Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I do not see MANY people arguing along the lines “the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU” Some ? yes ! for sure. But that applies to any aspect of the discussion as to whether we stay or leave. Very dangerous and disingenuous to tar ALL of the UK with EVERY point of view ALL the time !

Not necessarily individuals ... but certain members of the ruling classes while not stating it in those words appear to have that thought.  Take Borris Johnson ... his suggestion that should UK vote no there will be chance for another renegotiation - that kind of thinking implies that the EU would be somewhat desperate to keep the UK.

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

winkyincanada posted:

As I sit here I find it almost unbelievable that the small-minded, paranoid racists might actually achieve this. I thought the UK was better than this.

I think there is a racist element in some of the outers, but what I have notice particularly recently is a breathtaking arrogance in attitudes towards our EU partners. This was shown in the claim that they need us more than we need them, but also in our ability to identify such matters as the democratic deficit, economic problems and so forth which the continental population is of course largely unaware of.

I do not see MANY people arguing along the lines “the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU” Some ? yes ! for sure. But that applies to any aspect of the discussion as to whether we stay or leave. Very dangerous and disingenuous to tar ALL of the UK with EVERY point of view ALL the time !

 

Don

I gave that as an example of British (English?) arrogance; I did not maintain that everyone in the UK held that view.

Clive

Clive, whilst I do acknowledge that point of view has been expressed, I consider that so few people in the UK think along those lines that it is completely misleading to offer it as "an example of British (English?) arrogance".

As I said in an earlier post, the press are having a field-day picking quotes from one or two people and presenting them as "facts" of how the entire nation thinks !

Don,

I don't really understand your position here. I have heard people saying this on the radio and read it quoted in the newspaper. It seems to me therefore to be perfectly legitimate to cite it as an example of British or English arrogance. Moreover, as I said in my original post, there are other aspects of this arrogance to be seen in the denigrating comments about the EU which suggest that we have a monopoly on an understanding of democracy, and that we are a really important world economy so the rest of the EU should really reform themselves with our advice if they want to do better. All this surely is part of the general tenor of the pro-leave view and not simply the position of one or two people. Frankly, I find it embarrassing because the constant exceptionalism claimed by us must be extremely tiresome and insulting to nations like France, Italy, Spain Germany, etc who surely also have a stake in democracy and their sovereignty.

Clive

It seems to have kicked off in a negative fashion with both sides (of the Conservative party) throwing fear bombs around like confetti.  It reminds me of the referendum on Scottish independence where, despite the Better Together Unionist side having 300 years worth of a Union they believed in to cherry pick positive arguments for remaining in, they played an almost totally negative hand.  The fact Better Together's campaign became popularly known as 'Project Fear' tells it's own story.

Drawing on my experience of the Scottish referendum, if you think the negativity and scare stories are bad now, just you wait for the final 4 to 6 weeks to kick in.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I do not see MANY people arguing along the lines “the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU” Some ? yes ! for sure. But that applies to any aspect of the discussion as to whether we stay or leave. Very dangerous and disingenuous to tar ALL of the UK with EVERY point of view ALL the time !

Not necessarily individuals ... but certain members of the ruling classes while not stating it in those words appear to have that thought.  Take Borris Johnson ... his suggestion that should UK vote no there will be chance for another renegotiation - that kind of thinking implies that the EU would be somewhat desperate to keep the UK.

 

Well we are the second biggest contributor to the EU

If the voting is anywhere close especially on a low turnout then June 23rd will be just the beginning

Cdb posted:

 

 

Don,

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

winkyincanada posted:

As I sit here I find it almost unbelievable that the small-minded, paranoid racists might actually achieve this. I thought the UK was better than this.

I think there is a racist element in some of the outers, but what I have notice particularly recently is a breathtaking arrogance in attitudes towards our EU partners. This was shown in the claim that they need us more than we need them, but also in our ability to identify such matters as the democratic deficit, economic problems and so forth which the continental population is of course largely unaware of.

I do not see MANY people arguing along the lines “the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU” Some ? yes ! for sure. But that applies to any aspect of the discussion as to whether we stay or leave. Very dangerous and disingenuous to tar ALL of the UK with EVERY point of view ALL the time !

 

Don

I gave that as an example of British (English?) arrogance; I did not maintain that everyone in the UK held that view.

Clive

Clive, whilst I do acknowledge that point of view has been expressed, I consider that so few people in the UK think along those lines that it is completely misleading to offer it as "an example of British (English?) arrogance".

As I said in an earlier post, the press are having a field-day picking quotes from one or two people and presenting them as "facts" of how the entire nation thinks !

Don,

I don't really understand your position here. I have heard people saying this on the radio and read it quoted in the newspaper. It seems to me therefore to be perfectly legitimate to cite it as an example of British or English arrogance. Moreover, as I said in my original post, there are other aspects of this arrogance to be seen in the denigrating comments about the EU which suggest that we have a monopoly on an understanding of democracy, and that we are a really important world economy so the rest of the EU should really reform themselves with our advice if they want to do better. All this surely is part of the general tenor of the pro-leave view and not simply the position of one or two people. Frankly, I find it embarrassing because the constant exceptionalism claimed by us must be extremely tiresome and insulting to nations like France, Italy, Spain Germany, etc who surely also have a stake in democracy and their sovereignty.

Clive

 

Hi Clive, my position is quite straight foreword. Despite a few, mainly right-wing Conservatives and the self-interested Press, I don't see many people in the UK arguing that the EU needs the UK more than vice versa.

Perhaps the good people of West Berkshire, North Hampshire and Wiltshire are the only non-arrogant people of the UK.....................?

Rattlesnaic posted

Well we are the second biggest contributor to the EU

If the voting is anywhere close especially on a low turnout then June 23rd will be just the beginning

 

That's because we have a large population. Take a look at contributions per head of population of the EU countries.

Rattlesnaic posted:

If the voting is anywhere close especially on a low turnout then June 23rd will be just the beginning

A second referendum WOULD be political suicide (IMO). Especially after all the brouhaha about suggestions that Scotland could have a second referendum...

Salvo posted:

The Manifesto put forward proposals for creating a European federation of states, the primary aim of which was to tie European countries so closely together that they would no longer be able to go to war with one another. As in many European left-wing political circles, this sort of move towards federalist ideas was argued as a reaction to the destructive excesses of nationalism. The ideological underpinnings for a united Europe can thus be traced to the hostility of nationalism: "If a post war order is established in which each State retains its complete national sovereignty, the basis for a Third World War would still exist even after the Nazi attempt to establish the domination of the German race in Europe has been frustrated" (founding meeting of the MFE)…."

We do not need an ever closer EU to prevent war, that is what NATO was created for before the EU and before the EEC (Common Market). Not only to stand together against any USSR threat in the 50's and 60's but also any attack by any country against a NATO county was an attack against ALL NATO countries.

Ken

Southweststokie posted:

Salvo posted:

The Manifesto put forward proposals for creating a European federation of states, the primary aim of which was to tie European countries so closely together that they would no longer be able to go to war with one another. As in many European left-wing political circles, this sort of move towards federalist ideas was argued as a reaction to the destructive excesses of nationalism. The ideological underpinnings for a united Europe can thus be traced to the hostility of nationalism: "If a post war order is established in which each State retains its complete national sovereignty, the basis for a Third World War would still exist even after the Nazi attempt to establish the domination of the German race in Europe has been frustrated" (founding meeting of the MFE)…."

We do not need an ever closer EU to prevent war, that is what NATO was created for before the EU and before the EEC (Common Market). Not only to stand together against any USSR threat in the 50's and 60's but also an attack by any country against a NATO county was an attack against ALL NATO countries.

Ken

NATO comes into play only when war is imminent or ongoing and only against enemies from the outside. NATO can't do anything to prevent the root causes of war and these usually are unresolved conflicts between countries. By trade, summits, compromises, permanent institutions like EU parliament etc the EU plays an essential part to resolve conflicts before they can escalate into open hostility or war.

Willy posted:

I don't think they will, at least not on their own. However there appears to be a significant number of large-minded, rational, non-racists who consider the EU, in it's present form, to be undemocratic, and economically inefficient and have reached the conclusion that it cannot be reformed from within. Like myself they will probably have, with some measure of sadness for what we believe the EEC could have been, decide to vote out. 

 

Willy.

+1

Ken

jfritzen posted:

Southweststokie posted:

Salvo posted:

The Manifesto put forward proposals for creating a European federation of states, the primary aim of which was to tie European countries so closely together that they would no longer be able to go to war with one another. As in many European left-wing political circles, this sort of move towards federalist ideas was argued as a reaction to the destructive excesses of nationalism. The ideological underpinnings for a united Europe can thus be traced to the hostility of nationalism: "If a post war order is established in which each State retains its complete national sovereignty, the basis for a Third World War would still exist even after the Nazi attempt to establish the domination of the German race in Europe has been frustrated" (founding meeting of the MFE)…."

We do not need an ever closer EU to prevent war, that is what NATO was created for before the EU and before the EEC (Common Market). Not only to stand together against any USSR threat in the 50's and 60's but also an attack by any country against a NATO county was an attack against ALL NATO countries.

Ken

NATO comes into play only when war is imminent or ongoing and only against enemies from the outside. NATO can't do anything to prevent the root causes of war and these usually are unresolved conflicts between countries. By trade, summits, compromises, permanent institutions like EU parliament etc the EU plays an essential part to resolve conflicts before they can escalate into open hostility or war.

 

But it does. Any nation thinking about attacking a NATO country knows it cannot win it's argument or resolve t's disagreement by military force because it will have to answer to NATO.

Willy posted:

............................................ there appears to be a significant number of large-minded, rational, non-racists who consider the EU, in it's present form, to be undemocratic, and economically inefficient and have reached the conclusion that it cannot be reformed from within. Like myself they will probably have, with some measure of sadness for what we believe the EEC could have been, decide to vote out. 

 

Willy.

I almost missed this post Willy.

I consider it an excellent response to winky and a rather neat over-view of what many people I have spoken to, think..................up to the point at which way they might vote.

In my experience so far, the Ins and Outs of such people are more or less equally split.

Willy posted:

winkyincanada posted:

As I sit here I find it almost unbelievable that the small-minded, paranoid racists might actually achieve this. I thought the UK was better than this.

I don't think they will, at least not on their own. However there appears to be a significant number of large-minded, rational, non-racists who consider the EU, in it's present form, to be undemocratic, and economically inefficient and have reached the conclusion that it cannot be reformed from within. Like myself they will probably have, with some measure of sadness for what we believe the EEC could have been, decide to vote out. 

 

Willy.

Hi Willy

What an insightful post.  I read a statement today by Lord Owen, the former Labour Foreign Secretary.  His statement appears to mirror your sentiments almost exactly.  In summary, his view is UK as part of Europe, yes please, but not as part of the EU in its current form, for it is too undemocratic, too rigid, too inefficient and too corrupt.  If it could be more able to respond to changing circumstances that are beyond its control and could be more democratic, then it would be a wonderful thing to be part of. 

I do wonder how many people in the UK are of this mind, yet also of the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

No wonder pollsters have a hard time gauging how the UK will vote.  Most of us don't even know ourselves, as we wrestle internally with this conundrum.  

There, that's better.  I have wanted to air the word conundrum for some time and this appears to be the place to do it.

Yours, scratching his head a bit, FT

My view of the Eurosceptics is that they range right across the political spectrum to the point where it seems something not related to party politics.

One may not warm to Nigel Farage, but if one does not, then one might be happy that Lord Owen is also for out.

Actually, I think that David Owen has a made some very useful points about what are the possible outcomes. 

As for the poster who suggested that because I support leaving, that I should shut the door behind me, I must say that they have mis-understood my motivations. Far from shutting the door [with the EU member States] what I would prefer is that we continue to trade, and respect our respective cultures and politics, but that we take control of issues that are potentially risky for the continued stability of the UK.

But of course there is always the risk that because some - we shall find out if there is a majority - that share my misgivings about the current direction of travel of the EU, this may upset the confirmed Euro-federalists. 

Anyway I would recommend that people study the past, work out the historical direction of travel of the EU, and work out if the UK should sign up to continued movement in that direction. Nothing stands still, and Euro-federalism is the way most of the continental states want to go. 

Twenty miles of sea separate us from France, and that makes quite a difference to how the people of the UK view things compared with countries with land borders. Being an island culture is quite different to being a continental one, in whatever continent.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

 

Twenty miles of sea separate us from France, and that makes quite a difference to how the people of the UK view things compared with countries with land borders. Being an island culture is quite different to be a continental one, in whatever continent.

 

Hi,

Now that the topic is back, (though, having not visited the forum for a few days, I missed the reasons why it was temporarily taken down), I can only reiterate my point of view from a couple of days ago.

I wouldn't disagree with your views there George, but I do feel that many of the folks who might opt for the UK departing the EU are more disillusioned with the whole federal Europe thing.

Just to repeat my earlier comments, we in the UK believed at the time that we were entering a "Common Market" free trade area, rather than a European superstate, and in the years that have passed, have come to realise that our various politicians had a quiet different hidden agenda.

So, those who decide to vote to leave, might well have little consideration for the various economic arguments either way, but are rather, more simply, expressing their views on the mandarins in Brussels.

Dave.

Dear Dave,

I believe that you have hit on the historical direction of travel as I am, and it seems that you probably are old enough to remember how we were persuaded to vote to join the EEC in the first place. 

I suspect that there is a real moderate ground-swell of opinion [across the moderate political spectrum] in the UK that will support reversing our 1970s vote to be in the EEC. 

I could be wrong, but I do believe that a test in the form of a referendum is a healthy thing. I shall support the result, whether it runs as I wish in advance, or not.

I am old enough to know that the heat of debate that is inevitable before the vote is mere candy-floss compared to the historical evidence that is easy enough to study.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Dave,

I believe that you have hit on the historical direction of travel as I am am and it seems that probably are, old enough to remember how we were persuaded to vote to join the EEC in the first place. 

 

ATB from George

Am I correct in beginning to believe that a great many of us naysayers, who base our point of view on rejection of the EuroState concept are, shall we say, of a certain, age?

Help.............I'm turning into my Dad! 

Aw ra best.............(yes, I'm Scottish!)

Dave

Dear Dave,

Because us wrinklies are surviving into old age, at least we do have numbers on our side!

ATB from George

I certainly don't class myself as a wrinkly. And I remember David Owen leaving Labour for the SDP. An unprincipled moron then and doubtless little changed today. Embrace Europe or shrivel into an inconsequential nothing, with bad food, bad dress sense, bad climate and no industry because business has decamped across the Channel. Owen, Gove, Farage, Johnson, they are all ****wits, as our Bridge would have said. Viva Europa!

Dear Nigel,

We embrace Europe as a Sovereign State, not as a Province.

And David Owen is not a half-wit.

At least I’ll not be invited to Emsworth Towers!

Best wishes, George

I would really like to see a manifesto for the out campaign, i.e. What would we get if we were to vote to leave? What would Britain (UK if you insist) be like? Only armed with that information will we really be able to make an informed decision. Hopefully, Mr Johnson, Lord Lawson, Mr Gove et al will, over the next four months, give us that vision. However, for that to happen I suspect we need to go through the disintegration of the Conservative Party first and there's no time for that. Having said that it makes me wonder what sort of party Mr Cameron envisages after the referendum, even if the vote goes his way.

The next general election is going to be interesting!

G

The sooner the Tories self destruct the better. At least it will stop them destroying the entire public sector. If Cameron had the balls, he would gave stood up to UKIP and his own right wing. He's got what he deserves for being so spineless. 

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Dave,

Because us wrinklies are surviving into old age, at least we do have numbers on our side!

ATB from George

 

Jeez, George. You're the same age as me. We have another 30 years before we're old.