Europhobe or Europhile?

[MrIC]

I've been a Europhile since I was a teenager and really like the "idea" of the EU (admittedly the reality can sometimes be annoying). I'm British, born in Britain to British parents, and I currently live in Spain - I've also visited 16 other EU countries.

I love the fact that I have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, that I don't need a visa, and that I can get healthcare should I need it. I believe that the EU has played a major role in developing Europe's (and by extension Britian's) economy and improving the quality of life of 100s of millions of people.

I'd really like to hear from Europhobe's who have a genuine, rational objection to the EU and their reasons.

I like Europe but don't like the institutions of the EU. There is a big difference between being a EU-phile and a Europhile.

I like the free trade, open market, and free movement of people.

I dislike the Euro. The single European currency is in deep trouble because the interest rate and monetary needs of Spain, Greece, and Portugal are vastly different from those of Germany and France.

The way the EU works is very secretive and dodgy. It relies on backscratching rather than conviction. You get fudged compromises and a lack of democratic accountability.

I don't like the mantles of statehood - the unelected president and foreign minister, or the fact that we are moving towards a European army, European flag, European anthem. This is both for patriotic/xenophobic reasons (delete as you feel is appropriate) and because I believe power should be devolved downwards, not passed upwards to supranational bodies. Those who have power should be as close to the people as possible.

I believe on issues where genuine European-level co-operation is necessary (for example, global warming and Afghanistan) the EU fails utterly. Loose coalitions of European countries which agree on each issue would be far more able to get things done in practice.

For all that, the EU HAS been a force for good - but only insofar as the trade is concerned, not politics. The economist Bastiat made the pithiest case for supranational trade: When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.

I'm with longfingernails.

I'd much rather be allied with Europe but I hate the EU. I'd still rather have stronger links with Europe than with the US, for instance. It seems to me we've got to go for one or the other.

I am hoping that at some point in the far distant future the world will operate on a wholly global level, and being a member of some sort of European alliance is a step in that direction.

The EU is set up wrongly, it is not remotely dispassionate or unbiased and at the moment I think it is having a lovely time playing favourites, and lining it's own pockets, rather like our own politicians have been. Unfortunately, EU people are even less accountable.

absolutely agree with the above, which is why I think ordinary people need a greater say in the EU's institutions - to make it more accountable and open, less bureaucratic and more democratic

great article on this

I agree that there is a lot to criticise in the EU, but I do not think that we are heading towards a EU army, flag or anthem. That is not going to happen.

The individual states, even those that see the EU as positive, are still very patriotic. In fact, they have become more patriotic since the introduction of the Euro.

I have lived in Germany for many years, am now in Switzerland and for all the people in Europe opposed the Euro, most are happy that we have it.

Yes, there are issues and problems with a common currency, but there are also huge advantages.

I believe that the EU parliament should be more open, more accountable but also that we as voters have to take a more active interest in what is going on in Brussels. How many people actually know the name of their EU representative?

EU flag

EU anthem

EU army (thankfully we keep stopping this)

The EU speaks of "European economic government" www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/summit-opens-way-eu-common-economic-policy-news-391584

We have EU foreign policy, headed by an unelected bureaucrat. We have an EU president, also unelected.

The basic, fundamental problem with the EU is that it is not accountable to us, or indeed, anyone. We can throw out Gordon Brown at an election. What mechanism do we have to throw out Herman van Rompuy?

The idea of a EU army is just as unpopular in Germany as it is in UK, no matter what Guido Westerwelle proposes.

The flag exists, but I don't know anyone who would fly that flag instead of their national flag.

Just as the EU anthem is unlikely to be sung at pop concerts or football matches.

As long as we don't see ourselves as Europeans first and foremost, these things will not change. Very very few inhabitants of Europe would class themselves as European.

MmeLindt

That's the point.

No-one sees themselves as European before national, but we nevertheless have this panoply of European institutions, seeking to impose European-level diktats and policy, over which we have absolutely no democratic control.

Cant believe the naivety of longfingernails.

The Lisbon treaty sets the stage legally for the formation of the United States of Europe. It establishes the EU as a legal entity, in the same way an country is established legally. The Eu has already started appointing 'minister'. Its well on its way to having an EU wide police force. The Lisbon treaty, once signed by the members, also allows the EU to give itself whatever extra powers its wants, and to take over policy from any member countries in whatever areas it wants.

They are already talking about overseeing the national budgets of every member state, including the UK - that is to say, our yearly budget, set by out elected Chancellor, wil have to be given the ok by the french and germans. Thos country foolish enough to have joined the single currency already are finding they are not in control of there economies anymore, because they can no longer devalue or revalue, neither can they adjust interest rates. If we had joined the single currency we woudl be in a far worse position than we are now.

The EU leaders themselves have been quite open in the past that the object of the exercise is a unified europe, a United States of Europe. Make no mistake about that. That is the object of the exercise. Its no secret, in fact they have boasted of it openly in the past.

To that end, everything the Eu, every law it passes, every directive it issues, is designed to move power to Brussels and away from national governments, and every opportunity is taken to destroy national identity, to reduce and lower the concept of the nation, to make citizenship of the Eu better and more beneficial than citizenship of a single country.

Look at the Human Rights laws. They are designed specifically to give foreigners more rights in a country than the citizens of that country. They are designed to undermine the whole concept of citizenship, and destroy the value of it.

Mass immigration is also designed to undermine and destroy national identity. The letting into this country of 3 million foreigners suited the EU to that end, and also suited Blair and Brown in order to flood the UK with cheap labour and cow the unions.

The Eu is insidious and dangerous, and the biggest single threat to the independence and sovereignty of the nation for nearly 1000 years.

Ah yes... the fear of the French and Germans controlling our budget. OK, let's accept the premise for the moment - if we have to let other countries approve our budget then by the same logic, they have to let us approve theirs. Which basically means that unless somebody is proposing something truly outrageous or economically dangerous (we're looking at you Greece!) everyone will get the budget they want as they wont want to risk retaliation. Hope that makes sense.

Oh, and unless you live in Alistair Darling's constituency, you didn't elect the Chancellor.

Immigration
The UK (well England at least) is based on immigration - it produced the English language and culture. As Defoe said "A True-born Englishman's a contradiction, in speech a fallacy in fact a fiction." So unless you're directly descended from one of the original (pre-Claudius) Britons, then you're ignoring your own heritage.
Besides, it's all over-hyped crap. Luxembourg, Cyprus, Ireland and Spain have the highest rates of immigration per capita while the UK's is average for the EU. Meanwhile, 100,000 UK citizens emigrated in 2006 to live in other EU countries - the 3rd highest national group. That's just the declared emigrants and so doesn't include the residents of Dordogneshire and the Costa del Sol. Yet the Daily Mail never seems to run stories about French/Bulgarian/Spanish villagers complaining about Brits coming over, pricing them out of the housing market and failing to integrate...

By the way, I have no problem with the idea of a United States of Europe - so long as it's genuinely democratic and accountable. I agree the current dicta-bureaucracy sucks.

Ah the usual Pro Eu propaganda.

We have let in 3 million immigrants, and the government itself admits there is no economic benefoit to us, and at the same tiem its put intolerable strain on our services and society.

And there's nothing democratic about the united states of europe. We woudl be a small minority of 60 million in 500 million, and have little control over our own destinies. At the moment we can make our own decisins about tax, foreign policy, the economy etc etc. all that woud lbe taken away. We woudl have less control over our own country than the average parish council. And what makes you think foreigners woudl do those things that are best for us? We've already seen how the french and germans behave - look at the way they illegally banned our beef for ten years following the BSE crisis, look at the way the channel ports are immediately targetted by french strikers. Look at the way the French owned electricity company ERF has kept prices as high as they can in the UK whilst dropping them for there own countrymen.

No, the history of this country and the behavior of the europeans in the last 30 years shows you they would not act in our interest, we will only get that by controlling our own country. The french and germans have amply demonstrated they will butt fuck us at every opportunity, lie every time they speak and cant be trusted for one second.

Oh go and hide under yer mattresses!

Europhile here, live in germany. MrIC, hope you ahve got your tin hat on, starting a thread with an invitaiton like that.

Youd have done better if the germans had been in charge of the british economy over the last few years...we dont have the huge debts ...

LOL Nighby. I got distracted by the chat thread and biscuits/poster talk.

'Yet the Daily Mail never seems to run stories about French/Bulgarian/Spanish villagers complaining about Brits coming over, pricing them out of the housing market and failing to integrate...'

You want to hear some of the Belgians on the subject!

There will not be a standing EU army as the member states of the EU are for the most part the same as the member states of NATO, and they have committed their troops to NATO. There is no logic in having both NATO and an EU Army, as they would duplicate things. Given that the US are also NATO members and provide a great deal of the manpower and lift; and that France has recently rejoined NATO, then the chances of an EU Army are slim. The Military Staff that the EU do have are involved in things like anti-piracy off Somalia (Op Atalanta); however they are a very miniscule part of Baroness Ashton's new fiefdom.

I an a Europhobe; I think it is too big, too expensive and is out of hand. Van Rompuy is a Federalist to the core; you only have to look at the communique recently about European Economic government (governance in the English translation) to see that. Money is wasted on irrelevant projects and the fonctionnaires went on strike recently because they weren't going to get their 3.8% pay rise. I also have to agree with Lincstash about the French!

Not to mention the rotten corruption of the Eu. The refusal of the auditors to sign of the accounts of the European Comission for the FIFTEENTH consecutive because of the HUGE amounts of money missing and unaccounted for. Then you get the waste of money, you coud lwrite page son it. I particularly object to €2.4 billion spent in 2008 promoting European integration and ?ever closer union? through a myriad of funding streams and through the various Commission departments ? DG Culture, DG Education and Citizenship, and DG Communication.

More than €34m was dedicated to "Fostering European Citizenship", and a further €62m was spent on "Developing cultural cooperation in Europe". The very candidly stated aim of this is to generate support and justification for European integration. Joseph Goebbels woudl have been proud (you remember Goebbels, he was another power mad german federalist)

The Eu is rotten, corrupt and if you thought our MP's were pocket lining crooks, its peanuts compared to the scale of the fingers in the till that goes on in the EU.

absolutely lincstash and scaryteacher- I think everyone here agrees with you that the EU as it currently exists is undemocratic, unwieldy and most probably corrupt. Which I why I'd like it to be more democratic, less unwieldy and more efficient - which is only going to happen if people engage with it rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I love it when people call the EU a threat to British sovereignty. The British sovereign is the Queen - not the British people. So yes, in a the long run, I suppose the EU is a threat to British sovereignty as an elected Federal EU government would be incompatible with an unelected monarchy. In which case us Brits might actually end up with a proper constitution, rather than the "well, we've always done it this way" hodge-podge system we've got at the moment.

You missed my point about immigration by the way. I'm not disputing that we've let in 3 million immigrants... but we're all the descendants of immigrants one way or another, so I don't see why a few a more makes a difference. The Independent reckoned they brought about 2.5 billion to the economy - though that was back in 2002 so it's probably more now.

Clearly some migrants bring economic benefit to the UK but, taken as a whole, what they add to production is counter balanced by their addition to the population. The only major inquiry ever conducted in the UK was carried out by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords in 2007/08. In April 2008 they reported that "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population." As regards the contribution of migrants to the Exchequer, they concluded that "The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups."

In the period 1997-2005 the number of households in England is estimated to have increased by 1.563 million of which 592,000 (37.9%) are migrant households[9] . Over the same period the housing stock has risen by 1.336 million. The rise in housing stock has therefore failed to keep up with the number of households formed - the shortage is nearly a quarter of a million homes. With net migration at half the levels experienced between 1997 and 2005 there would have been no shortfall between supply and demand - this shortfall accounted for much of the surge in house prices experienced in the period.

lincstash You are absolutely spot on with everything you've posted.

MrIC I'm sorry but you are very naive. You remind me of the folk who think the EU is wonderful merely because they don't have to change their £s into Pesetas / Drachmas / Deutschmarks anymore - a very simplistic to a very complex situation.
As for your statement about the Bristish Queen being soverieign - not the British people - well duh!

Can't you see that sovereignty is more than this? It's above the
ability to raise your own taxes
ability to grant/ deny entry to whomsoever you chose
ability to set your own foreign policy
ability to make your own laws and for those laws to take precedence
ability to command your own armed forces
ability to set your own financial strategy

etc
etc
etc

many of those things we have already lost control of to Brussels - as Lincstash has already pointed out.

these are the things that define a nation. take them away and the former Britain becomes a small area on the Western edge of Europe that used to be one of the standing members of the UN security council and had independant membership of NATO - before this was replaced by a homogenous EU membership of these organisations.

We are sleep-waliking into this and before I'm accused of being a 'Little Englander' - I would rather be a Little Englander than No Englander.

Sorry ^ typo ^ "it's about the"

ok wet august I agree with many of your points, but not your conclusions. In my unbelievable naivety - probably cultivated while doing my MSc in International Relations - I don't really rate national sovereignty as a priority. Personal sovereignty, however, that's something I view as pretty important...

I like the idea of a social contract - Rousseau style - which simply doesn't exist in the UK. Everyone serves at Her Majesty's pleasure and there's no codification of individual rights and responsibilities as regards the state, just an over-lapping and occasionally contradictory collection of legislation that the government can bypass when is sees fit - witness the existence of jury-less trials and control orders. At present the European Bill of Human Rights is the only legal structure providing UK citizens with guarantees of their personal sovereignty and acting as a restraint on the nation states' sanctioning of violence against its citizens (e.g. G20 policing - can't believe that police office wasn't convicted of assault).

Oh and since you bring up the UN, given the choice between a nation of 60 million holding one of five permanent posts on the UN security council, and a Federation representing 500 million people, which do you think is fairer?

And if you don't believe in fairness, but rather in what's best for Britain (and by extension, yourself) then the answer still lies in active participation. We live in a Global World where the decisions of foreign Governments or Large Multinationals often force the hand of elected governments, in the UK and elsewhere. Retreating into political isolation and cutting ties with Europe will only weaken Britain's ability to control its interests internationally. On a Global scale our interests are the same as those of Germany, France and the rest of the EU - social liberalism, democracy, free and fair trade, action on climate change, intellectual property rights, etc. If we don't get more involved in the EU then they will make decisions and enforce policies without our input - and the rest of the world will listen as both politically, economically and demographically the EU carries more clout.

Oh and I do believe that the Euro is great as it would save me (and the other 1 million Brits living in Spain) from having to change money all the time. I also think it might be better for British Industry as it would save importers from getting hammered when the Pound is weak and exporters from being uncompetitive when the Pound is strong. I think the only people that really benefit from Britain keeping the Pound are the City and the banks who get to skim off a commission every time somebody needs to change money.

Oh, and linctash the benefit of immigrants to the UK economy is that they are going to end up paying your pension - and probably mine (if pensions still exist by then).

UK fertility in 2008 was 1.96 (up from1.63 in 2001) - below the replacement rate of 2.10. Basically there aren't enough children being born in the UK (or France, Italy, Germany, etc) to replace those who are retiring. So if all immigration was made illegal with immediate effect then in 10 years there would be negative population growth, a population with top heavy age brackets and a workforce insufficient to the demands of the economy groaning under a huge tax burden to pay for the pensions of the retirees (probably living in the south of France/Spain and cursing the crappy Euro/Pound exchange rate).

I'm most definitely a Europhile. Just because the European institutions are immature (mere newborns compared with the elderly institutions of the member states) doesn't make them bad.

And let us not forget, ever, that the European Union exists primarily to maintain peace in Europe. Let us never, ever forget the bloodshed and horror of wars that raged across Europe until the mid-20th century.

As my grandparents and Dad had to go through the horrors of ground invasion during the second world war (may English people never experience it), I am most certainly Europhile. Any institutions preventing wars is supported by me.

I adore Germany... I love a lot of Europe. Yet I utterly despair of the EU. There are far too many weak countries in it and the power it has is insane. Letting criminals stay here rather than being deported etc.