[Crazy_Ivan80]

Have any of you guys checked the "readers recommend" section of the new have your say on the BBC? Appearently lots of anti-EU feelings in the UK if that is any measure to go by.

euroscepticism (and what could almost be called europhobia for the UK) is on the rise everywhere in the EU.
Generally to blame for that are:
a) ignorance by the europeans: having for example barely any idea how decisions are made in the EU / who really steers it; or having become complacent (you never appreciate what you have until its gone)
b) the blamegame played by the national governments
c) media that are beholden to particular people and their viewpoints rather than to the truth (I'm pointing explicitely, but not exclusively, to the UK and Italy).

a) and b) are often enough to sides of the same coin, resulting in the EU being blamed for this and that while it's the national governments that either called the shots on the whole thing, or even requested the measure to be taken. Basically using the EU to do what needs to be done, but then blaming the EU for doing it. It's pretty disgusting.
People should always remember that because of the way the EU has beens et up it is always national states that call the shots. Nothing gets done without approval from Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, etc.

the second part of a) deals with the fact that the EU -or its direct predecessors- have been around for quite a time now, and that they've been working on the common market since pretty much the beginning. Take into account that in the core-EU (i.e.e the 6 orginal members) no one under 50 (excepting immigrants) has known a time without the EU. Familiarity breeds contempt eh. The common market as put in action by the Maastricht Treaty is itself nearly 20 years old, and has been working pretty much as a charm.

and c) obviously refers to the fact that the media are a powerful tool. And if used to report nothing but negative news about something (especially if it's done because the owner has an axe to grind) it can't be surprising that eventually people will adopt the same stance. REpeat a lie often enough and people will believe it

[MP-Ryan]

I'm Canadian.

I think the EU is both a natural evolution and beneficial idea on paper, but the reality is that not all the kinks have been worked out which is causing problems within the system.  From an outsider's perspective, the biggest problem is the membership guidelines aren't all that tough.  As a result, you're seeing economically advanced countries in a free-trade, free-workforce conglomerate with economically disadvantaged nations.  Net migration through EU membership nations should theoretically be zero, but it's not.  In addition, logistical social programs vary by region and individuals can take advantage of this to relocate and work in another membership nation with potentially higher wages and better social assistance.

In addition, Immigration standards for all EU countries are not identical, so some countries may take in individuals that others don't and then allow them to gain citizenship - effectively allowing them access to everyone else.

The EU is an absolutely fantastic idea, but the legal aspects designed to balance the movement of people haven't caught up with the actual realities, which is causing a lot of anti-EU sentiment (particularly in some parts of Britain, from what I hear).

Ultimately, before the EU is a success member nations are all going to have to be on roughly equal economic footing BEFORE they join and migraion/immigration standards are going to have to be decided at the continental level rather than by individual nations.  As it currently standards, the net migration appears to be westward and that is going to cause problems because the former Soviet bloc nations that have joined are not going to catch up to the Western European nations in standard of living or economic progress.

[karajorma]

Have any of you guys checked the "readers recommend" section of the new have your say on the BBC? Appearently lots of anti-EU feelings in the UK if that is any measure to go by.

It isn't. That part of the BBC website is so full of crazies that it has a website dedicated to cataloguing the stupidity. In a way it's quite impressive that a single website can manage to have its own version of Fundies Say the Darnest Things.


EDIT : Damn, I'd forgotten how funny Speak You're Branes is.

[Aardwolf]

You're American, too bad.

I'm proud to be European.

You're Canadian. 

[colecampbell666]

Was waiting for that. Jesus you people are slow.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

You're Canadian. 

It's in his signature, you know...

[Bobboau]

EU is such a natural progression seeing as how all the member states have such a long and proud history and rich common culture of trying to murder and/or dominate each other, I mean how could it not work?

[Mobius]

Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture.  Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years.  There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.

To be fair the same could be said about the northern and southern states, even going so far as to fight a war over it. Even today there is still a big gap between them.

I think the EU has potential, but really in the coming decades closer integration in the EU will become a necessity. With India and China both rising, that's about 1/3 of the entire world's population just between those two countries, the smaller states will get increasingly crowded out. In the end people will wake up and see this, and they will unify for the same reason the old german states unified with prussia: either unify or face insignificance.

That's a problem, because the supposed solution is eradicating all European cultures other than the British one. Obviously, people don't think this solution is appropriate... but it is suspected to be the only way to "save" Europe from the increasing power of *certain* Asian countries.

euroscepticism (and what could almost be called europhobia for the UK) is on the rise everywhere in the EU.
Generally to blame for that are:
a) ignorance by the europeans: having for example barely any idea how decisions are made in the EU / who really steers it; or having become complacent (you never appreciate what you have until its gone)

[...]

a) and b) are often enough to sides of the same coin, resulting in the EU being blamed for this and that while it's the national governments that either called the shots on the whole thing, or even requested the measure to be taken. Basically using the EU to do what needs to be done, but then blaming the EU for doing it. It's pretty disgusting.
People should always remember that because of the way the EU has beens et up it is always national states that call the shots. Nothing gets done without approval from Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, etc.

the second part of a) deals with the fact that the EU -or its direct predecessors- have been around for quite a time now, and that they've been working on the common market since pretty much the beginning. Take into account that in the core-EU (i.e.e the 6 orginal members) no one under 50 (excepting immigrants) has known a time without the EU. Familiarity breeds contempt eh. The common market as put in action by the Maastricht Treaty is itself nearly 20 years old, and has been working pretty much as a charm.

Euroscepticism is greatly justified. We barely trust our national governments so there's no reason to trust foreign politicians who may, eventually, damage your country to help their own. A lot of decision are taken for the sake of Europe (as a whole), but a comparable number of decisions is made to have a "winner" in a diplomatic fight between two countries.

c) media that are beholden to particular people and their viewpoints rather than to the truth (I'm pointing explicitely, but not exclusively, to the UK and Italy).

[...]

and c) obviously refers to the fact that the media are a powerful tool. And if used to report nothing but negative news about something (especially if it's done because the owner has an axe to grind) it can't be surprising that eventually people will adopt the same stance. REpeat a lie often enough and people will believe it

I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm not a big fan of British media for several reasons I don't want to enlist here. Italian media are a totally different matter: the President of the Council of Ministers (better of called Prime Minister, it's more familiar for native English speakers), Silvio Berlusconi, is both a politician and a businessman.

This means that he has full and only apparently indirect control of the Italian media. He's the owner of 3 of the 6 main Italian broadcasting channels, and he also has enormous influence on the owners of the remaining 3 broadcasting channels. Not to mention the press, which is more or less under his direct control. This clearly means that the average Italian will never, ever know about Berlusconi & Co.'s crimes. The only way to know the truth is the Internet, and that's what I do. On YouTube, for example, you can find news the Italian media would never make public. If you understand Italian, I suggest to search "Beppe Grillo" and/or "Marco Travaglio" (I prefer the second) on YouTube.

The problem is that  people simply don't dare to accuse him of the crimes he committed and that's why someone is pointing him out as the new Benito Mussolini. Many members of the actual Italian government had (and still have?) contacts with mafia. I guess you know about the Mills affair and its consequences, since it had some international importance (especially in the UK).

One of the most disgusting things he did "to help Italy" was proposing a law that made him invulnerable to justice. He was to be proved guilty of about 3 shocking crimes, but the hammer of justice has been stopped. Pathetic things like this happen only in case of dictatorship.

What's the connection between this excursus and the topic? Well, if you have control of the media you also have control of the country's interaction with the EU.

[Cyker]

I think the EU is a bloody stupid idea.

It was great when it was the EEC - Everybody loved that and thought it was a great idea.

Then it became the EC and people were a bit unsure, but figured it was a natural progression.

Now in the EU phase I don't think anybody is happy other than powermongering politicians.

When this all started and we were just cutting red tape, most everybody liked that and we mostly got on. Now, policy and law is being run roughshod over every country without giving a **** what the peoples in that country think about it, and even if a country doesn't agree THEY DON'T GET A CHOICE - Most recent casualty is Sweden who is being sued because they don't want to implement a stupid draconian law!

There is no feeling of "Let's all decide how do such and such in a mutually beneficial and agreeable way" anymore, it's been more "This is how we're going to do this, if you don't agree well tough ****."

But this is how this sort of thing does; The more power and area of control, the less important the little details and minorities seem to matter, but the trick is that it *is* the little details that often matter the most when things shake out!

Sometimes I think I should move to Norway...
But I'm too lazy and my Norwegian is awful... Takk for sist!

[NGTM-1R]

The thing that amuses me about the EU is that it frequently seems as if they might as well include the US in it because...it's NATO, without the US.

[MP-Ryan]

The thing that amuses me about the EU is that it frequently seems as if they might as well include the US in it because...it's NATO, without the US.

You're kidding, right?  The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA.  You really think they could participate in something like the EU?

Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.

[NGTM-1R]

You're kidding, right?  The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA.  You really think they could participate in something like the EU?

Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.

I meant more as a political entity then as an economic one.

[Unknown Target]

Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture.  Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years.  There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.

I wish I had culture :-(

I'm American, I have culture. Sounds like a personal issue

[StarSlayer]

You're kidding, right?  The US is so trade protectionist that they can't even live up to the provisions of NAFTA.  You really think they could participate in something like the EU?

Not to mention that (IIRC) there are several EU member states that are not part of NATO, and there are other countries that are part of NATO but not in the EU.

I meant more as a political entity then as an economic one.

The EU is an economic entity

[colecampbell666]

Except that Europe isn't made up of multiple states that have a common culture.  Each member country has their own culture and history, of which it is fiercely proud of, stretching back hundreds of years.  There's a lot of deep-rooted identity in each one.

I wish I had culture :-(

I'm American, I have culture. Sounds like a personal issue

Yeah, but you're not really living in the US.

[Sushi]

While the political dimension may not be all that well developed yet, the economic realities of the "EU" are actually already quite huge.

This is about how I see it. I think the EU is best served by leaving as much of the legal/governance issues to the individual countries and focusing on developing the economic aspects. I think the economic aspects work great, the political ones are doomed to failure if they try to overreach.

--Non-European

[colecampbell666]

I think it'll blend together eventually, but it'll do no good to rush things artificially.

[Roanoke]

bear in mind the EUs own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for IIRC the past 12 years due to gross corruption.....

[Mikes]

bear in mind the EUs own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for IIRC the past 12 years due to gross corruption.....

Nothing the feds money policies of the last decades couldn't easily top by leading us into the current world-wide crisis.


You could argue they aren't "directly" responsible, but really only in as much as parents supplying their infant kids with matches, scissors and sharp knifes aren't responsible for anything that might happen next;)
And with the deamphasis of values like "responsibility" and "integrity" and an overemphasis placed on short-term profits personal bonus packages and shareholder value "über alles" by several of leading/shining "examples" of our economy it really wasn't that hard to see where it would lead. Matter of fact Enron already showed exactly where it might lead several years ago on a smaller scale.

In any case...  at this point, squibbling about national policies or even entitities like the US or the EU or China or whatnot strikes me as a bit shortsighted in general. Seems more like we need to reorient ourselves alltogether to find out how economies actually work(ed). Adam Smith may have stated that individual benefit maximization improves benefits for society as a whole, but it is often forgotten and rarely quoted that Adam Smith was also a moral philosoph and his economic theories really are taken out of context when you ignore what he wrote about values and morals in a functioning society.

Corruption is a nasty thing, no question...   but it really is just one symptom amongst many.

Our society appears to have become obsessed with the question of "what do i get? (when i do that)" and sort of forgotten the question of "who am i? (when i do that)".
A sentiment/distinction that might ironically appear familiar to anyone who has seen Babylon 5, but which happens to be also a theme in quite a number of philosophical and business-ethics publications.
(which is propably where B5 got the notion from in the first place heh.).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

While the political dimension may not be all that well developed yet, the economic realities of the "EU" are actually already quite huge.

This is about how I see it. I think the EU is best served by leaving as much of the legal/governance issues to the individual countries and focusing on developing the economic aspects. I think the economic aspects work great, the political ones are doomed to failure if they try to overreach.

--Non-European

As I tried to say earlier: it's these same countries that then get together and try to do things on the EU level, even if they don't have to, because there are advantages to do doing stings on an EU basis.
The EU is run by the nation-states, not the other way around.