Entertainment For Lively Minds
Europe
I find all this furore over Cameron's supposed 'veto' rather puzzling. My guess is that opinion on Europe and our ties with it is pretty polarized on generational lines, with ( approximately ) the over 50s tending to be against further ( or, in some cases, any ) ties with Europe, and the younger generation being either in favour of closer ties or pretty ambivalent about the subject. The sceptical side of the argument is, in addition, fuelled by Tory eurosceptics and the more rabid right wing press.
I'm in the over 50's camp but I fail to understand why people of my generation ( if I'm right ) have a problem with closer involvement with Europe. Economically, the trend is towards an increasingly global market so what kind of sense it makes to prefer 'splendid isolation' (sic) is beyond me.
Does anyone else agree that this is largely a generational issue, possibly fuelled by historic distrust of France and Germany, inherited or otherwise?
- More from jazzjet.
- Login or register to post comments
-
A data point
I'm 59 years of age.
I'm right of centre politically.
I'm definitely in favour of a full United States Of Europe. Let's get through the 'growing pains' stage and get on with it.
I am torn
I am over 50. I do believe in Europe. I am of mixed European heritage. I have lived in the heart of the beast in its one-week-a-month capitol (Strasbourg). However, the reality of how the EU is currently run does not impress me one jot. Actually, I'd quite like to see power devolving more at a national level never mind supranationally.
"Supranationally"
- excellent wordery
I don't see it as distrust of France and Germany
More a sort of distrust of a faltering currency and some fairly hefty bailouts that have had seemingly no impact whatsoever.
But then I fall into the Tory eurosceptic camp quite happily. We can manage. Let us bugger up our own country, thanks!
But Euroscepticism
has been around for much longer than the Euro's current dilemna. I suspect that currency concerns are just a current justification for the more generational concerns mentioned by the OP.
I'm just the right side of fifty and pro-European to the extent that I'm currently working on secondment with the European Commission in Brussels. I have yet to see a clearly articulated case against the UK remaining in the EU. Like it or not, the other members of the EU are the UK's close neighbours and major trading partners, so decisions made by the EU and its institutions are going to have an effect on the UK, whether or not it remains a member. The UK will have an influence on those decisions if and only if it remains a member.
Nope not a generational issue
Not in the Beach household anyway.
I am broadly pro European but have always been against joining the Euro or closer integration. My two sons by contrast, 21 and 18 years old, are both rabidly anti EU and are hoping the recent Euro crisis will lead to our full departure.
'We'll end up having a relationship like the Swiss have'
(with the EU).
Heard (I think) Nick Robinson say this the other day, in worried tones.
The problem with that being, exactly?
Have to say, the Beeb is being quite nakedly partisan on this issue. Embarrassing, tbh.
I'd have thought the problem with that is obvious.
The CH has less people than the GLC, and the highest level of wealth per capita of anywhere on the planet. Need I point out any more differences?
Europe, what is it good for?
so much for the long touted single union eh - we'll watch from the sidelines whilst other countries burn - cameron and his posh boy cronies will make the uk the black sheep of europe.
god help us if we ever needed a bailout package, i can see the turned backs in brussels already!
I was amused...
...in a sort of "hey, that's not a bad point" kind of way by Hislop on HIGNFY the other night, where he pointed out that being on the margins of Europe's not such a bad thing if the Euro goes completely tits-up. Which it still might. The story about Germany printing Deutschmarks is mainstream now: not sure it can be written of as simple rumour any more.
I've always been pro-EU and broadly anti-Euro, ever since the much more economically literate (and much cleverer in general) Mrs B pointed out to me about 15 years ago that you can't have a functioning single currency without a single fiscal policy. Seems that now people are cottoning on. Someone put my missus in charge, won't you please?
I honestly think this issue is too complex for me to have a solid opinion on it. But I don't want a federal Europe - never have - and I certainly don't want to be in one.
By the way, I'm 33. It's nothing to do with xenophobia or crusty-old-git-ism, and everything to do with being generally in favour of localism and against homogeneity. Britain is JUST small enough to be able to govern as a piece. Europe isn't. A common market: great. A relaxing of employment and immigration barriers: great. A single currency? A single government? Hell no, I said HELL NO. Centralisation on that scale is a recipe for disaster.
United Europe
I am in favour of the concept - closer trade links and relationships with your neighbours can only be a good thing can't it?
For a true "United States of Europe" to happen, the single currency should be promoted (although if, like the UK, you don't want to be part of it, then you should have to), but the single currency should be underwritten with a uniform taxation and fiscal policy in each participating nation.
Debt rules (ie countrys debt must be less than its assets (surely good business practice?)) should be rigorously enforced to prevent smaller economies over-reaching themselves.
(Here endeth my naive opinions on Europe - it's a good idea, but needs strong (and consistent) commitment and policing from all nations involved)
Fiscal / budgetary union
That's politically HORRIBLE. No politician could campaign for anything locally, because the budget would come from Europe. "Education education education" would be "Um, we're broadly in favour of people being literate, but let me check with this massive continental bureacracy before I promise anything". It's a democratic nightmare.
You could ONLY have that kind of union if nations also cede their sovereignty to a central European state. I don't think even the French are up for that, and it'd be flaming torches on the streets in this country. I don't want that: apart from anything else, I might find myself standing shoulder to shoulder with UKIP, and that'd probably cause me to drop dead from sheer cognitive dissonance.
Politically & Democratically Awful - Yes
but I can't see a single currency working without it.
A politically united Europe can be achieved without loss of sovereignty, and without the need for a single currency.
The principle of Europe can be maintained as a group of separate sovedeign nations with a combined purpose (ie prosperity for all nations)
If...
...monetary and fiscal union results in less democracy and a hamstrung political discourse, then it's not worth having monetary and fiscal union at all.
IMO. OOAA.
Thats where I am too
Its Fascism - its staring everyone in the face. Its terrifying - the potential rule of the technocrat bankers 'for our own good' backed by the gun.
I implore you - watch this one very very carefully
But, the USA model of 'federal govt + states' seems to work OK
Any reason why, given 50 years to get used to it, a putative USE couldn't work as well?
We could convert (say) Andorra to an equivalent to DC or the ACT.
Its the lack of voting opportunities that scares me
The US has that odd post-vote counting level of state electoral colleges, to pass back the result to Washington after the count, which is a formality in most elections but would be very important in a close one.
We don't have any of that with the EU. I don't know what I would make of a USE - but I know I would expect us to be asked first. I do always vote, I think thats very very important.
I'm not generally a Eurosceptic but this is one place where I think we would come to the same conclusion by different routes - the power of the EU and the European Commission is not based on democracy, even the feeble form of it we have here with an appointed upper house.
And Italy and Greece are governed now by bank appointees.
The senior EU figures all bankers and they clearly have enormous power, and the financial services industry has run up massive debts and manoeuvred the taxpayers of the US and Europe onto the hook. I am pretty scared Stimps, genuinely
Any time the phrase
"US Model seems to work" is used, a piece of my mind melts and my soul disappears.
I don't think it does - there is a constant tension between local state or commonwealth law and Federal. Pot? Legal in California for medical use. That will get you nailed at the Federal level.
There's a lack of consistency between the States on many issues. Gun rights? Well, if I had a firearm in Virginia it would be very difficult to move to DC.
Cross state projects - infrastructure, for example - becomes an absolute clusterf*ck. Who's paying for what and how much control do they have?
And I haven't started yet on how Government - the actual mechanics of it - at either local or Federal level actually works. Or, to be more accurate, doesn't.
One reason why Europe is different.
Most of the buggers don't speak English.
Scotland
I look forward to the coming day when my small nation will have a place at the table. I would not like to predict what will happen to England with regards to Europe.
Serious question:
Do you reckon an independent Scotland would have anything at all to bargain with, in a European setting? The only thing that stops the Europeans completely sidelining Britain is the City, and as much as I despise the City right now, that's no bad thing.
the same argument
might be used about Denmark, Estonia, Malta and potentially a number of other EU members. At least in the short term I think the Scottish offer of oil, fish and tourism (let's skip lightly over financial services for a while, shall we?) is enough to be of interest to the European mainland community.
Perhaps it is just me, but a lot of people in favour of Britain leaving the EU to control its own destiny, dont seem to be in favour of the same policy applying to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom.
Personnally I am in favour of staying in both - but we do live in democracies.
At present the UK is one of the Big Three
in Europe in terms of its (potential) influence, due to its population size and economy. Scotland on its own would be similar in influence to, for example, Denmark, so would be more dependent on forming alegiances and doing deals with other member states.
Big fan of Europe
and have long advocated greater European integration around my workplace. I'm so very weary of the popular British attitude toward a united europe of let's just hang on the sidelines wringing our hands indecisively whilst creaming all the benefits and taking none of the risks.
I've not seen anything anywhere (yet) about what Britain's economic condition would be now had it joined the Euro from the outset. I'm not sure much would have changed. People would've stupidly bought shit they could not afford and banks would have proceeded as they did to put us where we are now.
at last
I'm relieved that the tide of public opinion on this topic is finally turning (unless, that is, you work for the BBC), because one of the more depressing aspects of previous debates was that the pro-EU faction had successfully skewed the discussion to the extent that anything 'anti-EU' was seen as anti-European, anti-progress, pro-xenophobia and all the rest of it.
Let's be absolutely clear about this: the EU is not Europe. It's a concerted attempt to run Europe from a central source.
The EU is anti-democratic. Just ask voters in Denmark, France and Holland; how many referenda did the EU bigwigs ignore? What was it about the word 'no' that they didn't understand? And don't even bother asking voters in Greece and Italy anymore, because they now have their own 'appointed' governments.
You can be in favour of increased co-operation, trade, labour movement and all the rest of it (as I am), without being in favour of central planning and big, unaccountable government.
Here's something from the Commons Select Committee on European Union, June 2006:
"The EU admits to having 662 bank accounts in 45 different countries. It admits some of them are offshore, but refuses to say how many, where they are, or why they are there. It also admits to having "dealings with" another 214,000 bank accounts across the globe."
The auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts for sixteen consecutive years.
It doesn't matter what any of us do or say and it has now become clear that, for many continental Europeans, it doesn't matter how they vote, because there is a political and bureaucratic elite that is absolutely determined to establish a 'united states' of Europe.
I think we should be alarmed by the fact that they have complete and utter contempt for us all; they live behind a firewall, impervious to anything as vulgar as public opinion or any old-fashioned notions of democratic accountability. Sadly, because the mere casting of votes clearly means nothing to them, it is likely that they will only be defeated by something that is probably going to be altogether less pleasant than the average general election.
All previous attempts at 'unifying' Europe have ended in tears; this one will as well.
I'm not going to try
and defend the pushing-through of the Lisbon treaty, but ironically one of the things it has resulted in is a shift in power away from the unelected body (the European Commission) in favour of the elected bodies (the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
I don't buy this conspiracy theory stuff about a political and bureacratic elite. In practice it is a group of countries who realise that it is in their best interests to be part of a larger union. On a day to day basis it is all about the interests of the member states.
Its not a political and bureacratic elite
Its the financial industry. look at who those 'eurocrats' work for or have worked for
PS
This is more representative of what the EU is about in practice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/connie-hedegaard-durba..., with the influence of the 27 member states together being much greater than the states acting individually.
Glad you're here DCE,
I would have expressed similar sentiments in far more sarky fashion. Great post.
I hope you're right about the tide turning. With the Beeb's massive gravitational pull it's hard to tell. Certainly I've found their coverage since Cameron's (entirely reasonable, and I'm no fan of his) veto jaw-dropping at times. I would suggest that even people with a similar worldview should be dismayed at the rampant groupthink that's so clearly on display. Simply not healthy.
Sir Anthony Jay sums this up pretty nicely in his foreword to a report on another Beeb cause célèbre:
Funny I have developed a different attitude to the BBC
Bear with me Dougie....
I must admit I don't follow the mainstream bulletins so you may be right about 'group think' - though bear in mind the BBC isn't really able to take a stance outside the soggy middle - which is in its charter in fact in not so many words. Remember too that Peter Jay was an absolutely rotten and incomprehensible economics editor for the BBC - a paid up member of the great and good (like Stephanie Flanders who I also dislike). And the 'European consensus' view is the mainstream one across all the parties however much it annoys you (and me too but I suspect for different reasons).
But that said, I think that Gavin Hewitt, Mark Mardell and especially Robert Peston have been spelling it out pretty clearly for the last four years or more in their blogs on the BBC website - and its not at all a Europhile line (as opposed to loving European countries, which is a distinction Eurosceptics can of course draw too).
I think those BBC correspondents at least have been starting off from the financial aspect of the story as it develops, which I think is the key one and its the biggest story in the world. The banks went bust - they are still bankrupt, their assets are worth a fraction of what their books say - the Western countries bailed them out and now THEY are bust - the difference being that the losses have been shunted onto the taxpayer.
And the EU higher-ups are bankers to a man - talk of them being Socialists is bewildering to me.
I think that people are indeed waking up to whats going on, they will see it through a prism of their own prejudices of course (god knows I have plenty of THEM) but scales are falling from a lot of eyes. And even if the BBC is peddling fewer lines than most TV channels or pretty much any newspaper(and it is under continual intense scrutiny) you're right to regard any news source with suspicion or at least scepticism.
Edit - wasn't Jay at the BBC in Major's PM days? So a Labour opposition as now? The example he gives of ' the Opposition say "what a bunch of gobshites" ' will have been true but the other way round in Blair & Brown's day, to my recollection at least. I don't recall Blair or especially Brown getting an easy ride (quite right too) I know that the Labour Party were convinced the BBC is/was the voice of the establishment - so I don't think Jay is painting a complete picture in other words. And he was SHITE as an editor.
OOAA :-)
A conflation of Jays...
You're talking about Peter, I believe.
The quote above is from Antony, co-creator of Yes Minister.
Oops - ta
Though I think my point about the BBC and bias still stands up
Agree with a lot of what you say FG
It is amazing how all this is slowly drifting into something very bad.
I have mentioned this before, but if you want an alternative view to the mainstream business analysis I would point you to these thrice weekly broadcasts from someone who was in Wall Street and has correctly called a LOT of what has happened in the last few months - check the archive to see this:
http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/
Yes I know these two only get broadcast time on Resonance FM, Al-Jazera, RT, and even Press TV - but, you know, I think there could be a reason for that? Listen to the first 5- 10 mins of their latest episode (221) - 15 mins onwards is pretty scary. Oh, and Ep 219 puts the boot into IDS
Referenda
You make a lot of good points DC but have to take you to task on your assertion that refusal to hold a referendum is somehow anti-democratic. How so? The democratic process works perfectly well without the need for referendums - you don't like the decisions of the elected Government you vote them out at the next election. I think it is quite amusing that people are surprised at Camerons anti-European stance - it was always the case as far as I recall. I think he has made a mistake but if the coalition splits as a result it isn't all bad.
Brown
Gordon Brown rarely gets credit for anything but he was instrumental in keeping the UK from joining the Euro when he was Chancellor, seemingly against the wishes of Tony Blair.
I give him that credit...
...as well as much else, quite cheerily. He was good in some ways. He was awful in others.
Europe you say?
It's The Final Countdown obviously
Dave Amitri, political correspondent, Word Blog
Der-der-DER-der, der-der-DER-der-der...
Classy post, Dave. Like it.
It seems we never commit to anything properly
We more or less ditched the Commonwealth when something better seemed to be on offer, but never really joined in did we. We're like the difficult kid who stands on the edge lobbing in unhelpful comments every so often.
The metric system is analagous. We never really signed up did we - so now we have both imperial and metric - Great! The worst of both worlds. Butchers and greengrocers are penalised for selling their wares in imperial measures but we still have mph road signs. Go figure!
quote
"We're like the difficult kid who stands on the edge lobbing in unhelpful comments every so often"
That's me that is!
In a declining jobs market
we might just have made our position even worse. Make no mistake there are going to be people in the EU and lots of them who are going to start blaming Britain if the Euro problems exacerbate as they surely will. The problem then is if they have a choice of buying a product from lets say Belgium, UK or Italy we will be third on the list. In the company I work for, a UK freight forwarder, more than 50 percent of our current sales turnover is from trading with Europe.
I dont see the logic of Cameron vetoing the treaty on the basis of he was protecting the financial institutions in the City of London. If the EU has moved to closer fiscal union without us being part of it then by default the finances of Europe are going to move away from London anyway. Seems like despite the ineptitude of the banks in 2008 they are still calling the shots now.
This is also likely the start of the unravelling of the coalition which is another great result for our economy.
Thanks a lot Dave you played a blinder (to quote Boris Johnson the other buffoon).
Well -
I think he did it because the banks don't want to be interrupted quite yet in their plunder. The biggest theft in history is underway.
This step WILL break UK access to the single market sooner or later, at which point the financial services industry will up sticks and leave us with the bill and a smoking hole where our industrial base used to be.
Dave and GO will be fine though, as will most of our politicians. If our politicians weren't so overwhelmingly employed by the City (and it is an amazing percentage that do work or have worked there) maybe he wouldn't have put their interests first.
Cameron's "veto"?
It's a win-win. It'll buy about a month of delay and obfuscation time. DC and Georgie Boy get to bugger off to The Maldives or wherever for Crimble. If the shit hits the big slow-turning EU meltdown fan before the end of the vac, DC'll be a hero for keeping us clear of some of the shrapnel. If the EU staggers on through the spring, there's plenty of time to engineer a rethink, re-badged of course as a cunning strategic move justified by, or in order to avoid, Sarkozy and Merkel's inevitable falling out, and DC is back 'in the room'. Meanwhile the loony fringe Tories can roll their eyes, cackle and chuckle over their port and brandy snaps for the festive season while the technocrats smirk quietly to themselves and plan their next boardroom reshuffles.
All completely true - good post
And your one up the page made me HOWL laughing :-)
Yerp!
Harry Enfield sketch, written I think by Ian Hislop
"That's what Yerp is all about. It's better to be on the train, pissing out, than running along the platform, trying to piss in"
Steve Bell always refers to it as 'Yurp'
in his IF... strip
Yesterday in Parliament (European)
French MEP Joseph Daul, who chairs the parliament's centre-right European People's Party group, told Britain jokingly: "Don't worry, we're not coming with tanks and Kalashnikovs before Christmas."
Laugh? I almost wet myself. Also, why would Europeans use Kalashnikovs and not home-produced rifles? No wonder it's going to the dogs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16156183
Higgs Cameron
At CERN this morning, scientists are beside themselves with quantum
excitement, as the fabled Higgs Cameron particle has finally been
detected. Incontrovertible evidence from European research has shown
that the 'dark matter' which makes up the majority of the political
firmament consists of huge numbers of Higgs Cameron particles. Clusters
of these dense, massively heavy particles make up larger conglomerate
structures nicknamed 'merchant banks', and their mass holds the rest of
the known universe in a constant equilibrium between opposing and
incompatible quantum states known as 'boom' and 'bust'.
As opposed to the Clegg's Boson?
:-)