't feel like it (which is quite common for them!), then I say "oh, well, maybe next time", and go out and have my fun night out!

That's how it should work, but not how it really works

Just because Britain might not want to fully integrate into the EU yet, it doesn't mean that no-one else can! Some of my friends not going out one night doesn't control what I do for the rest of the night! And neither should this supposed British attitude where Britain is only dabbling its toes in the water! They may not feel like jumping around without their armbands just yet, even in the shallow end of the pool, but that shouldn't stop the rest of this "united" Europe plunging in head-first from the highest diving board into the deep end!

Simply put, any such arrangement would require a British consent (treaties would have to be changed), which is something about as possible as me becoming their King.

 

[Virote_Considon]

That's how it should work, but not how it really works

It's how it always works for me

Simply put, any such arrangement would require a British consent (treaties would have to be changed), which is something about as possible as me becoming their King.

And why wouldn't you have British consent for such an action? Us British don't care if the Continent sprouted three arms and four legs and renamed itself Aethpia, so long as we could do things in our own time!

 

[Winner]

Still! Even when Britain wasn't involved in killing this constitution, they're still blamed for its failure! I bet if Britain became the #1 Pro-Euro nation, they'd still get blamed for their lack of embracing and general attitude towards Europe!

French refused the Constitutional TREATY because they were

a) Idiots
b) they thought the treaty is too "anglo-saxon".

Dutch refused it because they were

a) Idiots
b) they thought it would open doors for new immigrants and let Turkey join the EU

British would refuse it because:

a) they're idiots
b) they would think it's too "french"

Poles would refuse it because according to them Poland, the unquestionable greatest country in the whole Universe, should have more votes than France and Germany combined.

Czechs would refuse it just because they're stupid.


As you can see, I am not a fan of referendums. People rarely even understand what's it all about, so they decide emotionally.

 

[Winner]

It's how it always works for me


And why wouldn't you have British consent for such an action? Us British don't care if the Continent sprouted three arms and four legs and renamed itself Aethpia, so long as we could do things in our own time!

Because they would be left behind without power to block the rest. See the video I linked

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Brits say they only follow their national interest and that's why they oppose further integration. So how exactly was the war in Iraq in their interest? From the outside point of view, it looks like that Britain went to Iraq just to appease the US, don'T you think?

Iraq was of course a mistake, but if we were integrated into Europe with a single European army when Argentina invaded the Falklands then those islands would still be under Argentinean hands I have no doubt.

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.

I think of it more like a bunch of neighbours suddenly coming over all crazy and deciding ‘Let’s all get married’. Some of us on the other hand are more cautious and just want to remain friends. This rejection of marriage by us seems to upset many of you.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I've seen the video, but in reality, why wouldn't you have British consent?

 

[Winner]

Iraq was of course a mistake, but if we were integrated into Europe with a single European army when Argentina invaded the Falklands then those islands would still be under Argentinean hands I have no doubt.

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

Single European army (nobody proposes that yet anyway) would mean, that it would be impossible to distinguish between an attack against a member state and an attack against the whole Union.

I think of it more like a bunch of neighbours suddenly coming over all crazy and deciding ‘Let’s all get married’. Some of us on the other hand are more cautious and just want to remain friends. This rejection of marriage by us seems to upset many of you.

It's not marriage, just a club. It has it's rules, but the membership benefits all its members.

 

[Winner]

I've seen the video, but in reality, why wouldn't you have British consent?

I explained that - they'd lose their influence. In the EU, they have a strong position. If the rest integrated without them, they'd lose it. If they didn't care what the rest of Europe is doing, they'd never join in the first place.

 

[Elrohir]

I have no idea if most of those allegations in the OP are true, so I can't comment. I will say, though, that if my government tried to sign a constitution superceding all US laws and constitutions under the guise of ratifying a treaty, I'd be pretty ticked off about it.

Actually, in America you'd probably have assassination attempts or something - you can see how people here get so worked up about the so-called North American Union conspiracy theory, which has absolutely no basis at all in reality. The response would be ten times as violent and a hundred times as large if the government really was trying to do what the British government is doing. But hey, if you guys want to stand for it, then that's fine with me.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I explained that - they'd lose their influence. In the EU, they have a strong position. If the rest integrated without them, they'd lose it. If they didn't care what the rest of Europe is doing, they'd never join in the first place.

Well, judging by most of the replies in this thread, the UK doesn't have a strong position in the EU

But I still don't get why you'd need British consent- if you were to go ahead and unite, what could the UK possibly do to stop you? If we pulled out, the EU wouldn't exactly become crippled, and it would probably damage us more than you! (And we don't need another Black Wednesday, neither!) Militarily, Britain wouldn't even think about intervening in the EU, and I can't see any other strings for this "internationally weak" Britain to pull!