[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-May-14, 03:05, said:

Personally I "feel" very much European. It wouldn't occur to me to take into consideration whether the EU is a good thing for a particular member state because I don't identify with any member state in particular.

...

But to be honest I will probably always support Brussels regardless of their policies. Because I just hate nation states.

LOL my feelings could not be more opposite!

[NickRW]

Aberlour10, on 2015-May-14, 03:29, said:

They did.

Every four years they voted in GB for politicans who developed, negotiated and accepted all these changes in the EU during last decades.

Yeah well, that is only superficially true:

1. General elections are about a full range of issues. Voter "X" might be generally in favour of the policies of, say, the Lib Dems (who are the most EU friendly of the main parties) but never the less be antipathetic to the idea of the being in the EU.

2. The main parties are *all* generally in favour of being in the EU, so voters don't have a real choice on the issue (unless you're prepared to vote UKIP - which has a whole bunch of other pros and cons)

3. On more than one occasion the UK public has been promised a referendum on the subject of the EU, but these promises have all been broken.

So basically you can take your assertion that we voted for this mess we find ourselves in and put it somewhere where the sun doesn't shine. (sorry to sound, indeed be, rude - but this is an emotive subject and your assertion is short sighted to say the least)

Nick

[NickRW]

helene_t, on 2015-May-14, 03:05, said:

But to be honest I will probably always support Brussels regardless of their policies. Because I just hate nation states.

Yuck

[Cyberyeti]

My feeling on this (I was too young to vote in the referendum that got us into Europe, but heard the debate) is that the British people voted to enter an economic community, and had they been shown what it had evolved into now, they wouldn't have voted for it. I think large swathes of the UK want no part of the growing political union, but are happy with the economic stuff.

This is made worse by some perverse legal interpretations by the ECHR which is actually nothing to do with the EU, but is seen as part of the whole EU project by many Brits.

[kenberg]

NickRW, on 2015-May-14, 02:19, said:

Stop right there. "We" never joined the EU. What this country voted to join was called, at the time, the Common Market. As we understood it, it was a trading club, not a particularly political entity. The Common Market, at least in principle, was a good idea (if the practicalities left a lot to be desired!). The Common Market evolved in to the EEC and later the EU - which are ever more overt moves in the direction of becoming a full blow European State. Brits never voted for that.

Nick

Ah yes. I thank you for the correction.I now recall being fairly confused as this evolution took place. With the US not being directly involved I settled for sort of watching and sort of understanding. Come to think of it, that's what I often do where the US is directly involved.

[blackshoe]

From over here, the EU is a "nation state". It's just bigger than the individual countries that make it up.

The purpose of the State (any state) is to perpetuate itself and to accumulate power. The EU is no different in that regard.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-14, 07:15, said:

From over here, the EU is a "nation state". It's just bigger than the individual countries that make it up.

The purpose of the State (any state) is to perpetuate itself and to accumulate power. The EU is no different in that regard.

The "State" is an inanimate object of itself; the actors that comprise the "State" are human; it is human choice that drives the "State"; ergo, a fear of the "State" is a fear of humans holding unaccountable power.

[Trinidad]

NickRW, on 2015-May-14, 02:19, said:

Stop right there. "We" never joined the EU. What this country voted to join was called, at the time, the Common Market.

Help me out here. Did the UK actually hold a referendum before they joined the European Economic Community on January 1st 1973? Or was it the Edward Heath government that simply decided to join (backed by the democratically elected parliament)?

Rik

[NickRW]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-14, 07:37, said:

Help me out here. Did the UK actually hold a referendum before they joined the European Economic Community on January 1st 1973? Or was it the Edward Heath government that simply decided to join (backed by the democratically elected parliament)?

Rik

Wiki page here says: "The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath."

[NickRW]

helene_t, on 2015-May-14, 03:05, said:

But to be honest I will probably always support Brussels regardless of their policies. Because I just hate nation states.

Earlier I just said "Yuck". I apologise, that wasn't very constructive.

If you hate nation states, fair enough. They haven't exactly been a pinnacle of virtue pretty much all over the world. However, I really don't see how the administration in Brussels is any better. Indeed I think it is worse.

Nick

[Trinidad]

NickRW, on 2015-May-14, 07:42, said:

Wiki page here says: "The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath."

So, the chronology was as follows:

• The UK government applied to join in 1961. The application was rejected because Charles De Gaulle (France) used his veto.
  
• In 1967, the Uk reapplied and when George Pompidou succeeded De Gaulle, there was no French veto anymore.
  
• Edward Heath, the UK prime minister, negotiated the UK membership and the treaty was signed in 1972.
  
• On January 1st 1973, the UK became a member of the EEC.
  
• More than a year later there were general elections in the UK. This led to the formation of a Labour minority government. This led to new general elections in October 1974. Labour won and formed a government. This government organized a refererendum to see whether the UK should stay in the EEC.
  
• This referendum was held in June 1975, when the UK had been an EEC member for two and a half years. The result was that more than two thirds of the electorate voted to stay in the EEC.

So, there never was any referendum to join the EEC.

So, why should the fact that there never was a referendum to approve the adaptations to the EEC treaty to form the EC and EU be a relevant argument, when the decision to join the EEC in the first place was also only made by the UK government, with parliamentary approval?

Rik

[Vampyr]

I am planning to ask around and see how many of my friends and acquaintances consider themselves "European". For myself, I "feel" English, even though I'm not, and don't "feel" European at all -- even though I have a personal connection to Italy, in that four of my great-grandparents were born there. British I am on the fence about.

Anyway, Europe is a place I visit, not a place I am a part of. And the EU is an organisation to which I pay a lot of money, and the best I hope from their actions and decisions is that they are neutral and don't have too much of an impact on my country.

[RMB1]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-14, 09:58, said:

• This referendum was held in June 1975, when the UK had been an EEC member for two and a half years. The result was that more than two thirds of the electorate voted to stay in the EEC.

That would be remarkable.

67% (of those who voted) voted to stay, on a 64.5% turnout; that is about 43% of the electorate.

[kenberg]

I just want to inject a word of appreciation for an interesting thread that is not about West Baltimore, not about Hillary Clinton, not about the generally dismal state of US politics and so on. Not that these are not also interesting, but I really appreciate having a topic such as this one.

[Aberlour10]

NickRW, on 2015-May-14, 05:05, said:

2. The main parties are *all* generally in favour of being in the EU, so voters don't have a real choice on the issue (unless you're prepared to vote UKIP - which has a whole bunch of other pros and cons)

3. On more than one occasion the UK public has been promised a referendum on the subject of the EU, but these promises have all been broken.

Why? Because the economic advantages to be "in" were by far more important for GB than all these Brussels issues that angered Brits ( and not only them!) in the last 40 years. The wing which supported the "out" was never strong enough in the british community.

And now comes the question "should we stay or should we go" with radical answer, yes or no. Do you think that such an essencial and komplex move can be answered so? That the average Brit voter knows all the economic impacts of such a decission down to his own job, employment etc etc?

[helene_t]

There is a bit of a "not invented here" attitude. Maybe more noticeable here in the north. That people still play four card majors is symptomatic. Now the government wants to get rid of the human rights charter.

I don't mean to say that the British culture is inferior and need to be replaced by a particular foreign culture. Other countries can learn from the British as well. I generally think quite possitively about British culture. The good manners of the locals make it a pleasant place to live. There is an amazing culture of trust which is good for business.

But all cultures stagnate in isolation.

I don't care particularly for the organisation I work for at the moment and I probably won't stay long anyway but it's just an example. With the current attitude to immigration and the thread of leaving the eu I wonder how long we can survive. Maybe if Scotland becomes independent we could move up there.

[Vampyr]

Aberlour10, on 2015-May-14, 11:50, said:

Why? Because the economic advantages to be "in" were by far more important for GB than all these Brussels issues that angered Brits ( and not only them!) in the last 40 years.

And you assume that the politicians had the interests of the ordinary people in mind? Not the special groups that the parties were in bed with? I'd love to see that dream come true.

EDIT: and you say not just "Brits". Why should any people at all have to be made angry in order to be part of an economic group? It's the political union and loss of sovereignty that have caused problems. And these things were and are completely unnecessary, expensive, inefficient, and result in a one-size-fits all approach that doesn't actually fit anyone well.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-14, 16:10, said:

And you assume that the politicians had the interests of the ordinary people in mind? Not the special groups that the parties were in bed with? I'd love to see that dream come true.

EDIT: and you say not just "Brits". Why should any people at all have to be made angry in order to be part of an economic group? It's the political union and loss of sovereignty that have caused problems. And these things were and are completely unnecessary, expensive, inefficient, and result in a one-size-fits all approach that doesn't actually fit anyone well.

Back when I studied this in school, folks always described the EU as an attempt to stop all you idiots from killing each other in droves every 30-40 years.
Losing a small amount of local autonomy was considered a reasonable price to pay.

[akwoo]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-14, 16:10, said:

EDIT: and you say not just "Brits". Why should any people at all have to be made angry in order to be part of an economic group? It's the political union and loss of sovereignty that have caused problems. And these things were and are completely unnecessary, expensive, inefficient, and result in a one-size-fits all approach that doesn't actually fit anyone well.

This is a USian perspective, but...

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to arguments about loss of sovereignty if the people who complain about it the loudest aren't either

1) Wanting more sovereignty in order to discriminate for locals against foreigners (or, in some cases, a certain group of locals against other locals and foreigners), or
2) Wanting more sovereignty in order to use natural resources in ways that benefit only locals but harm everyone around them.

(Yes, restriction of immigration is a form of discrimination for locals against foreigners.)

[helene_t]

For young academics and their employers, eu is a great thing. Diplomas have generally eu-wide validity and you have access to European scholarships and research grants, and there are no legal barrières against migration. UK academic employers would be in dire straights without easy access to continental applicants and European research networks. I started my own career in a eu funded research consortium which gave me an international network which made it easier to find work in the Netherlands and in the UK.

Norway has these advantages also but I don't think that UK will elect for a norwegian solution since liberal immigration rules is the key element and that is exactly what the UK wants to free themselves of.