The EU. Itās a weird beast that drives opinion in many directions, creating some uncommon bedfellows. Youād never usually put the late Bob Crow and rural Conservative MPs fighting for the same overall cause, and yet they did. Differing motivations, but that aside, both wanted out of the EU. At the same time, the more centrist politicians all seem to want to stay in. Unless youāre taking the purple, both left and right are murkily defined.
Iāve got my views. Iāll post them later, but am happy to take a backseat for now and see where weāre driven.
What is the Sotonians position on the European Union?
I want to be part of a trading bloc, not a federal state of Europe. I hate the unaccountability, the unelectable commissioners, the CAP. If people think FIFA are corrupt, imagine the amount of cash thatās gone awol here.
Stay in and go the whole hog. Bring in the Euro. Germany dropped the strongest currency in Europe and we should do the same or at least have a vote on it at the same time.
In. The EU has a strong position globally and we have a strong voice in the EU. We also have a very privileged position in that we can opt out of many things, the best of both worlds as it is.
Outside the EU, I fear weād become even more of a lap-dog to the US than we are and entirely insignificant.
Over the years Iāve become disillusioned with politicians and, as a consequence, have become disengaged from politics to the point where I donāt really know enough about whatās going on to make a valid comment.
Back in the day, however, I was very much opposed to the UKās membership of the EU. I never saw an amalgamation of disparate countries as being similar to the USA states brought together under an American flag; instead, I saw it more like the former Soviet-bloc or Yugoslavia model: destined to end in tears.
But over the years my āfeelingā for individual nationhood has declined ā perhaps as a result of spending more time in other European countries ā and, at present, I really donāt know which way Iād vote in a referendum. Having said that, I do agree with the points CB Saint has made above.
Not a simple question but basically āinā. Itās strange to recall that in the referendum in the 70s most of the Labour party and unions opposed membership while Thatcher and the Tory right were very firmly in favour
The EU has a lot of problems - a pretty much entreched bureaucracy, probable corruption (or at least a lot of pandering to special interests) and, not least, the idea that the answer to every economic problem is to increase the influence of the market (in common with all other supra-national organisations)
However, with the debate so dominated by UKIP, an āoutā vote next year strengthens the ālittle Englanderā strain in UK politics. I donāt want that. I also want my kids to be able to work abroad, should they want, with as few barriers as possible
Iāve got mixed feelings. Co-operation has not only fostered seventy years of relative peace on the continent, but until perhaps recently, the idea of general war on the continent has seemed something of a nonsense. The caveat is of course, Russiaās unease at the incorporation of former satellite states and its possible reaction to militarisation, particularly by the US, of what used to be a traditional buffer zone.
Iām similarly conflicted about issues of sovereignty and governance. On some issues, Iāve no confidence that British governments, particularly of a certain colour, will deliver. Human rights is one example, but my adopted city is perhaps the most tangible for me. Heseltine was the only member of Thatcherās government that gave a shite about the place; he deserves credit for kick-starting much of the early redevelopments. Geoffrey Howe suggested putting the city into a state of managed decline. Yet the EU stepped in, gave the place Objective One status, and radically changed the city. Iām not just talking baubles or public ornaments. Iām talking structural changes to the employment situation here, putting money into getting businesses online, etc. We didnāt have a digital sector here 21 years ago; EU funded 60% of development costs for any Merseyside business getting online. That funding no longer exists, but the digital sector is not only extant, but thriving.
Definitely in, what UKIP and others donāt seem to realise is that we need the EU more than it needs us. The amount of money EU states would make ( and the amount it would cost UK businesses) from the imposition of tariffs and visa regulations is staggering. Plus, China and the U.S. donāt want separate trade deals with us, they want to use us as the business friendly gateway to the EU. Without membership we arenāt as useful to them. Iām sceptical Cameron will be able to get anything substantial from the EU without it also having a negative impact on the UK.
In. For me itās more philosophical than pragmatic. Weāve got to look outwards - not inwards. Perspective, people. Nobodyās said it better than Carl Sagan:
I think weāve got to be honest about what Europe is. It doesnāt help when electioneering opposition politicians bang the big British drum and talk about our relationship with Europe. They darenāt speak plainly on the issue; that weāre one big country. Thatās why the European Constitution was never ratified. Too many countries were worried about signing up for such a huge and plainly stated document. The Lisbon Treaty made the majority of that real anyway; a shame. One of the benefits of the European Consititution was that it was a clean sweep. It wiped out the labyrinthine legislation that preceded it, giving us a clean slate and a clear idea of what the EU was, and what it stood for. Too clear, as it happens.
Iām for that honesty, and when we can finally admit to ourselves thatās what the EU is, a big country, then we can insist that institutions like the EU Commission are democratically elected and accountable. I can understand why it is the way it is; there probably wouldnāt be an EU if such a body were not there to steer things long-term.
Short-term, a bit of pragmatism is in order. I reckon Cameron would be much better off asking for money so that we can build much needed infrastructure for everyone, including EU immigrants, in recognition of the demand that we face. Iām not suggesting that the UK is singled out either. If EU policy is causing stress on France or Germany, they too should receive funding commensurate with demand. That too, requires a bit of honesty about the true demands of EU migration.
I am unashamedly 100% for staying in. The EU debate is essentially about sovereignty, the concept of the sovereign state only really emerged in the mid 17th century, sovereignty is not cultural, tribal or natural. As an island Great Britain has 2 land borders, and by the 17th century the 3 countries were effectively United. The situation on the continent was very different, it would be more that 250 years before the map we know today would become familiar and it is still changing, see the Balkans/Ukraine etc.
The future of Europe and the future of the UK are inexorably entwined, in or out what happens in Europe will have direct effects in the UK. In we get to have say, to influence and shape European development and policy, out we will just have to put up with what other decide. The outs comparisons with Switzerland and Norway do not work, their needs are not the same as the UKās.
The ECSC was established by 6 signatories after WWII. This narrow focused trade agreement created by 6 war ravaged and defeated nations has grown through the EEC to the EU we have today. With 28 members and more asking to join it is by any measure a success: it has transformed for the better lives and communities across Europe, it has helped to stabilise nations that were unstable and undemocratic; it has removed the fear of foreigners and allowed us to move freely across the territories of the EU, for leisure, for work, for retirement and for education. It has guaranteed peace between the signatory nations and provided collective strength in resisting external threats. We area European State, our history is inescapably linked to Europe and its peoples to claim any other position is disingenuous.
The EU has without doubt had far reaching effects, the real question should be on balance does the UK gain or loose. The out campaign highlights a small number of purported EU effects that they believe the public will judge as negatives. The in campaign should not focus on answering the criticisms but highlight the positives of which there many and put the outs on the defensive.
People were called all sorts, UKIP party members for daring to suggest we shouldnāt be in this club, in irony the most fascist are the people demanding we stay in and call people all sorts for wanting a debate on it, the extreme left, I hope you now know that word I used years ago, youāll be hearing a lot more of it concerning Spain, Greece and Portugal soon.
Bazza = Political love God who knows his shit xxxx
Of course we will still be attractive to Europe, trade agreements can be brokered, free movement wonāt stop, why would it? The Schengen Agreement is dead anyway, look at the wall Hungary are thinking of putting up? Italy and Greece wanting to spread asylum seekers across the board, National self interest will always override a vanity project designed for the extraction of cheap labour further and further from the East under cutting the resident population and starting a race to the bottom, we could get a lot of maoney by going after self employed tax dodgers.
People were called all sorts, UKIP party members for daring to suggest we shouldnāt be in this club, in irony the most fascist are the people demanding we stay in and call people all sorts for wanting a debate on it, the extreme left, I hope you now know that word I used years ago, youāll be hearing a lot more of it concerning Spain, Greece and Portugal soon. Bazza = Political love God who knows his shit xxxx
Back during some of the previous campaigns, I did think that UKIP were hard done by. Youād see newspapers drag up irrelevant crap from the past, in a deliberate attempt to smear UKIP and its supporters. I lost a lot of sympathy after seeing them campaign domestically. Lofty and worthwhile discussions like sovereignty somehow got usurped by arguments about the strain that AIDS patients were placing on our venerable NHS. I still think they were hard done by at the ballot box; itās something of an irony that the European Parliament is the only place theyāre represented in numbers above the local level.
More than anything else though, Bazza, just chill a bit. I know that this place is new to you and all that, but weāre not intending to settle old scores or reopen old wounds. Weāre generally a lot nicer here, even me, which is surprising me as much as anyone. Relax, dude. Youāre worthy.
In the greater scheme of things, UKIP were never hard done by, pap. They deserved the roastings they got because, up close, they were a deeply unpleasant bunch - far too many of them ex-BNP and/or NF - who hoodwinked a lot of disenfranchised-feeling people. The election campaign does what good election campaigns should do and exposed that side of them.
As for the incoherent mess above your remarks, I canāt add much except it does sound like the kind of paranoid rant that UKIP āleadersā were over-prone to.
