From a global perspective many people find some Briton's anti-European perspective very hard to understand. The world has already moved toward very large trading blocks of nations and the UK has not got much realistic choice but to throw its lot in with the EU.
The rules of the game are very simple, we already do 50% of our trade with European partners if we decided to leave the EU or only take part on terms that suit us and they are not agreeable to then we are very likely to see that trade decline rapidly.
The EU, quite rightly, will not let us take the good bits of a union like trading status unless we also take the bits we don't like as well like the legal aspects and that is not an unfair position.
If we "left" Europe then where on earth would that leave us? The Americans are locked into NAFTA (which is also unpopular, although for different reasons) and down here in Asia Pacific the ASEAN nations are also moving towards creating a very strong trading block.
As individual entities the European nations don't have a lot of global weight compared to 400 million plus people in NAFTA and 2 billion plus in ASEAN but a strong EU does have some chance of success as a global player.
The EU is an easy whipping boy for nationalists and cynical politicians but it has already done a hell of a lot of good work, most of which goes unpublicised, and life outside the EU would be a very, very bleak prospect for the UK.
If we left the EU then we would basically be blocked from trading on favorable terms with its members which would be an economic disaster. Where would we turn to then? The Yanks? You think they want to buy our products/services with their already huge CA deficits and trade imbalance - you must be joking!
Being left as a standalone little island in the middle of the seas is not a very appetising prospect for the future of Britan.
I'm British, a little Englander, a Democrat and the current Government promised me I could vote on whether or not we should intergrate further, both politically and fiscally, with Europe.
They lied.
I haven't had my democratic right to tell my Government what I think is best for my Country. They promised me that.
My thoughts may be wrong, they may not be what the rest of the Country thinks is right and I will accept the will of the people. The problem is this Government doesn't. Brown DOESN'T have mandate to do what he wants and he is cheating the rest of the population.
I don't believe our future does lie in Europe and neither does a large percentage of the population. Problem is all you 'Europeans' know that if you give the prolls the vote it will turn against you.
Excellent post OA. It's not a popular view because most in the UK have this idea of this major world power sitting at the very top table, p*ssing with the big boys like USA, China etc. The reality is much different when it comes to economics. Like workers clubbing together to form unions to support one another and combat the power of the bosses, so nations now need to do that. Could we go it alone like say Norway. Well we are a much larger country than Norway in population terms and to sustain our markets now, outside the EU trading in would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
Do we like all the laws and customs of the EU? Of course not. Much could be altered to our benefit. The big question for me is do we want to be inside the tent, negotiating from strength and gaining advantages as well as disadvantages, or outside the tent, looking in, having to deal with the trading laws they produce but having no influence over them/helping to shape them.
So bring on the "in or out" referendum I say!! Lets get out there and spread the positive message of what the EU does for our country and combat the Murdoch led rant that deals in half truths and propaganda about the ills of a Union that has on balance, been good for our country.
Murdoch = global Press Magnate with huge influence over Governments who's empire is threatened by the EU.
"The Sun says" = balanced rational view on EU affairs or self-serving propaganda organ for it's owner.
We have a balance of payments defecit with Europe. If we stop trading, who is it going to effect more? What can Europe provide us that we can't get elsewhere in this Global Economy?
They decide to make trading difficult with us so we stick 100% import duties on all European goods - my God will they panic.
Europeans will continue to buy British goods and vice versa whether we're in Europe or not.
Couple of points as well Ormiston. How does the rest of the World know about this 'anti European perspective' in the UK? Wasn't it recently The French and The Swedes who had a 'no' referendum. And anyway we aren't European. We're an Island race, a bastard race, and we alwys will be unless we have another ice age.
We managed the greatest trade routes in the world for nearly 300 years, so how about going back to some of our 'old friends' in The Commonwealth, who I believe we have let down badly since 1975.
And personally, I quite like the idea of being a 'little stand alone island in the middle of the sea'. Australia's not done too bad out of it have they?
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]But Britain doesn't have a written constitution.
I'm British, a little Englander, a Democrat and the current Government promised me I could vote on whether or not we should intergrate further, both politically and fiscally, with Europe.
They lied.
I haven't had my democratic right to tell my Government what I think is best for my Country. They promised me that.
My thoughts may be wrong, they may not be what the rest of the Country thinks is right and I will accept the will of the people. The problem is this Government doesn't. Brown DOESN'T have mandate to do what he wants and he is cheating the rest of the population.
I don't believe our future does lie in Europe and neither does a large percentage of the population. Problem is all you 'Europeans' know that if you give the prolls the vote it will turn against you.
Europe needs us more than we need Europe.
I have some sympathy for the Brown breaking his promise point but we do not have a constitution written or otherwise which says that elected governments have to carry out what they put in the manifesto. Politicians can win elections on a mandate and then not carry out any thing they said they are going to do. In the end, when the next general election is called, we can forgive them for breaking a promise, or chuck them out. That's how it works.
If you read my post you will see that I am arguing for a referendum on an "In or Out" basis, thats hardly not wanting to give the prolls a vote.
I have no problem about having referenda like in Ireland or Switzerland where they have a constitutional duty to put such matters to the people. We have a parliamentary representative democracy. We elect our "peers" to represent us and vote as they think fit for what they judge is beneficial to their constituents and the country.
Voting for them may be a good idea (although Menzies Campbell is no longer their leader so I don't know how this stands anymore).
I'm not sure about the Lib Dems but I'm definately not voting for Labour or Conservative. And please no-one start talking about 'wasted votes' or 'tactical voting'. No such things exist. Just vote for what you believe in.
The marginal constituencies are always the one's that 'swing it' for a party to win a GE and form a Government. I would always tactically vote in a marginal.
Problem is for a lot of constituencies where there is an enormous majority for one candidate, then other votes are 'wasted'.
Abolish ALL party politics and let the electorate vote in 650 independant MPs and they can then choose the Government.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite] And anyway we aren't European. We're an Island race, a bastard race, and we alwys will be unless we have another ice age.
We managed the greatest trade routes in the world for nearly 300 years, so how about going back to some of our 'old friends' in The Commonwealth, who I believe we have let down badly since 1975.
And personally, I quite like the idea of being a 'little stand alone island in the middle of the sea'. Australia's not done too bad out of it have they?
Firstly the vast majority of us on this Island have roots in continental Europe. Secondly going cap in hand to former Empire is very unlikely to replace the trade we will lose by withdrawing from the EU. - Perhaps you are pulling our p*ssers if you are suggesting that.
I don't believe our future does lie in Europe and neither does a large percentage of the population. Problem is all you 'Europeans' know that if you give the prolls the vote it will turn against you.
Europe needs us more than we need Europe.
So in the end you make my point which is that you are like most who are calling for a referendum on this treaty/constitution and want out of Europe completely.
As I said lets have a referendum. I'm also a democrat. Let people listen to both sides of the argument rather than the one sided Murdoch/Thompson led propaganda. Lets truely measure what is gained and what is lost. If that ends in our withdrawal fine, it will be a mistake in my view but I will live with it. I suspect that when the case is put for staying in, the result will not be the foregone conclusion some anti Europeans think it will.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I don't think Lincoln's even in the UK if you talk to some of the locals - or if it is in the UK it's still back in the 16th century!
Off to the Notts/Lincolnshire border next week. Will have to find a pub with SKy to sneak to Saturday lunch time. Or least one with electricity and then just hope.
Just to throw my two cents in I think the point has been missed on the 'being promised a referendum' thing. I'm big enough and ugly enough to be deemed fit to vote and I will vote. Whether I think I know better than an elected idiot or not is neither here nor there, it is my right surely?
The man that is currently resising as our Prime Minister promised me that. And now he has conveniently neglected that promise.
Makes him a liar.
I don't claim to know how to solve things but whoever I vote for will conspire to look after their own interests as opposed to they're voters instead. I would like to see the parliment run like some crap like x factor to reflect a real time mood of a nation.................
[cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]Just to throw my two cents in I think the point has been missed on the 'being promised a referendum' thing. I'm big enough and ugly enough to be deemed fit to vote and I will vote. Whether I think I know better than an elected idiot or not is neither here nor there, it is my right surely?
The man that is currently resising as our Prime Minister promised me that. And now he has conveniently neglected that promise.
Makes him a liar.
I don't claim to know how to solve things but whoever I vote for will conspire to look after their own interests as opposed to they're voters instead. I would like to see the parliment run like some crap like x factor to reflect a real time mood of a nation.................
With respect it doesn't make him a liar. Telling something untrue knowing it to be so at the time is a lie. We have no way of proving that he/ The Labour Party never had any intention of allowing a referendum when he/they made that manifesto commitment. What it does mean is that the he/they are untrustworthy regards manifesto commitments. That makes them less likely to be voted back next time to form a government and lessens his chance of remaining PM.
The only sure thing we know is that if the oppostion cannot muster enough votes in parliament for a referendum, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Addickted: I have only just re-logged on to CL so I did not see some of the points you addressed to me until just now.
OK, in terms of Australia's position as an "isolated" island politically, well, we are in a very hazardous position down here if the truth be told. At the moment we are able to give the middle finger to the rest of Asia because we are sitting on huge amounts of mineral wealth (coal, iron ore, copper, bauxite, uranium, gold....) which we are selling to the Chinese to fuel their booming economy.
Nobody else round here has these resources so we are able to get away with our disdain for the rest of the region because economically we are up to our necks in cash.
However, this resources boom will not last forever and when it ends then we are going to be up the creek without a paddle because having thumbed our nose at Asia since 1996 when Howard got in then they are not going to look too kindly at any kind of rapprochment anytime soon which will put us in a very tricky spot politically.
The rest of Asia is moving slowly but inexorably toward an EU like trading block, particularly the southeast Asian nations like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and even Vietnam so if they form that and exclude Australia then we are in a very tight spot given that we depend on them for a lot of our exports.
Your point about still selling our goods and services in Europe even as a non EU member is important and worth addressing because it cuts to the heart of the debate. At the moment the EU will allow that kind of trade (from non-member to member) to take place but once it moves toward a more integrated union they will obviously, and quite understandably, come under pressure from member states to restrict trade with non-EU member states in order to make it worthwhile for the nearly 30 or so member states to actually be members.
That is when things will start to get very dicey for British industry and commerce who, if you notice, may be quick to criticise the EU on some point of order but will not call for withdrawal because their members would be at a huge disdadvantage.
In terms of Britan supposedly losing its "identity" I really think this has been the subject of huge overkill in the press. Look at the way that the US has developed, for example, over the last 250 years. There are still huge historical and cultural differences between various American states, just because they have a political union does not mean there is a cultural equality between its 300 million people.
Just look at the difference between, say, a patrician New Englander from Massachusetts or Vermont to a brash southwesterner from Arizona or New Mexico. Or indeed, the difference between a rural southerner from Louisiana and a software genius from Seattle - there is a world of difference and that would be doubly enshrined in Europe because of the linguistic and religious differences betwee nations.
As to your second question, querying what "international" opinion has to do with the EU question. Well, I travel a fair bit for work and when I talk to people in south-east Asia they are very confused about Briton's attitude to the EU because they see a very different picture on the EU than most Brits to (ie, they see a positive image) and wonder why on earth Britain wants to be on the outside being a barrier to the EU rather than pushing its considerable political weight to being the main player in the EU along with France and Germany and shaping the EU in the way that it wants - and its hard to explain that very easily!
Anyway, I am sure we will have different views on this matter but at least we have been able to debate it in a civil manner.
Why do people get confused about British isolationism?
To be honest I don't know if I would vote yes or no at the moment however what I would like is some decent open debate on the subject. If it's in the best interests of the country then fine, lets hear why and then have the vote on it that i was promissed.
Brown does himself no favours by bullshitting us, when his own committees say that this treaty is just the consititution by another name and his so called red lines are written in sand.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Lisbie[/cite]To be honest I don't know if I would vote yes or no at the moment however what I would like is some decent open debate on the subject. If it's in the best interests of the country then fine, lets hear why and then have the vote on it that i was promissed.
Brown does himself no favours by bullshitting us, when his own committees say that this treaty is just the consititution by another name and his so called red lines are written in sand.
Exactly - If we have nothing to lose then tell us what it means to us and let us decide.
The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up.
If its so brilliant for the country and the rest of the EU, then what have you got to lose and why rename it to sneak it through? Didn't the French and Dutch people reject it, yet its still being passed..... If this treaty has a many positives as some would lead is to believe, then why has it been previously rejected by the populace of countries that traditionally do not share our sceptical view of all things EU?
This is not based on Murdoch propaganda, a term which OA seems to like to use to insinuate that we, those that are sceptical, are too thick to understand what is happening, whilst himself taking the treaty at face value, IMO showing a huge amount of naivety, but fact.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Lisbie[/cite]To be honest I don't know if I would vote yes or no at the moment however what I would like is some decent open debate on the subject. If it's in the best interests of the country then fine, lets hear why and then have the vote on it that i was promissed.
Brown does himself no favours by bullshitting us, when his own committees say that this treaty is just the consititution by another name and his so called red lines are written in sand.
Exactly - If we have nothing to lose then tell us what it means to us and let us decide.
The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up.
If its so brilliant for the country and the rest of the EU, then what have you got to lose and why rename it to sneak it through? Didn't the French and Dutch people reject it, yet its still being passed..... If this treaty has a many positives as some would lead is to believe, then why has it been previously rejected by the populace of countries that traditionally do not share our sceptical view of all things EU?
This is not based on Murdoch propaganda, a term which OA seems to like to use to insinuate that we, those that are sceptical, are too thick to understand what is happening, whilst himself taking the treaty at face value, IMO showing a huge amount of naivety, but fact.
Where does your scepticism come from then CD? You say "The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up", suggests that you have not got a grasp of the detail and are listening to the views of those most in tune with your thoughts. I'm not criticising you for that for those on both sides of the argument including myself do the same, but why are the pro Europeans showing "naivety" where as you as a sceptic are not?
I would love a debate about what is good and bad about our membership of the EU. We don't have that at present.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Gump[/cite]And OA doesn't even live in Britain...;-)[/quote]
Yes, that's right, I don't live in the UK any longer and probably won't do again. However, living OS for an extended time gives you a very different perspective on the UK and I think that many Brits don't realise how wealthy the country has become and how well it is doing compared to the rest of the world.
When I came back in April for my first trip home since 2002 I was expecting to find some big changes with Romanian/Somalian/Polish/Bulgarian and assorted Arabic refugees hanging out on every street corner furiously draining resources from the honest British tax-payer which is, of course, what The Sun and The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph would have you believe.
Instead, it still looked pretty much the same place where I lived the first 25 years of my life except a lot wealthier with loads more flash cars around and plush new houses with a lot of folk seeming to be able to afford nice consumer goods and decent holidays.
The UK is a truly amazing place and becomes even more so when you get a different perspective on it from so far away and realise what wonders have been crammed into such a small island.
However, I happen to believe that Britain would be far better served as a driving force from within Europe rather than acting on its own outside the EU in a world where economies of scale are beginning to assume critical importance.
Having said that I wish the Europhiles in the UK government would be a lot bolder in their plans and take on the argument head on rather than try and do everything behind a cloak of darkness which really exacerbates their problems in moving ahead with the issue.
"What do they know of England who only England know"
Very interesting post OA. If I just read the press or listen to certain people like Jon Gaunt on radio phone ins etc I would have the same image of England as a wasteland overrun by crime, immigrants and bendy buses.
Fortunately I also walk, drive and take public transport around the capital and see quite a different London. I walked up the back street from the National Gallery to St Christopher's place (a Diagon Alley off Oxford st) last week. Money, history, culture, commerce everywhere.
On the EU I think we wheel has turned to far now to go back. We are into stay regardless and we should try to get more, not less influence and power within it. Will we lose the pint? No, EU has said they aren't going to ban it. Will we have to suffer the euro sausage. Not likely. Will we have to give up the Queen? Hasn't effected Sweden, Norway, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and their royal families.
Fine, argue about how much it costs, how much is wasted, how it could be improved but it's not going to go away.
There are two points to this debate that are completely releveant from both sides;
1) We as a population have been lead, when repeatedly asked from the other bench in commons debates, to believe that we would be asked in a referendum whether we wanted to take the proposed european constitution. This didn't happen! That is lying to a population no matter how you sugar coat it with, "its not our constitution" for him to go back on a election mandate. Unfortunately, we may be a wealthier and wealthier country but greed breeds blindeness and stupidity (as does a welfare state, but thats for another time). The main "The Sun" reading populace do not know the setup of the country and regardless of whether they feel we should be in or out of the EC, will see that we have been lied to.
To change the treaty marginally, give it a new name and quietly sign during a rugby world cup, football qualification and F1 championship week is disgraceful IMO.
2) We as a country trades fairly equally with the EU and the states. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/trd0607.pdf If we were to throw the oppurtunuty to dominate the EU away, that would be foolish. You are talking half our total trade, billions of pounds. Most of europe has pissed off the US with War actions etc and we are seen as a financial pin for a more stable global economy. As much as it pained me to see Blair sucking up to that fecking numpty, econimically ONLY, it was a smart move in hindsight.
However, we are in the EU, like it or leave it. We must be an important part of the setup for them to change some of the legislations and we should go forward with the attitude to bullying the French and Germans. We need to keep our eyes wide open from now in and get the best deal for the future ahead. We are a succesful economy and we should strive to be a leader within the EC.
As an aside, I'm concerned with a number of issues within the treaty. One being that we have the potential to have our police scrapped and a super power from Brussells dictacte our policing... Unclear to how it would exist, but its unnerving for the future. This also includes the possiblity of having an american style FBI, that would be under european laws and jurisdiction.
If we vote in a savvy PM, and go into this as a nation looking to be the leader of a new super trading block, then we'll do just fine.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Lisbie[/cite]To be honest I don't know if I would vote yes or no at the moment however what I would like is some decent open debate on the subject. If it's in the best interests of the country then fine, lets hear why and then have the vote on it that i was promissed.
Brown does himself no favours by bullshitting us, when his own committees say that this treaty is just the consititution by another name and his so called red lines are written in sand.
Exactly - If we have nothing to lose then tell us what it means to us and let us decide.
The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up.
If its so brilliant for the country and the rest of the EU, then what have you got to lose and why rename it to sneak it through? Didn't the French and Dutch people reject it, yet its still being passed..... If this treaty has a many positives as some would lead is to believe, then why has it been previously rejected by the populace of countries that traditionally do not share our sceptical view of all things EU?
This is not based on Murdoch propaganda, a term which OA seems to like to use to insinuate that we, those that are sceptical, are too thick to understand what is happening, whilst himself taking the treaty at face value, IMO showing a huge amount of naivety, but fact.
Where does your scepticism come from then CD? You say "The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up", suggests that you have not got a grasp of the detail and are listening to the views of those most in tune with your thoughts. I'm not criticising you for that for those on both sides of the argument including myself do the same, but why are the pro Europeans showing "naivety" where as you as a sceptic are not?
I would love a debate about what is good and bad about our membership of the EU. We don't have that at present.
My scepticism stems from the constitution having been rejected by other countries, yet they try and push it through, relatively unchanged, but with the word constitution removed from the title. This has been confirmed in leaked papers from Merkel.
If it will deliver so many positives then why the need to be so cloak and dagger? Hence my feelings on the naivety
My scepticism stems from the constitution having been rejected by other countries, yet they try and push it through, relatively unchanged, but with the word constitution removed from the title. This has been confirmed in leaked papers from Merkel.
If it will deliver so many positives then why the need to be so cloak and dagger? Hence my feelings on the naivety
Fair enough but perhaps you might consider that almost all EU treaty type announcements take this kind of course.
Scenario A - Germany wanted the Constitution so they can say, "The Treaty is substantially the same as the Constitution"
but take these two example statements:
1. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will be harmonised"
2. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will not be harmonised"
The change from 1. to 2. can satisfy both the statements,
"the second is at least 90% the same as the first"
and
"the second phrase is completely different to the first"
That's what we have here with Merkell and Brown's different slant on things. Its actually the detail that counts. So who is naive? Well perhaps it's all of us who have not grasped enough of the detail and listen only to those we generally tend to trust to inform our view, which was the point in my earlier post.
The Labour Govt didn't want the Constitution and indeed were praying that it would not be agreed. Now they can claim that the document isn't a "Constitution", because - well it's not called one, therefore it isn't. This allows Brown to riggle off the referendum hook. In practice from what I understand, the "red line" opt out which we have negotiated, were pretty much the same as ones we would have insisted upon if the Constitution became a reality.
So where does that leave us.
Well the Tory's smell some embarassing stuff for Brown so insist on a referendum (because they want to sound tough on Europe again after their shambles of the Major and post Major years). It also allows most of them (even the pro-europeans) to rally around the same policy.
The Lib Dems rather liked the Constitution and know that the best chance they can have of having it is for it to be called a Treaty then they, like Labour can say, its not the same as the Constitution. They are then saying once the Treaty is ratified, there should be an "in or out" referendum. This I agree with but they are really only saying it to sound "democratic" and protect their votes in Tory/Lib Dem areas
Labour have got to govern and know, as did Major before them, that they have a problem negotiating in the EU if every time there are things they don't like they say that they are going to have a referendum: given that all the States they are negotiating with know there is no constitutional reason for them holding one. That they and some allies have got the whole "Constitution", thing out of the Treaty with Europe now not having a separate "personality" with a foreign minister etc, is seen by them as a big result. I suspect that they know they can command a majority of both Houses on this basis (with Lib Dem support if necessary) and with the opt outs actually secured, probably feel this is the best they could achieve from a difficult position that they had with the old "Constitution" scenario.
UKIP just want out of the EU.
For me, as I have said over and over again, the benefits of being in, out weigh the benefits of being out for many reasons and I am frustrated that the debate is always hijacked (not in this thread, I admit) by "british" sausages, straight banana's, the Germans taking over and "who won the bloody war anyway" kind of nonsense.
A small example of my frustration can be summed up by the following story:-
I ran a small retail business here in Norwich for a number of years. When I took the business over, everything was weighed out for customers in pounds. The law at the time required us to weigh things in kilograms. We introduced this. If I had £1 for every time a customer moaned and blamed the EU, I'd be a rich man.
"I don't understand this metric nonsense" said most customers over 40. Most under 40 were entirely au fait with it. For those of an older generation in particular, it seemed to be about an erosion of British way of life, with people a frightened of/reluctant to engage in change. Younger people on the other hand through things learned at school were fine. So for those wishing to keep pounds and ounces, I always used to ask them how much volume was a "bushell", and how many "chains" there were in a "furlong". Very few knew the answer. Metric measurements make so much sense yet we as a country still hang on to the illogical imperial measurements.
After we introduced metric bag sizes, within a few weeks people were usually ok with it.
I read somewhere that the original plan to introduce metric measurements was in 1870. Something still not properly embraced some 137 years later.
I sold chemical fertilzers and pesticides. Some were withdrawn due to licencing issues. Pretty much everybody moaned and immediately blamed EU, even though it had nothing to do with it.
Its the fear of change thats at the heart of this. Change is not always for the worse. Being stuck in an EU slow lane, holding out for the status quo when all others wish to move forward; or even worse coming out altogether will be incredibly perilous for our whole economy. That said we need a debate/referendum badly, to fix us in or out for another generation. I wish they would bring it on. (I can't see it happening though).
When people use the term 'Sun readers' what makes you a typical Sun reader? Or Guardian reader for that matter?
I buy the Sun every day but very rarely get the chance to read it. God knows how anyone would find the time to even scan the bloody guardian let alone read one on a regular basis.
I'm guessing that the average 'sun reader' is percieved as not knowing their arsehole from their earhole about anything other than football or x fecking factor?
I treat politics and politicians with the contempt they deserve but think I know what I need to know as far as that they seem to be very good at lying and deception. Which in turn makes me think, it doesn't matter how much I know the ins and outs of a monkeys arsehole about an issue as it will always be handled in the way a politician feels it will benefit them
Comments
The rules of the game are very simple, we already do 50% of our trade with European partners if we decided to leave the EU or only take part on terms that suit us and they are not agreeable to then we are very likely to see that trade decline rapidly.
The EU, quite rightly, will not let us take the good bits of a union like trading status unless we also take the bits we don't like as well like the legal aspects and that is not an unfair position.
If we "left" Europe then where on earth would that leave us? The Americans are locked into NAFTA (which is also unpopular, although for different reasons) and down here in Asia Pacific the ASEAN nations are also moving towards creating a very strong trading block.
As individual entities the European nations don't have a lot of global weight compared to 400 million plus people in NAFTA and 2 billion plus in ASEAN but a strong EU does have some chance of success as a global player.
The EU is an easy whipping boy for nationalists and cynical politicians but it has already done a hell of a lot of good work, most of which goes unpublicised, and life outside the EU would be a very, very bleak prospect for the UK.
If we left the EU then we would basically be blocked from trading on favorable terms with its members which would be an economic disaster. Where would we turn to then? The Yanks? You think they want to buy our products/services with their already huge CA deficits and trade imbalance - you must be joking!
Being left as a standalone little island in the middle of the seas is not a very appetising prospect for the future of Britan.
I'm British, a little Englander, a Democrat and the current Government promised me I could vote on whether or not we should intergrate further, both politically and fiscally, with Europe.
They lied.
I haven't had my democratic right to tell my Government what I think is best for my Country. They promised me that.
My thoughts may be wrong, they may not be what the rest of the Country thinks is right and I will accept the will of the people. The problem is this Government doesn't. Brown DOESN'T have mandate to do what he wants and he is cheating the rest of the population.
I don't believe our future does lie in Europe and neither does a large percentage of the population. Problem is all you 'Europeans' know that if you give the prolls the vote it will turn against you.
Europe needs us more than we need Europe.
Do we like all the laws and customs of the EU? Of course not. Much could be altered to our benefit. The big question for me is do we want to be inside the tent, negotiating from strength and gaining advantages as well as disadvantages, or outside the tent, looking in, having to deal with the trading laws they produce but having no influence over them/helping to shape them.
So bring on the "in or out" referendum I say!! Lets get out there and spread the positive message of what the EU does for our country and combat the Murdoch led rant that deals in half truths and propaganda about the ills of a Union that has on balance, been good for our country.
Murdoch = global Press Magnate with huge influence over Governments who's empire is threatened by the EU.
"The Sun says" = balanced rational view on EU affairs or self-serving propaganda organ for it's owner.
They decide to make trading difficult with us so we stick 100% import duties on all European goods - my God will they panic.
Europeans will continue to buy British goods and vice versa whether we're in Europe or not.
Couple of points as well Ormiston. How does the rest of the World know about this 'anti European perspective' in the UK? Wasn't it recently The French and The Swedes who had a 'no' referendum. And anyway we aren't European. We're an Island race, a bastard race, and we alwys will be unless we have another ice age.
We managed the greatest trade routes in the world for nearly 300 years, so how about going back to some of our 'old friends' in The Commonwealth, who I believe we have let down badly since 1975.
And personally, I quite like the idea of being a 'little stand alone island in the middle of the sea'. Australia's not done too bad out of it have they?
I have some sympathy for the Brown breaking his promise point but we do not have a constitution written or otherwise which says that elected governments have to carry out what they put in the manifesto. Politicians can win elections on a mandate and then not carry out any thing they said they are going to do. In the end, when the next general election is called, we can forgive them for breaking a promise, or chuck them out. That's how it works.
If you read my post you will see that I am arguing for a referendum on an "In or Out" basis, thats hardly not wanting to give the prolls a vote.
I have no problem about having referenda like in Ireland or Switzerland where they have a constitutional duty to put such matters to the people. We have a parliamentary representative democracy. We elect our "peers" to represent us and vote as they think fit for what they judge is beneficial to their constituents and the country.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?id=13155&navPage=news.html
Voting for them may be a good idea (although Menzies Campbell is no longer their leader so I don't know how this stands anymore).
I'm not sure about the Lib Dems but I'm definately not voting for Labour or Conservative. And please no-one start talking about 'wasted votes' or 'tactical voting'. No such things exist. Just vote for what you believe in.
Problem is for a lot of constituencies where there is an enormous majority for one candidate, then other votes are 'wasted'.
Abolish ALL party politics and let the electorate vote in 650 independant MPs and they can then choose the Government.
Firstly the vast majority of us on this Island have roots in continental Europe. Secondly going cap in hand to former Empire is very unlikely to replace the trade we will lose by withdrawing from the EU. - Perhaps you are pulling our p*ssers if you are suggesting that.
So in the end you make my point which is that you are like most who are calling for a referendum on this treaty/constitution and want out of Europe completely.
As I said lets have a referendum. I'm also a democrat. Let people listen to both sides of the argument rather than the one sided Murdoch/Thompson led propaganda. Lets truely measure what is gained and what is lost. If that ends in our withdrawal fine, it will be a mistake in my view but I will live with it. I suspect that when the case is put for staying in, the result will not be the foregone conclusion some anti Europeans think it will.
Hope this helps the debate.
Should have gone to Brown's Pie Shop in Lincoln. Excellent pies.
is Lincoln in the EU?
Off to the Notts/Lincolnshire border next week. Will have to find a pub with SKy to sneak to Saturday lunch time. Or least one with electricity and then just hope.
Citizens of Lincoln have always believed that Lincoln was situated in England.
They've never heard of the UK, whatever that is ..... ;o)
Better check the constitution...:-)
The man that is currently resising as our Prime Minister promised me that. And now he has conveniently neglected that promise.
Makes him a liar.
I don't claim to know how to solve things but whoever I vote for will conspire to look after their own interests as opposed to they're voters instead. I would like to see the parliment run like some crap like x factor to reflect a real time mood of a nation.................
With respect it doesn't make him a liar. Telling something untrue knowing it to be so at the time is a lie. We have no way of proving that he/ The Labour Party never had any intention of allowing a referendum when he/they made that manifesto commitment. What it does mean is that the he/they are untrustworthy regards manifesto commitments. That makes them less likely to be voted back next time to form a government and lessens his chance of remaining PM.
The only sure thing we know is that if the oppostion cannot muster enough votes in parliament for a referendum, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
OK, in terms of Australia's position as an "isolated" island politically, well, we are in a very hazardous position down here if the truth be told. At the moment we are able to give the middle finger to the rest of Asia because we are sitting on huge amounts of mineral wealth (coal, iron ore, copper, bauxite, uranium, gold....) which we are selling to the Chinese to fuel their booming economy.
Nobody else round here has these resources so we are able to get away with our disdain for the rest of the region because economically we are up to our necks in cash.
However, this resources boom will not last forever and when it ends then we are going to be up the creek without a paddle because having thumbed our nose at Asia since 1996 when Howard got in then they are not going to look too kindly at any kind of rapprochment anytime soon which will put us in a very tricky spot politically.
The rest of Asia is moving slowly but inexorably toward an EU like trading block, particularly the southeast Asian nations like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and even Vietnam so if they form that and exclude Australia then we are in a very tight spot given that we depend on them for a lot of our exports.
Your point about still selling our goods and services in Europe even as a non EU member is important and worth addressing because it cuts to the heart of the debate. At the moment the EU will allow that kind of trade (from non-member to member) to take place but once it moves toward a more integrated union they will obviously, and quite understandably, come under pressure from member states to restrict trade with non-EU member states in order to make it worthwhile for the nearly 30 or so member states to actually be members.
That is when things will start to get very dicey for British industry and commerce who, if you notice, may be quick to criticise the EU on some point of order but will not call for withdrawal because their members would be at a huge disdadvantage.
In terms of Britan supposedly losing its "identity" I really think this has been the subject of huge overkill in the press. Look at the way that the US has developed, for example, over the last 250 years. There are still huge historical and cultural differences between various American states, just because they have a political union does not mean there is a cultural equality between its 300 million people.
Just look at the difference between, say, a patrician New Englander from Massachusetts or Vermont to a brash southwesterner from Arizona or New Mexico. Or indeed, the difference between a rural southerner from Louisiana and a software genius from Seattle - there is a world of difference and that would be doubly enshrined in Europe because of the linguistic and religious differences betwee nations.
As to your second question, querying what "international" opinion has to do with the EU question. Well, I travel a fair bit for work and when I talk to people in south-east Asia they are very confused about Briton's attitude to the EU because they see a very different picture on the EU than most Brits to (ie, they see a positive image) and wonder why on earth Britain wants to be on the outside being a barrier to the EU rather than pushing its considerable political weight to being the main player in the EU along with France and Germany and shaping the EU in the way that it wants - and its hard to explain that very easily!
Anyway, I am sure we will have different views on this matter but at least we have been able to debate it in a civil manner.
Why do people get confused about British isolationism?
Brown does himself no favours by bullshitting us, when his own committees say that this treaty is just the consititution by another name and his so called red lines are written in sand.
Exactly - If we have nothing to lose then tell us what it means to us and let us decide.
The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up.
If its so brilliant for the country and the rest of the EU, then what have you got to lose and why rename it to sneak it through? Didn't the French and Dutch people reject it, yet its still being passed..... If this treaty has a many positives as some would lead is to believe, then why has it been previously rejected by the populace of countries that traditionally do not share our sceptical view of all things EU?
This is not based on Murdoch propaganda, a term which OA seems to like to use to insinuate that we, those that are sceptical, are too thick to understand what is happening, whilst himself taking the treaty at face value, IMO showing a huge amount of naivety, but fact.
Where does your scepticism come from then CD? You say "The fact that he has said it is NOT the constitution, yet other leaders have said it is in everything but the name, It smacks of some sort of cover up", suggests that you have not got a grasp of the detail and are listening to the views of those most in tune with your thoughts. I'm not criticising you for that for those on both sides of the argument including myself do the same, but why are the pro Europeans showing "naivety" where as you as a sceptic are not?
I would love a debate about what is good and bad about our membership of the EU. We don't have that at present.
Yes, that's right, I don't live in the UK any longer and probably won't do again. However, living OS for an extended time gives you a very different perspective on the UK and I think that many Brits don't realise how wealthy the country has become and how well it is doing compared to the rest of the world.
When I came back in April for my first trip home since 2002 I was expecting to find some big changes with Romanian/Somalian/Polish/Bulgarian and assorted Arabic refugees hanging out on every street corner furiously draining resources from the honest British tax-payer which is, of course, what The Sun and The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph would have you believe.
Instead, it still looked pretty much the same place where I lived the first 25 years of my life except a lot wealthier with loads more flash cars around and plush new houses with a lot of folk seeming to be able to afford nice consumer goods and decent holidays.
The UK is a truly amazing place and becomes even more so when you get a different perspective on it from so far away and realise what wonders have been crammed into such a small island.
However, I happen to believe that Britain would be far better served as a driving force from within Europe rather than acting on its own outside the EU in a world where economies of scale are beginning to assume critical importance.
Having said that I wish the Europhiles in the UK government would be a lot bolder in their plans and take on the argument head on rather than try and do everything behind a cloak of darkness which really exacerbates their problems in moving ahead with the issue.
Very interesting post OA. If I just read the press or listen to certain people like Jon Gaunt on radio phone ins etc I would have the same image of England as a wasteland overrun by crime, immigrants and bendy buses.
Fortunately I also walk, drive and take public transport around the capital and see quite a different London. I walked up the back street from the National Gallery to St Christopher's place (a Diagon Alley off Oxford st) last week. Money, history, culture, commerce everywhere.
On the EU I think we wheel has turned to far now to go back. We are into stay regardless and we should try to get more, not less influence and power within it. Will we lose the pint? No, EU has said they aren't going to ban it. Will we have to suffer the euro sausage. Not likely. Will we have to give up the Queen? Hasn't effected Sweden, Norway, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and their royal families.
Fine, argue about how much it costs, how much is wasted, how it could be improved but it's not going to go away.
1) We as a population have been lead, when repeatedly asked from the other bench in commons debates, to believe that we would be asked in a referendum whether we wanted to take the proposed european constitution. This didn't happen! That is lying to a population no matter how you sugar coat it with, "its not our constitution" for him to go back on a election mandate.
Unfortunately, we may be a wealthier and wealthier country but greed breeds blindeness and stupidity (as does a welfare state, but thats for another time). The main "The Sun" reading populace do not know the setup of the country and regardless of whether they feel we should be in or out of the EC, will see that we have been lied to.
To change the treaty marginally, give it a new name and quietly sign during a rugby world cup, football qualification and F1 championship week is disgraceful IMO.
2) We as a country trades fairly equally with the EU and the states. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/trd0607.pdf
If we were to throw the oppurtunuty to dominate the EU away, that would be foolish. You are talking half our total trade, billions of pounds. Most of europe has pissed off the US with War actions etc and we are seen as a financial pin for a more stable global economy. As much as it pained me to see Blair sucking up to that fecking numpty, econimically ONLY, it was a smart move in hindsight.
However, we are in the EU, like it or leave it. We must be an important part of the setup for them to change some of the legislations and we should go forward with the attitude to bullying the French and Germans. We need to keep our eyes wide open from now in and get the best deal for the future ahead. We are a succesful economy and we should strive to be a leader within the EC.
As an aside, I'm concerned with a number of issues within the treaty. One being that we have the potential to have our police scrapped and a super power from Brussells dictacte our policing... Unclear to how it would exist, but its unnerving for the future. This also includes the possiblity of having an american style FBI, that would be under european laws and jurisdiction.
If we vote in a savvy PM, and go into this as a nation looking to be the leader of a new super trading block, then we'll do just fine.
My scepticism stems from the constitution having been rejected by other countries, yet they try and push it through, relatively unchanged, but with the word constitution removed from the title. This has been confirmed in leaked papers from Merkel.
If it will deliver so many positives then why the need to be so cloak and dagger? Hence my feelings on the naivety
Fair enough but perhaps you might consider that almost all EU treaty type announcements take this kind of course.
Scenario A - Germany wanted the Constitution so they can say, "The Treaty is substantially the same as the Constitution"
but take these two example statements:
1. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will be harmonised"
2. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will not be harmonised"
The change from 1. to 2. can satisfy both the statements,
"the second is at least 90% the same as the first"
and
"the second phrase is completely different to the first"
That's what we have here with Merkell and Brown's different slant on things. Its actually the detail that counts. So who is naive? Well perhaps it's all of us who have not grasped enough of the detail and listen only to those we generally tend to trust to inform our view, which was the point in my earlier post.
The Labour Govt didn't want the Constitution and indeed were praying that it would not be agreed. Now they can claim that the document isn't a "Constitution", because - well it's not called one, therefore it isn't. This allows Brown to riggle off the referendum hook. In practice from what I understand, the "red line" opt out which we have negotiated, were pretty much the same as ones we would have insisted upon if the Constitution became a reality.
So where does that leave us.
Well the Tory's smell some embarassing stuff for Brown so insist on a referendum (because they want to sound tough on Europe again after their shambles of the Major and post Major years). It also allows most of them (even the pro-europeans) to rally around the same policy.
The Lib Dems rather liked the Constitution and know that the best chance they can have of having it is for it to be called a Treaty then they, like Labour can say, its not the same as the Constitution. They are then saying once the Treaty is ratified, there should be an "in or out" referendum. This I agree with but they are really only saying it to sound "democratic" and protect their votes in Tory/Lib Dem areas
Labour have got to govern and know, as did Major before them, that they have a problem negotiating in the EU if every time there are things they don't like they say that they are going to have a referendum: given that all the States they are negotiating with know there is no constitutional reason for them holding one. That they and some allies have got the whole "Constitution", thing out of the Treaty with Europe now not having a separate "personality" with a foreign minister etc, is seen by them as a big result. I suspect that they know they can command a majority of both Houses on this basis (with Lib Dem support if necessary) and with the opt outs actually secured, probably feel this is the best they could achieve from a difficult position that they had with the old "Constitution" scenario.
UKIP just want out of the EU.
For me, as I have said over and over again, the benefits of being in, out weigh the benefits of being out for many reasons and I am frustrated that the debate is always hijacked (not in this thread, I admit) by "british" sausages, straight banana's, the Germans taking over and "who won the bloody war anyway" kind of nonsense.
A small example of my frustration can be summed up by the following story:-
I ran a small retail business here in Norwich for a number of years. When I took the business over, everything was weighed out for customers in pounds. The law at the time required us to weigh things in kilograms. We introduced this. If I had £1 for every time a customer moaned and blamed the EU, I'd be a rich man.
"I don't understand this metric nonsense" said most customers over 40. Most under 40 were entirely au fait with it. For those of an older generation in particular, it seemed to be about an erosion of British way of life, with people a frightened of/reluctant to engage in change. Younger people on the other hand through things learned at school were fine. So for those wishing to keep pounds and ounces, I always used to ask them how much volume was a "bushell", and how many "chains" there were in a "furlong". Very few knew the answer. Metric measurements make so much sense yet we as a country still hang on to the illogical imperial measurements.
After we introduced metric bag sizes, within a few weeks people were usually ok with it.
I read somewhere that the original plan to introduce metric measurements was in 1870. Something still not properly embraced some 137 years later.
I sold chemical fertilzers and pesticides. Some were withdrawn due to licencing issues. Pretty much everybody moaned and immediately blamed EU, even though it had nothing to do with it.
Its the fear of change thats at the heart of this. Change is not always for the worse. Being stuck in an EU slow lane, holding out for the status quo when all others wish to move forward; or even worse coming out altogether will be incredibly perilous for our whole economy. That said we need a debate/referendum badly, to fix us in or out for another generation. I wish they would bring it on. (I can't see it happening though).
I buy the Sun every day but very rarely get the chance to read it. God knows how anyone would find the time to even scan the bloody guardian let alone read one on a regular basis.
I'm guessing that the average 'sun reader' is percieved as not knowing their arsehole from their earhole about anything other than football or x fecking factor?
I treat politics and politicians with the contempt they deserve but think I know what I need to know as far as that they seem to be very good at lying and deception. Which in turn makes me think, it doesn't matter how much I know the ins and outs of a monkeys arsehole about an issue as it will always be handled in the way a politician feels it will benefit them