With the recent issue of the European contitution in the news lets find out how people here broadly stand on the issue of 'Europe'.

Hmmmm......

I like Europe, have no problems with Europeans, but dislike the idea of a 'Superstate' being constructed with nothing more in common than an accident of geography.

Joe

I broadly agree Joe,

I like Europe - I would much rather we were sucking up to the Europeans instead of the Yanks. But I suspect all that speaking different languages malarkey might be a bit much for the xenophobes over here....

I also do not like the idea of a United States of Europe, but that said think we should eb doig more to integrate with Europe. I'm sure the Euro would be a good idea but I do admit I'm kind of sentimental about the godd ol' pound.

A "Superstate" would push the Governments even further up the American establishment's posterior IMO, sorry but we just don't need it.. Things are fine as they are, you know the old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.. I think it applies in this case.

I'm not that bothered what currency I use when I go to the shops, it's just money. I would be happy if we were working more closely with Europe, but not being "controlled" by Europe, rather than becomming George Bushs bitch.

I would be suspicious of the being with europe vs being with america dichotomy to be honest. It is a little bit misguided, I think.

A good book on the subject is andrew gambles ' Between Europe and America : the future of British politics' - even if you do not agree with his conclusions he sets out the problems very clearly and consicely.

I think we have more of a shared history with the rest of Europe though, even though they all hate us for going to war.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm not that bothered what currency I use when I go to the shops, it's just money. I would be happy if we were working more closely with Europe, but not being "controlled" by Europe, rather than becomming George Bushs bitch.

Totally agree.

The "keep the pound" bunch make me laugh. Why just stop with the pound, let's bring back half-crowns, florins and groats!

Originally posted by alchresearch
Totally agree.

The "keep the pound" bunch make me laugh. Why just stop with the pound, let's bring back half-crowns, florins and groats!

This is a very bad analogy. Decimalisation was merely a change in the denomination of a currency - it required no change in either monetary policy or in decisionmaking power in monetary affairs. The shift to the euro would require both.
The proponents and the opponents of European monetary union agree about that, if little else.

The question is largely meaningless without definitions of the term Europhile and Eurosceptic. Both are used in very different ways, both pejorative and laudatory.

They are also very vague. For example, it is possible to be Europhile about certain aspects of the European project, but Eurosceptical about other aspects. Indeed, it is no contradiction in terms to describe oneself as a 'Europhile Eurosceptic' or as a 'Eurosceptic Europhile'

When the **** hits the fan there is only the USA who we could rely on for support or aid. Forget Europe, they have no love for the British. Dont knock the Yanks, you may need them sooner than you think.

What if you're neither, but you're a Europhobic ? (which by all means is nothign to be blamed for).

Originally posted by nick2
I'm not that bothered what currency I use when I go to the shops, it's just money. I would be happy if we were working more closely with Europe, but not being "controlled" by Europe, rather than becomming George Bushs bitch. It's not a matter of what currency is printed on the notes & coins but by how much prices will rise after the change ... 50% in France, 100% in Germany & 1000000% in Italy, thanks but no thanks as they say.

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
It's not a matter of what currency is printed on the notes & coins but by how much prices will rise after the change ... 50% in France, 100% in Germany & 1000000% in Italy, thanks but no thanks as they say.

Everything in Italy cost a million % more afterwards, how come everyone didn't starve to death, surely bread would have been too expensive for anyone to buy ?

Many people, myself included, like Europe, but we wouldn't want to be ruled by Europe.
I think of the analogy of a newsreader's tie on TV. I like ties, but I may not necessarily like the one worn by so-and-so.
I like the idea of Europe, but not this European Superstate.

Originally posted by Nimrod
When the **** hits the fan there is only the USA who we could rely on for support or aid. Forget Europe, they have no love for the British. Dont knock the Yanks, you may need them sooner than you think.

The Yanks throw most of the *** around though!

it's strange how people get this "ruled by europe" idea.

If we were to become a superstate we would be voting as well for the government. So it would be no more "ruled by europe" than we are currently "ruled by London".

I like the idea of closer integration, but at the moment i favour staying out of the euro as it moves a lot of monetary policy power from the government. At the moment we have an economy that is doing better than any of our european neighbours, joining the euro would almost certainly put a stop to that.

In order for a European democracy to exist, there would first need to be a European demos. At present, there is no European demos and one is unlikely to emerge for the forseeable future. Any 'European superstate' would therefore have to take the form of a very loose confederation. As I have said before, the EU is probably heading towards a 'United States of Europe', but not on the US model, because the individual countries comprising the EU are sovereign states and will remain so. Conversely, the US is misnamed, because the 50 states are not sovereign states. A more accurate term therefore for the US would be the 'American Union' and a better term for the EU would be 'The Unites States of Europe'. But because of current terminological conventions and usages, this change is unlikely to happen.

Originally posted by nick2
I think we have more of a shared history with the rest of Europe though, even though they all hate us for going to war.

Which war is it that they hate us for?

I suspect the French quite liked the Brithish, USA, Canadians etc driving the Germans out of their country in 1944. Strange that they are less kee on liberating other countries. Perhaps they didn't want to loose all those arms contracts with old Saddam.

Perhaps I ought to add that the term 'United States of Europe' would be an aspirational description of the EU rather than a depiction of reality - which is for the near future is likely to be 'The Disunited States of Europe', as the differences between the various EU countries on a wide range of issues are likely to become more significant than hitherto.

I don't know about Britian joining the Euro; at the moment contries already in it (Italy for example) are talking about leaving it. It is not inconcevable that the Euro will fall apart and countries will go back to their origional currencies.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I don't know about Britian joining the Euro; at the moment contries already in it (Italy for example) are talking about leaving it. It is not inconcevable that the Euro will fall apart and countries will go back to their origional currencies.

whilst not inconceivable, it's incredibly unlikely.

Originally posted by Cyclone
whilst not inconceivable, it's incredibly unlikely.

This is in fact no longer true. A year ago I would have said the same thing - but its not only a few Italian politicians who are thinking aloud the unthinkable. I still think its unlikely, but by no means incredibly so. If the economies of the three EU15 outsider countries continue to do well and if the core economies of the eurozone continue to stagnate, and if the euro becomes even more unpopular in the eurozone than it is at present, then it is not inconceivable that the euro project could be (partially or wholly) dismantled. However, even if it made perfect economic sense to dismantle the euro, the political elites have invested so much political capital in this project that they would dismantle it only with extreme reluctance - following a populist clamour from their citizenry.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Which war is it that they hate us for?
Strange that they are less keen on liberating other countries.

Liberating countries, yeah, that war, the recent one, where we ignored all the other European countries and did what George told us.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Perhaps they didn't want to loose all those arms contracts with old Saddam.

Or that Supergun that was built from Sheffield steel hmmm?

I got this from the BBC:

TOP MILITARY EXPORTERS (2001)
US - $9.7bn
UK - $4bn
Russia - $3.6bn
France - $1bn
China - $500m
Israel - $300m

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Perhaps they didn't want to loose all those arms contracts with old Saddam.

My goodness. You seem to have quite an obsession with old Saddam.

Did he bully you at school or something? Yes, I think he did.

It's clear to see why the likes of France, and her bed partner Germany, want Great Britain to be a part of Europe.

According to today's news (10/6) if we were to stop getting our £3 billion rebate then we would contribute FIFTEEN times what France contributes to Europe.

And for what? Unelected nobodies on ridiculous salaries only you and I can dream of (LORD Kinnock? Don't make me laugh) whose accounts have never been 'signed off' by the auditors and who simply want to meddle with our affairs (or rather, syphon our money).

Europe? Corrpupt by name and most definitely by nature. And watch out, don't be seen eating too many bendy bananas.

Aye, that's Europe: Bananas.

Originally posted by Nimrod
When the **** hits the fan there is only the USA who we could rely on for support or aid. Forget Europe, they have no love for the British. Dont knock the Yanks, you may need them sooner than you think.

I don't think history supports this argument. In WW2 they only came in when they had to, if the USA would have taken action earlier many lives could have been saved.

Also lets look at the Falklands conflict - where were they then? Lets face it, the USA have never supported any military action unless it suits them and is in their own interests. The only incident i can think of which challenges this is the Bosnia event. Can anyone think of anymore?

Originally posted by goose
I don't think history supports this argument. In WW2 they only came in when they had to, if the USA would have taken action earlier many lives could have been saved.

Also lets look at the Falklands conflict - where were they then? Lets face it, the USA have never supported any military action unless it suits them and is in their own interests. The only incident i can think of which challenges this is the Bosnia event. Can anyone think of anymore?

I think,to be fair,the US did supply Britain,all be it covertly,with a large amount of military aid and intelligence during the falklands war.They were reluctant to be seen as taking sides in a conflict between two allies(not unreasonably),but they did quite clearly come down on our side when push came to shove.Legend has it that Reagan offered the loan of a US supercarrier,which would have greatly increased our fighting ability in the south Atlantic,but Thatcher declined the offer.

As to the poll,im broadly in favour of closer ties to europe,but at this moment in time,we do not have the politicians capable of handling such a sensitive issue,in my opinion:(