British and the EU

[Elrohir]

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?

And being best buds with the world's sole remaining superpower isn't in British national interest? Right now they have about 5000 troops in Iraq - not terribly significant when compared to the USA's 100,000+. But for that small price, they gain US favor and loyalty at a time when most Americans don't like many other European countries. (Our relationships with France and Germany are only now starting to thaw a bit with Sarkozy and Merkel in charge) Isn't that good for the UK?

 

[Truronian]

And being best buds with the world's sole remaining superpower isn't in British national interest? Right now they have about 5000 troops in Iraq - not terribly significant when compared to the USA's 100,000+. But for that small price, they gain US favor and loyalty at a time when most Americans don't like many other European countries. (Our relationships with France and Germany are only now starting to thaw a bit with Sarkozy and Merkel in charge) Isn't that good for the UK?

If it was a choice between Europe's favour and the favour of America, Europe would win hands down... thankfully that is not the case.

 

[Winner]

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.

Umm, that's innacurate. In some areas like foreign trade, EU 'laws' (they're not called laws, but they work that way) already have a precedence over the national law. All EU countries must agree before something is handed over to Brussels.

Also, in the areas where EU has a full authority, 2/3 majority of countries is required for the law to be adopted.

The so-called constitution wouldn't change that much, it's goal was to make the decision making faster and less complicated.

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.

America is in completely different position. Look at it from a perspective of your member state. Aren't you outraged that the federal government has an authority over Virginia? Of course you're not.

 

[Disenfrancised]

And being best buds with the world's sole remaining superpower isn't in British national interest? Right now they have about 5000 troops in Iraq - not terribly significant when compared to the USA's 100,000+. But for that small price, they gain US favor and loyalty at a time when most Americans don't like many other European countries. (Our relationships with France and Germany are only now starting to thaw a bit with Sarkozy and Merkel in charge) Isn't that good for the UK?

It would be if the relationship with the US was actually fair - the unequal extradition treaties and demands really piss me off.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

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.

It’s just IMO but basically I just know that someone, the French probably, would stop it for some sort of reason. They would say something like ‘The Falklands/Malvinas problem’ is not clear cut and should be sorted out diplomatically… Or some such nonsense; not wanting to upset the Argies.

It all boils down to a question of trust. I am afraid when it comes to military matters, it will have to be a thousand years of an EU superstate before the British can trust the French…

 

[Elrohir]

Umm, that's innacurate. In some areas like foreign trade, EU 'laws' (they're not called laws, but they work that way) already have a precedence over the national law. All EU countries must agree before something is handed over to Brussels.

Also, in the areas where EU has a full authority, 2/3 majority of countries is required for the law to be adopted.

The so-called constitution wouldn't change that much, it's goal was to make the decision making faster and less complicated.

Which is seriously messed up.

Either way, people think they are living in a democracy - and then they see their government agree to something which will override any of the laws they support directly - effectively taking control of the nation out of the hands of the people, and into the hands of EU bureaucrats. I'd be mad too.

America is in completely different position. Look at it from a perspective of your member state. Aren't you outraged that the federal government has an authority over Virginia? Of course you're not.

The USA is one country, Europe is not. Britain is, or should be, a sovereign nation, Virginia is not, and only was for a short period more than 200 years ago. It's hardly the same thing.

And incidentally, federal control over Virginia is only partial, and more importantly, was agreed to by the people of Virginia in a popular vote, approving the US federal constitution. That same step you are saying they don't need to take - your own point falls on it's face.

It would be if the relationship with the US was actually fair - the unequal extradition treaties and demands really piss me off.

When was the last time the US actually demanded anything - "Do this or we'll nuke you, or cut of all times, or whatever"? In what was are the extradition treaties between the US and the UK unequal?

 

[Winner]

And being best buds with the world's sole remaining superpower isn't in British national interest? Right now they have about 5000 troops in Iraq - not terribly significant when compared to the USA's 100,000+. But for that small price, they gain US favor and loyalty at a time when most Americans don't like many other European countries. (Our relationships with France and Germany are only now starting to thaw a bit with Sarkozy and Merkel in charge) Isn't that good for the UK?

Again, what will they gain for their "assistance"? A smile on the face of their masters? (j/k! )

Seriously, I know what you mean, but there is a difference between friendship and vassalage and from a certain point of view, it is sometimes difficult to say where they stand.

The point is that their position seems to be a bit hypocritical. On one hand, they don't want to make small concessions to the EU because they'd be 'against their national interest', on the other hand, they make huge sacrifices for no apparent reason.

 

[Winner]

Which is seriously messed up.

Either way, people think they are living in a democracy - and then they see their government agree to something which will override any of the laws they support directly - effectively taking control of the nation out of the hands of the people, and into the hands of EU bureaucrats. I'd be mad too.

Evil EU bureaucrats are a myth, they're fantasy figures like elves or goblins.

EU is about as democratic as any national government. I vote for my representative in European Parliament (which has the last word on the EU budget), I vote for a party which then forms a government and sends representatives to Brussels.

Actually, the 'constitution' would increase the power of the Parliament and make the EU even more democratic and transparent.

The USA is one country, Europe is not. Britain is, or should be, a sovereign nation, Virginia is not, and only was for a short period more than 200 years ago. It's hardly the same thing.

In principle, it is exactly the same thing. If Americans were as stubborn as the British are now, there would be no US, just some sort of a loose confederation of quarrelling, unimportant mini-states.

And incidentally, federal control over Virginia is only partial, and more importantly, was agreed to by the people of Virginia in a popular vote, approving the US federal constitution. That same step you are saying they don't need to take - your own point falls on it's face.

It doesn't. EU control over its members is much weaker. If we were to adopt a true constitution forming a federal government, then there should be a referendum. This treaty is nowhere close to that, it's just a tool to make EU effective. It is a long, complicated text, nothing like US constitution you voted for.

 

[Virote_Considon]

A simile on the face of the Americans is better than a kick in the bollocks by the Europeans.

 

[Winner]

A simile on the face of the Americans is better than i kick in the bollocks by the Europeans.

Oh please...

 

[bathsheba666]

And being best buds with the world's sole remaining superpower isn't in British national interest? Right now they have about 5000 troops in Iraq - not terribly significant when compared to the USA's 100,000+. But for that small price, they gain US favor and loyalty at a time when most Americans don't like many other European countries. (Our relationships with France and Germany are only now starting to thaw a bit with Sarkozy and Merkel in charge) Isn't that good for the UK?

Not that I approve of blair's actions in the slightest, and feel he should be locked away for it...

However, the 'gaining us favour and loyalty' is empty and meaningless.
Nothing concrete was achieved, bush continued to ignore uk suggestions.

The one thing that might have been worthwhile was when blair said he would use his influence to secure american backing for an israeli palestinian peace deal. this was forgotten along with everything else.

 

[Disenfrancised]

When was the last time the US actually demanded anything - "Do this or we'll nuke you, or cut of all times, or whatever"? In what was are the extradition treaties between the US and the UK unequal?

The one unarguable consequence of the 2003 Act is that there is now an imbalance in the extradition arrangements in force between Britain and the US.

The US government needs only to outline the alleged offence, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect sought.

To extradite from the US, Britain must prove "probable cause".

It is a lower threshold than prima facie evidence but nevertheless a legal hurdle to be overcome.

The senior legal officer of the human rights group, Justice, Sally Ireland, said: "This is a safeguard provided under the US constitution but we can't understand why the British government cannot make the same stipulation."

Sir Menzies said the arrangements were not reciprocal and were a "piece of ineptitude" by the UK Government.

"We have this extraordinary situation in which we essentially have a unilateral treaty," he said.

"Both countries signed this treaty, Britain has ratified it, we've changed our domestic legislation so that it conforms to the treaty.

"But in the United States, the Senate, largely under the influence of the Irish lobby which is determined to prevent any question of suspected IRA terrorists being extradited back to the United Kingdom, simply refuses to sign."

The whole idea of using extradition treaties designed to facilitate anti-terror operations on non-terrorist cases worries me too. Either they should lower their requirements or we should raise ours to be equal.

 

[Whomp]

Rather than creating a bigger union I'm curious why Europeans wouldn't push power down, closer to the people?

I guess this is where Americans differ from Europeans since we trust our local and state governments so much more than the federal government. I wonder if this is same concern from a few UK posters too.

I'm also curious how some of the British posters feel about switching from a common law system?

Globalization has made the world smaller and more interdependent so it's not about trade since that will occur regardless. Is it a common foreign policy that important to some of you?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Rather than creating a bigger union I'm curious why Europeans wouldn't push power down, closer to the people?

I guess this is where Americans differ from Europeans since we trust our local and state governments so much more than the federal government. I wonder if this is same concern from a few UK posters too.

I feel we trust our current government system, at least more than the federal government is trusted, whilst europe has yet to be truly tested as a system.

I'm also curious how some of the British posters feel about switching from a common law system?

Not to keen, but then it won't happen - the way the law is handled and enforced won't change, but rather that law is with the new mandates from the EU.

Globalization has made the world smaller and more interdependent so it's not about trade since that will occur regardless. Is it a common foreign policy that important to some of you?

God yes, we need collective bargining precisely for those trade agreements. Just looking at the way America treats Canada is enough to know that there is strength in numbers. Its the non-economic foreign policy which has fundamental differences in viewpoint.

 

[GinandTonic]

Rather than creating a bigger union I'm curious why Europeans wouldn't push power down, closer to the people?

I guess this is where Americans differ from Europeans since we trust our local and state governments so much more than the federal government. I wonder if this is same concern from a few UK posters too.

I'm also curious how some of the British posters feel about switching from a common law system?

Globalization has made the world smaller and more interdependent so it's not about trade since that will occur regardless. Is it a common foreign policy that important to some of you?

There is an element of mistrust of big government, for sure.

Essentially the UK remains supportive of the trade side of things. As big as the UK, France and Germany are it still makes more sense to unify over many trade issues. Free movement of goods, services and labour within a similar regulatory environment is good for everyone. Having a single market allows us to push our interests against the US and Chinese economies, where individually we would be in a weak position. Hell given the power of the mega-corps only the largest of the Euro nations would have any hope of standing up to them.

From a forign policy perspective we hope for similar benefits, but very often the desires of the member states are too disperate. Also there is a sense that states have a responsibility for their former colonies.

Forign policywise this amounts to us knowing that a united frount would be stronger, but being unwilling to submit to the will of the majority.

The Brits will not exclude a repeat of the Falklands or Seria Leone, the Germans wont undertake offensive opperations, the French dont trust how buddy the Brits are with the Yanks. The Greeks only forign policy is hating the Turks while the Poles love to fight but someone else has to pick up the cheque. The only people with their heads screwed on out of the whole lot seem to be the Dutch, and even they seem to be loosing it these days

 

[EdwardTking]

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.

It is not about being better, it is about perceiving the world differently.

 

[Average Guy]

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 complicared)

When has Britain ever hindered the EU's progress? When it comes to the Euro, the Schengen Area etc Britain has never stopped Europe moving forward even when it wants no part of it.

Most britains also seem to forget how their island(economy) looked like before they joined the europeans in 1973.

And what part did the EU play in our economic recovery?

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.

We went to war with Iraq because Tony Blair thought it was the right thing to do to remove Saddam and i agree with him and iirc so did the governments Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, and most of the EU even if some didn't send forces. The only countries to voice any real opposition were France and Germany. Looking back it seems like such a wasted oppertunity to try out a common EU foriegn policy.

 

[mdwh]

I must say I was staggered by the intensity of the nationalist fervor, ignorance or pure idiocy displayed by the posters there.

The BBC Talk pages are usually full of rubbish. I only hope they aren't representative of the population.

How's it possible? Who is spreading such lies in Britain?

Tabloids like the Daily Mail...

I am more and more inclined to say "if you don't like it, then get the hell out!"

Well I suspect that those people putting forward these views _do_ want to get out of the EU. But the rest of us like being part of the EU.

I agree, those comments are quite mad.

 

[StarWorms]

The BBC Talk pages are usually full of rubbish. I only hope they aren't representative of the population.

They are very right wing. I often take a look at the Have Your Say and it's posts supporting the BNP that are the most recommended. It's far from a cross section of the country.

 

[Elrohir]

Evil EU bureaucrats are a myth, they're fantasy figures like elves or goblins.

I didn't say they were evil. I doubt that they are any more evil than most bureaucrats. They don't change in from continent to continent, or even time to time - I imagine a petty official during the Han Dynasty in China would act in many ways similar to a bureaucrat in the US or UK today.

Not evil, just incompetent and wasteful, on the whole.

EU is about as democratic as any national government. I vote for my representative in European Parliament (which has the last word on the EU budget), I vote for a party which then forms a government and sends representatives to Brussels.

Actually, the 'constitution' would increase the power of the Parliament and make the EU even more democratic and transparent.

With a rotating presidency? With courts that can overrule the will of the people of any nation, regardless of what their laws are? That's democratic?

Great - let's trample democracy in order to make our psuedo democracy more transparent! If the politicians only listen to the people when they feel like it, and ignore them completely when they don't, then you don't live in a democracy at all - you live in a despotism. Democracy is following the will of the people, even if you think they're slightly, or even greatly off. If you don't like that, then stop supporting democracy, and either stay out of government, or try to set up a different style of government where the people have less of a say. But let's not pretend that it is democratic to subvert the peoples will by sneaking legislation in the back door.

In principle, it is exactly the same thing. If Americans were as stubborn as the British are now, there would be no US, just some sort of a loose confederation of quarrelling, unimportant mini-states.

No, it isn't. The EU is not a soveriegn state, the nations that make it up are. The USA is a sovereign nation, the states that make it up are not - they are sovereign in their own way, but not in the same way that a nation, or the USA as a whole is. It is a completely different system, and insisting that they are exactly the same just betrays your ignorance as to how the US system truly works.

If the Continental Congress had tried to sign a "treaty" that gave the King of France authority over the American colonies, (The closest Revolutionary War era comparison to what the UK government is trying to do now to the UK) they would have been hung. If you want to think that the British people are wrong to object, then fine - you have a right to hold your own personal opinion. But don't try to sneak things in the back door and pretend that you aren't subverting democracy when you are.

It doesn't. EU control over its members is much weaker. If we were to adopt a true constitution forming a federal government, then there should be a referendum. This treaty is nowhere close to that, it's just a tool to make EU effective. It is a long, complicated text, nothing like US constitution you voted for.

Yes or no - would this treaty would allow for EU government bodies, courts or legislatures or councils, to overrule the policies or laws of an EU member state? If the answer is no, then I withdraw my objection - but I know the answer is yes, which makes this an issue that the people must be allowed to directly speak on.

The whole idea of using extradition treaties designed to facilitate anti-terror operations on non-terrorist cases worries me too. Either they should lower their requirements or we should raise ours to be equal.

OK, fair enough. I'd say you should raise yours, as I'm not comfortable lowering ours to meet the standards you guys have now for extraditing one of your citizens to America. (How you guys agreed to that one is beyond me) Sounds like you got hosed on this agreement.