I think this serves me right for breaking my golden rule of avoiding political discussions on the Internet or at work... especially coming in on page three.
Okay, okay, Kosh, and especially Crazy_Ivan80, can we play nice? I'd rather not go down the route of jibes about "empires" and "only the brits". It's not called for and it doesn't really help to advance the discussion. If anything, it makes people defensive and only serves to harden their position. But, if you'll permit me, I'll have a go at trying to explain my understanding of the English euro-sceptic position and some of the history behind it.
It seems to me that many of these people don't quite get that their empires are gone, and much of the old world influence went down with it.
The European empires are long committed to the history books, so I don't really think it's fair to bring it up here, and I'd argue that an aversion to being part of a superstate is an acceptance of that. Especially if you consider that a lot of people are wanting to break up or at least devolve what is left of our particular former empire, the UK, into its constituent parts. That would strike me as being quite the opposite of building an empire. We'd be getting even smaller and more local. For most of us, the Empire lies outside of living memory, so we never knew it or had the chance to miss it.
Plus it's a low shot!
and the citizens decide to vote for parties that are generally pro-europe.
See, the people have decided.
It's not always that simple. Right now we are having European and some local elections here in the UK. It looks like an increasingly euro-sceptic Conservative Party is going to come out on top of both, and the very euro-sceptic UKIP is going to get a strong showing in the euro ones (we're getting a vote in each election separately). If that's anything to go by, could we argue that it is time for the UK to back out?
But you have a good point in there about the original decision to get into and stay in Europe indicating that the people
had chosen. It was under a Conservative regime that we both joined the EEC in the 70s and then signed up to the Maastrict Treaty in the 90s. But, if you take our
local elections today, people generally go for the mainstream parties (who tend to jostle over the centre ground of politics) because they don't want to "waste a vote" on the fringe, if the fringe parties even bother to stand at all (around my way, none of them did). What that tends to mean is you end up voting for a party that doesn't necessarily represent your views on a lot of issues, for instance their stance on Europe, or voting for no-one. In my local case, that makes the most euro-sceptic option the Conservatives, who despite anti-EU rhetoric do seem to be generally committed to staying in. So there is no large, mainstream party offering an out.
One last point on that: the "people" change all the time. I wasn't alive when we entered the EEC, nor was I quite old enough to vote when we signed up to Maastrict. And I've nearly got more grey hair than brown these days! It stands to reason then that a decision made at some point in the past may not reflect the views of people now, so regularly reviewing the issue and going to the people makes sense. Things change.
Only the brits can believe that the EU, or its earlier iterations, were just about trade. Let me tell you this: from the beginning the EU/EC/EEC/ECCS was about politics. The founding treate (Treaty of Rome 1956 iirc) already states that the goal is to work to an ever closer Union.
Okay, please lets not get into "only the brits"-type statements. It's not polite or necessary.
You are right, it is ultimately all political. Most of these things are. But back when the referendum happened, the mid-70s, people didn't have anywhere near the access to information we do now. So specific wording on "ever closer unions" might well not have been picked up by a lot of folks, and they'd have had a much better excuse for missing it than they do now. It is much easier for us to just pop on the Internet and look these things up nowadays, but back then it was a handful of TV channels on a black and white TV for a lot of people, and it could be a bugger to get a phone installed! (My parents' experience, and mine as a real young 'un.)
Things have moved on a lot since then, so it actually makes more sense to listen to the "bloke in the street" now than it did then. We at least have the
option (admittedly not always taken) of grabbing the information at our fingertips.
That said, there were no decent bloody directions to my local polling station this evening, even on the local council's website!
The only reason why the economic facet is the one that was developed first is because the founding members (especially france) weren't quite ready to start on the military aspect first. Yes, the military. That was initially the aspect the 'EU' would be concentrating on.
Well, we still ain't got that worked out, and it seems unlikely the UK will ever swap NATO for an EU Army. We'll see though. Not much more to say on that, but if you've got some info on that please share. It's an aspect I didn't know much about, and would welcome some insight.
It's also funny to hear people go on about how they joined the EEC and not the EU... as if trade isn't a deeply political matter.
The fact is the
referendum in the UK
was for the EEC, not the EU. That's not really something you can dispute. That people may well have not understood entirely what they were signing up for... seems pretty likely to me. Yes, trade between nations is deeply political, but I think the folks back then can be forgiven for thinking that was all they had agreed to. It was a very different time. Who knows what the voters of the mid-70s were thinking - most of us on HLP weren't born I suspect!
Here's a good link, by the way. I just found it and haven't had a chance to ready it all through, but it gives you a good idea of the information people were getting on EEC membership back then.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htmAs for the mission creep: blame the national governments for that. It's them who keep asking the eU to do more and more without giving it the tools to do so... And then they complain about Brussels doing this or that... Bunch of hypocrites.
We do blame national governments for it, and today's European elections might well point to that. Our current national government is Gordon Brown's Labour Party, and they look to be in for a rough night. Whether that makes any difference or not is another matter (if it doesn't then that might explain why so many are feeling so disenfranchised with the whole democratic system here; "you cast you're vote and then it all ploughs on the same regardless" isn't a rare sentiment).
I'm not sure if that many people do call on the EU to do this or that. What do you mean by that statement? A lot of the people you seem to be referring to want the EU to butt out, so why would they give them tools to do anything? The opposite would be a more logical course. But I'd be happy for you to elaborate!
Bunch of hypocrites.
If you mean the politicians, I totally agree. If you mean folks like me, not only are you wrong but you are also being unnecessarily rude. Please can we be clear on what we say and agree to avoid insulting those who present a different perspective?
This is an interesting subject that Mobius has brought up; interesting enough that I've broken my unwritten politics rule and decided to plonk down with a glass of wine and post a fair bit on it when I'm way old enough to know better. That said, I'd quite like to discuss it further if we can agree to keep it civil and give the other guy a chance.
Over to you!
