The EU: what do you think it's good for?

Giz

Philosopher
G
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
8,709
The recent YouGov survey of 2,157 UK adults showed:

"64 per cent in favour of weakening Britain's ties with the EU, compared with just 22 per cent in favour of keeping the UK's current full membership including the Lisbon Treaty"

"Overall, 16 per cent of voters want Britain simply to withdraw from the EU, while 48 per cent would like to see a much looser relationship, with the government taking back powers from Brussels and ending the supremacy of the European Court of Justice over British law. "

My own thoughts on the EU…

1) I like the idea of people being free to live/work anywhere they want in Europe

2) I like the idea of a European free trade zone

But…

3) I think hurrying political convergence is a mistake. If convergence works then a few decades of people freely moving and living/working within the EU may naturally create an acceptance or demand for greater political unity. Rushing it now creates significant hostility and involves the EU commission treating those who vote "no" with a contempt that doesn't even pretend to respect the will of the people.

4) I think the ''it will prevent another war'' argument that is sometimes made for the EU/political unity is specious. (And in any event would not be an argument for UK membership).

5) I don't see why there should be a European Court that is above our national court, especially given the different legal traditions behind English and Continental law.





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html
 
The treaties of Rome have been signed in 1957, this is usually seen as the first step of the EU. It has already been 50 years, I don't see any rush there.

I think another point for Europe is that to be taken seriously at the international level a single european country is too small. China doesn't really care if a single country wants to boycott their goods (for whatever reason) however if it is 500 000 europeans it is another matter. Same things regarding Russia : see the latest issue with gas delivery.

It is hard (impossible?) to get a common european decision but this is the only way to "exist" internationnaly.
 
Frankly, I think the idea of a European free trade zone (including the free movement of workers) is sufficient justification for the EU right there. Admittedly, I don't care for the Lisbon treaty; it's the failed EU Constitution wrapped in different paper. I voted against that too.

As for the notion that "it will prevent another war" being specious, Giz, care to provide some evidence, or at least some reasoned argument as to why? For several centuries, western European history consisted of the French fighting either the British or the Germans (or sometimes both) once every couple of decades. France, Germany and Britain haven't been at each other's throats militarily in sixty-four years, with minimal likelihood of their doing so in the foreseeable future. That is something of a record. Why is that, if not for the fact that trade partners don't go to war with each other?
 
Last edited:
Euromutt said:
As for the notion that "it will prevent another war" being specious, Giz, care to provide some evidence, or at least some reasoned argument as to why? For several centuries, western European history consisted of the French fighting either the British or the Germans (or sometimes both) once every couple of decades. France, Germany and Britain haven't been at each other's throats militarily in sixty-four years, with minimal likelihood of their doing so in the foreseeable future. That is something of a record. Why is that, if not for the fact that trade partners don't go to war with each other?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not as if Europe didn't trade with each other before! Here's what I'd see as some major reasons for not having another war in recent history:

The decrease in militarism on the continent
More democracies
People able to live and work freely in other countries
A very costly war within living memory
The Cold War gave an incentive to "hang together rather than hang seperately"

(A lot of the above could be shortened to "Germany has started to behave")

I'm not sure how much the EU as a political Union adds to the above, certainly when it may end up creating more friction and resentment (by ignoring referenda etc).
 
Euromutt said:
Frankly, I think the idea of a European free trade zone (including the free movement of workers) is sufficient justification for the EU right there. Admittedly, I don't care for the Lisbon treaty; it's the failed EU Constitution wrapped in different paper. I voted against that too.
Click to expand...

From the other dirrection while I would support a european superstate I can't support this european superstate due a a mixture of it's corruption incompetance and flawed fundimental design.


As for the notion that "it will prevent another war" being specious, Giz, care to provide some evidence, or at least some reasoned argument as to why? For several centuries, western European history consisted of the French fighting either the British or the Germans (or sometimes both) once every couple of decades. France, Germany and Britain haven't been at each other's throats militarily in sixty-four years, with minimal likelihood of their doing so in the foreseeable future. That is something of a record. Why is that, if not for the fact that trade partners don't go to war with each other?
Click to expand...

France and Britian have nuclear weapons and germany and italy can aquire them rather quickly. Once war for the major powers becomes imposible it becomes less worthwhile for them to allow conflict among secondary powers.
 
I can say that, as an American, it was great to be able to travel to different countries in Europe without having to change currency (except when I went to Northern Ireland...urgh).

That's really all I have to say on this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom