Personally I'm a europhile and believe it would be in the long term interest of the UK to become a part of the European Union as rapidly as possible, though I think I could well be in a minority here! I tend to think that with a large econmic power sitting beside us investment will tend to be drawn into the EU rather than into outlying regions. I also believe the arguments put forward about the UK losing its national identity to be fairly laughable (after all has, for example, scotland lost it's national identity by being a part of the UK?) but what do the rest of you think?

I've changed my mind over the years about joining the EU. I used to be a great fan of the idea but I've become less keen.

I'm mostly concerned about commonality; I have more in common with someone from the US or Canada than I do with someone in a small village in Poland, for example. Language, history, standard of living, economic outlook. The issues between the UK and France, for example, on many Foreign policy issues over the years - Iraq being the most recent - shows that we do not and will probably never think in of ourselves as Europeans.

I have no problems with participating in Free Trade agreements with the EU, but I stop at becoming integrated in to a Federally structured EU purely because I feel I have little in common with most of Europe except for geographical location.

The EU is gradually expanding and in that expansion is diluting the economic and social structures that Western Europe has in common. Whilst the people running the EU may have wonderful ideas about creating a super-power to challenge the US, the diversity of the EU will stop it ever happening.

Joe

Yes, because I believe that history has shown us that lack of co-operation and unity in Europe has cost us dearly in the past.

In addition, I think that we should stay as far away from George W as possible. The North Atlantic doesn't seem enough :P

Originally posted by ianmitchell
Yes, because I believe that history has shown us that lack of co-operation and unity in Europe has cost us dearly in the past.

In addition, I think that we should stay as far away from George W as possible. The North Atlantic doesn't seem enough :P

Funny that much of the trouble in Europe in the last century or so has involved the mainland 'superpowers' France and Germany, with us getting involved because of treaty obligations. Just because they can't stop wanting to kill each other and their neighbours doesn't necessarily mean that we should all join up.

As for the current US government - well, I'd want to maintain my independence there as well. I just feel I have more in common with the US than with most of Europe. Whilst anti-US feeling is currently quite popular (and dare I say trendy) it is worth pointing out that the last war we fought with the US (apart from a few operations in the American Civil War against the North in support of the Confederacy) was in 1812, against 1815 for the French, 1914, 1945 for the Germans and 1941 for Vichy France...:)

If I want to be friends with people I tend to pick those I haven't had recent (in historical terms) fisticuffs with...;)

Joe

post deleted..................

Arent we already a member of the EU? If you mean should become more involved and take on the Euro - then yes, of course we should.

What annoys me are the people who seem to believe that the UK is still a World Superpower. This simply isnt the case, we cannot 'go it alone' and I would MUCH rather move closer to Europe than the US.

Another misundestanding is the idea Federalism - Federalism in principle is IMO a very good thing - who better to decide how the day to day things that effect you than at the lowest level possible? Regional Assemblies (if they happen) are a step - I think - toward this anyway.

Mat :)

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Whilst the people running the EU may have wonderful ideas about creating a super-power to challenge the US, the diversity of the EU will stop it ever happening.

Surely the diversity within the EU is actually one of its strengths rather than a weakness? Doesnt a society need diversity to evolve in the same was as the gene pool needs diversity?

Originally posted by mat1978
Arent we already a member of the EU? If you mean should become more involved and take on the Euro - then yes, of course we should.

What annoys me are the people who seem to believe that the UK is still a World Superpower. This simply isnt the case, we cannot 'go it alone' and I would MUCH rather move closer to Europe than the US.

Another misundestanding is the idea Federalism - Federalism in principle is IMO a very good thing - who better to decide how the day to day things that effect you than at the lowest level possible? Regional Assemblies (if they happen) are a step - I think - toward this anyway.

Mat :)

No, we're not a superpower and to be frank we don't need to be. I'm very concerned about any country who wishes to be - the US are finding it's hard work and the idea of a European Superpower when just a decade ago we were still having civil wars fought on the European mainland is laughable.

The idea of a North Eastern Regional Assembly was recently kicked in to touch by the voters; they clearly sw the problems that yet another layer of Government would bring.

And how the devil can a law made in Brussels be equally effective in, say, Silesia and Sheffield?

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Funny that much of the trouble in Europe in the last century or so has involved the mainland 'superpowers' France and Germany, with us getting involved because of treaty obligations. Just because they can't stop wanting to kill each other and their neighbours doesn't necessarily mean that we should all join up.

As for the current US government - well, I'd want to maintain my independence there as well. I just feel I have more in common with the US than with most of Europe. Whilst anti-US feeling is currently quite popular (and dare I say trendy) it is worth pointing out that the last war we fought with the US (apart from a few operations in the American Civil War against the North in support of the Confederacy) was in 1812, against 1815 for the French, 1914, 1945 for the Germans and 1941 for Vichy France...:)

If I want to be friends with people I tend to pick those I haven't had recent (in historical terms) fisticuffs with...;)

Joe

This is quite different to the Allied Powers, Triple Entente etc.

This is Europe on a whole, as an alliance.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Surely the diversity within the EU is actually one of its strengths rather than a weakness? Doesnt a society need diversity to evolve in the same was as the gene pool needs diversity?

There's healthy cultural diversity and then there's diversity that is too wide to be helpful. A gene pool makes use of diversity because of the blind chance that is involved in genetic reproduction. The population is helped survive by having a width of genetic make up that allows members to survive in different conditions. Here we will be having directed development.

Just look at some of the countries either in or on the verge of joining the EU. Turkey is barely a democracy; it's still having issues with Greece about Cyprus. The Balkans are a mess. Eastern Europe is economically unsound.

Both Germany and France played a little fast and loose with their respective economies to 'fudge' problems they had with the Euro. The Constitution being proposed for Europe DOES reduce the sovereignty of individual nations and removes certain existing rights (and adds many more layers of red tape and responsibilities which, one can almost guarantee, will be obeyed slavishly by some States in the EU whilst others ignore what they don't want to do.) Foreign Policy and Defence? Europe is not homogenous enough to have a coherent foreign policy and defence policy and won't be for a couple of generations yet. How much of France's attitude towards Iraq is due to their economic links with that country?

One could go on and on - I think we should have close relations with Europe, the US and the Far East - but we should be able to keep a degree of independence that allows us to do what's best for THIS country - not for Estonia or Poland.

Yup, I guess I'm a little Englander - not bad going for a Welshman!

Joe

Originally posted by ianmitchell
This is quite different to the Allied Powers, Triple Entente etc.

This is Europe on a whole, as an alliance.

No, what the architects of the EU are talking about goes beyond being an alliance. This country has honoured it's treaty and alliance obligations for years - Entente Cordiale, NATO, etc.

We can be part of a European Alliance without linking up at all levels of society - this is what we've done for 50 odd years with NATO.

What the Brussels Aparatchiks want to see is a formal fusion of European nation states in to one super state. Which would, of course, ultimately enjoy command and control of the armed forces of each nation. The French and the UK are the two European powers with nuclear weapons. Who will control the release of these weapons if required? Would British troops be expected to defend the colonial interests of, say, France?

If 'Europe' decides to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific (courtesy of French Colonial territories) the UK's historical relationships with places like New Zealand will be damaged. What of the relationships between Commonwealth nations and the UK? Will the British head of state still have any legal position?

No....this is not an alliance...this is absorption.

Joe

So you get a bunch of countries all paying for yet another load of politicians who are all out for their own country. Why do I see a very big squabbling group coming into existance, they will squabble and bicker and trample on and back stab one another so in the end very very little will actually get done.
I don't have a great deal of time for politicians and if a referendum is announced about becoming part of europe then I'm going to need to see a lot more explanations on the TV about the plus and negative points as they affect ME.

Erm, AFAIK the UK is very much already in the EU and has been for some time. Do you mean whether or not we should sign up to the EU constitution? Or whether or not we should adopt the single currency?

Originally posted by t020
Erm, AFAIK the UK is very much already in the EU and has been for some time. Do you mean whether or not we should sign up to the EU constitution? Or whether or not we should adopt the single currency?

In some of my arguments I was being lazy with words.

From my perspective I was arguing against signing up to teh Euro, the Constitution and any further involvement that moves towards 'seamless integration' of nations into a Federal structure and the further erosion of national policy and law making powers.

Joe

And how the devil can a law made in Brussels be equally effective in, say, Silesia and Sheffield?

But this (AFAIK) wouldnt be the case. A Federal Europe means decisions about local things would be taken at the lowest level possible, eg local govt. So Brussels would not be deciding everything for everyone. Each 'State' would have different policies and laws.

I think the next question should be, Can the EU be a viable institution without Russia? I think not.....

Mat

Originally posted by mat1978
But this (AFAIK) wouldnt be the case. A Federal Europe means decisions about local things would be taken at the lowest level possible, eg local govt. So Brussels would not be deciding everything for everyone. Each 'State' would have different policies and laws.

I think the next question should be, Can the EU be a viable institution without Russia? I think not.....

Mat

If the Constitution has no teeth, what's the point?

Already employment laws are increasingly influenced from Brussels. Some of these are good ideas, others are not. At teh ,oment we can have a 'pick and choose' ,mentality about them, which is excellent.

I this changes in the future we get all of our laws - local and national - determined from the centre.

Patent Law - Some recently proposed EU Patent Law ideas would have made it very difficult for certain types of software development to carry on as they do now because the existing ideas of 'existing craft' would have been overturned.

As I said previously - defence and foreign policy. If the situation exists wherein the EU dictates Foreign Policy for it's members, then how are we supposed to have a Foreign Policy that differs from that of the EU, unless we are in the same sort of relationship as we are now?

On a related issue, would we be allowed to secede from the EU 'Superstate' once in?

Farming / Agriculture - let's not even go there. Support for industries - take, for example, fishing. What's the point of having landlocked nations helping decide fishing policy?

Everything useful that we might want to do CAN be done by cooperation.

And Russia?

I'm quite a Russophile. Even in the dark days of the Cold War, when many people in the UK were expecting snowy booted, fur hatted vodka swilling cossacks with AK47s to be coming down the High Street I never felt the Russians constituted a major threat to us.

But, again, they're a country that has it's own problems. We should help them where we can, welcome them in to global groupings like the G8 and other trading bodies and alliances, and adopt something similar to the US's 'favoured nation' approach to them.

But bringing Russia in to the EU? Can you imagine what that would cost? Bringing Russian industry in line with 'Western' standards of pollution and emissions control? Cleaning up the environmental mess in various parts of Russia? Human rights? Their nuclear weapons? They'd be in the same boat as we are - can you REALLY imagine the Russian military wanting to hand off power to Brussels?

Allies, friends, trading partners - we can be all these things to any nation in the world that we want to deal with without having to subsume what we are as a nation - good and bad - to Europe.

Joe