Great Britain is not an Island

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The topic of this thread is not 'the UK must/musn't be a member of the EU/Euro/European federation'. The topic deals with the step that precedes that. With the myths that surround and cloud the debate about the EU in Britain. The subject is to rubbish several of these national myths about Britain.
These myths play a large part in the British debate about the EU. Which, of course, is why I brought them up. That is only the relevance of this thread and the topic, but not the topic itself.

A box of crayons.
Each one is different. But, none can claim to be unique in being different, since all of them are different from one another. This is the fallacy.

---

We are not interested in ever deeper union. And it certainly is not a price we are willing to pay given that many of the understood benefits of that ever deeper union do not really apply to us.

Here is a national myth for you; we don't get invaded very much. that certainly does influence my thoughts when i think about the EU.
You haven't managed to rubbish much of anything, you haven't managed to demonstrate much of anything, this thread is dead in the water as far as advancing your intention goes, but it has been an excellent thread insomuch as it has allowed me to explain why we don't really give a damn about ever deeper union.

Your crayon analogy doesn't really apply, because there are lots of continental nations that are willing to move with the ever deeper union momemtum, which is there choice, but does remove the defence that they are all unique in this respect.

I'm sorry, but any statement, for or against, about an ever deeper union neither agrees nor disagrees with what I've argued in this thread. It is neither the point nor my intention of this thread.



After the crayon metaphor, now the Michigan analogy:
Michigan is culturally obviously different from all of the other 49 states. It doesn't get invaded much by the Union. It is culturally much closer to British commonwealth countries like Canada than to Alabama. Split in half by the Great Lakes (well one of them, but I don't remember which one ~:mecry:), it has a unique geography - which is the cause of Michigan's uniqueness.

This all means that we ought to speak of 'Michigan AND the United States'. And all those unique aspects of Michigan must be taken into account when dealing with the Union. In fact, any Michigan politician who doesn't insist upon them when dealing with non-Michiganese is selling out Michigan to the US. Any opinion an American gives about Michigan is suspect and must be met with due hostility in return.

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

This thread sprang directly from the; "is it time for Britain to join the euro" thread, and the entire theme of your arguments have run in the direction of exposing the the ridiculous obstinacy with which the UK acts towards all attempts to become involved in EUrope, resulting from Britains flawed idea that we think we don't have exactly the same problem and share the same goals as the more enlightened countries of the continent.

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:

But even if you are trying to engage in some higher level philosophical debate with the argument that the UK is no different, you cannot ignore the primary expression of this pathology which is the fact that:
1) We do hold ourselves apart from EUrofication. (island mentality)
2) The continent on balance does not. (enlightened and glorious EUropean mentality)

So we are both different (in this respect), and an island (as we behave to our neighbours).

The following statement will add nothing to the disputed subject. It's just a personal gripe I have about the flow of the debate so far and the wording used. It isn't aimed at anyone in particular, I'll hastily add:

In brief, I'd like to point out that there is no collective opinion in Great Britain. The use of the terms "us" and "you" are being bandied about as if the entirety of the British nation fell into a single eurosceptic camp. This is not the case, nor has it ever been so. I myself, a Yorkshireman by birth and a Mancunian by the grace of God have been a supporter of central government and integration since first I became politically aware. I'd hazzard a guess that I am not alone in that, even in these forums. A majority are opposed to the EU. That's hard to deny; a brief conversation with ten randomly selected joes will usually reveal this to be true. Some would even say an overwhelming majority, though I suspect this often wildly exaggerated. Either way, a large portion is not tantamount to a whole.

What I'm trying to say is; don't simply ignore the opinions of those who disagree with you or contradict your side of the debate by proclaiming that the entirety of a nation stands behind/against your argument.

That's it.

Whinge over.

you are quite correct, there are a couple of your lamentable persuasion even here. ;)

when I say "us/we" i am referring to a majority of the british public, not everyone, but given the number of times i have to state my case it is much easier to abbreviate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:

---

I set out to challenge several opinions about Great Britain and its role within the EU that I consider based on myth.


I did read all your posts with great interests! I am not the referee over what anybody posts here or the direction any debate follows. Write what you want to share. I do not want to read what I think, I want to read what everybody else thinks. One can do me no greater disfavour than by saying 'what an excellent post, Louis, I couldn't agree more!'

I am not here to convince, never mind to preach, I am here to learn. We won't end this thread agreeing with one another. Nor do we have to for a satisfying, fruitful debate. So far, I have greatly learned from your efforts and from your sharing your thoughts and opinions here, for which my thanks.

ah well, in that case my thoughts are summed up by:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

2. socialism took a firmer grip on the continent than ever did here, and the consequence is a much greater enthusiasm for regulation in matters socio-economic. we freebooting Britons pillaging the high financial seas see this as a threat to our competitive advantage.

3. the continent as a result of the 30 years war, the franco-prussian war, the first world war as well as the second and many more, has suffered centuries of political instability repression and revolution. how many continental countries have not been facist, communist, revolutionary, and invaded in the last 350 years? the EU therefore represents stability to many nations, not a problem Britain has.

4. for an economic union to work, in the bad times as well as the good, there needs to be a large element of political union; who is the lender of last resort, why should germany bail out italy's fantastic attempt to make the euro worthless, etc. we don't necessarily want a political union, we have an exceptionally successful political model already, and no-one has demonstrated why an extra layer of EU federalism is an improvement.

5. we are rich in absolute and comparative terms, will joining the euro make us richer or poorer? certainly no-one has persuaded me that joining the euro, with all the harmonisation that entails, will do anything but reduce britain's competitive advantage.

6. we have a history with, and a duty to, the commonwealth nations to assist them in their socio-economic development, and we like the freedom to recommend our political structures and structure economic packages to their benefit as we see fit. specifically, we dislike EU trade protectionism and the damage we feel it does to developing nations, especially given the skepticism with which we view aid programs. there is no question that greater involvement in the EU further reduces our options with the developing world generally, and the commonwealth in particular.

7. similar to #6, there further we integrate the less free our hand to act as we please, which is fine if we acted in concordance with the rest of the continent because we amplify our message, but bad if we have divergent views because our own will be watered down among 300 million continetal voices. if Britain decides it wants to join america in invading somewhere then i don't want to euro apparatchik telling us we can't because we signed up to a common foriegn policy!

how's that do for you?

"I think therefore I am" seems appropriate and saves five or so pages. :book:

It's also strangely sad to see the "blame the U.S." trend is diminishing. Ever since I realized that the French love to be reviled I grew to like it. People are forgetting the key role the U.S. played in forming the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ah well, in that case my thoughts are summed up by:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

---

I don't know why you keep bringing this on. After WW2, Germany was in no position to threaten France in any way. Partitioned, no army, no economy, no political influence, not to mention that a little later France became a nuclear power. Since Germany wasn't (and still isn't and won't be), no military threat to France from Germany exists.

Granted, UK is somewhat different to most European states in that regard and London is still one of the world's top financial centers, but is going to change and importance of London as a financial center is going to decline. By using "channels" (I'm sure there's a better word, but nothing comes to mind right now) from the times of the empire, London still controls a good chunk of money flow from southeast Asia and Middle East and that is going to change in favour of new financial centers that are emerging there... I expect that in several decades, UK will adopt the Euro and start integrating more in EU. Maybe even earlier, it depends on a huge number of factors...

The kinds of ideas about closer economic cooperation across state borders that the EU stems from were being floated around already in the interwar period, you know. One reason was that the benefits of scale the US derived from the sheer size of its internal market were not lost on Euro economists.

Anyway, what can be regarded as the concrete first step in the chain that led to the present EU was the Coal And Steel Union formed between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe someone else (can't be arsed to check the details ATM) shortly after the war; the direct impetus was a distruption in the supply of English coal due to domestic reasons that put French industry in a tight spot, and convinced them to start looking for alternate suppliers and arrangements.

Furuncu wasn't entirely incorrect, however, as one important consideration in the various postwar cooperative agreements indeed was binding the interests of at least the big boys of the block (initially France and Germany) so closely that they'd be flat out forced to cooperate and compromise with each other in the future. The downsides of confrontational competition and "me-firsting" had, after all, become demonstrated concretely indeed in the recent few decades...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I don't know why you keep bringing this on. After WW2, Germany was in no position to threaten France in any way. Partitioned, no army, no economy, no political influence, not to mention that a little later France became a nuclear power. Since Germany wasn't (and still isn't and won't be), no military threat to France from Germany exists.

Granted, UK is somewhat different to most European states in that regard and London is still one of the world's top financial centers, but is going to change and importance of London as a financial center is going to decline. By using "channels" (I'm sure there's a better word, but nothing comes to mind right now) from the times of the empire, London still controls a good chunk of money flow from southeast Asia and Middle East and that is going to change in favour of new financial centers that are emerging there... I expect that in several decades, UK will adopt the Euro and start integrating more in EU. Maybe even earlier, it depends on a huge number of factors...

---

because france had feared germany for the previous 100 years as a result of the demographic slide of former relative to latter, of which the last grasp for dominance by france was the franco-prussian war. one does not cast aside a hundred years of decline especially after two world wars have just been fought on your front lawn. wiki ssums the situation up nicely (quoted below).

Britain is a financial hub for more reasons than just history, though that plays a large part. Not so long ago that position was occupied by New York, which goes to show how important the regulatory environment is. this along with that history, the ease of movement of people, language, culture and institutions all play their part.
Yes Britain will decline, all of the old west is declining relative to the 'new' east, and we will certainly decline all the faster if we integrate our financial sector regulation with that of europe.
You might be right about the timeline, I for one won't put any certainty on predictions cast decades into the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The kinds of ideas about closer economic cooperation across state borders that the EU stems from were being floated around already in the interwar period, you know. One reason was that the benefits of scale the US derived from the sheer size of its internal market were not lost on Euro economists.

Anyway, what can be regarded as the concrete first step in the chain that led to the present EU was the Coal And Steel Union formed between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe someone else (can't be arsed to check the details ATM) shortly after the war; the direct impetus was a distruption in the supply of English coal due to domestic reasons that put French industry in a tight spot, and convinced them to start looking for alternate suppliers and arrangements.

Furuncu wasn't entirely incorrect, however, as one important consideration in the various postwar cooperative agreements indeed was binding the interests of at least the big boys of the block (initially France and Germany) so closely that they'd be flat out forced to cooperate and compromise with each other in the future. The downsides of confrontational competition and "me-firsting" had, after all, become demonstrated concretely indeed in the recent few decades...

---

from wiki:

Quote:

---

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
After two devastating world wars, the political climate favoured an international unity that ensured peace. (bombed Hamburg in 1943)

Main article: History of the European Communities (1945-1957)

World War II from 1939 to 1945 saw a human and economic cost which hit Europe hardest. It demonstrated the horrors of war and also of extremism, through the holocaust, for example. Once again, there was a desire to ensure it could never happen again, particularly with the war giving the world nuclear weapons. The countries of Western Europe failed to maintain their Great power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[2].

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Industrial plans for Germany) and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).[3] (See: Monnet plan)

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Robert Schuman proposed in May 1950 the Coal and Steel Community.

On the basis of that speech, France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community the following year; this took over the role of the International Authority for the Ruhr[1] and lifted some restrictions on German industrial productivity. It gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament). The first presidents of those institutions were Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak respectively.

After failed attempts at creating defence (European Defence Community) and political communities (European Political Community), leaders met at the Messina Conference and established the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956) where the decision was taken to organize a Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom focused on economic unity, leading to the Treaties of Rome being signed in 1957 which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the members.[4]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

because france had feared germany for the previous 100 years as a result of the demographic slide of former relative to latter, of which the last grasp for dominance by france was the franco-prussian war. one does not cast aside a hundred years of decline especially after two world wars have just been fought on your front lawn. wiki ssums the situation up nicely (quoted below).

---

I'm not arguing that preventing future wars was one of the reasons behind EU, but saying that EU was French invention because they were afraid of future German invasion is oversimplification, to put it mildly. There were many other, even more important factors...

Britain is a financial hub for more reasons than just history, though that plays a large part. Not so long ago that position was occupied by New York, which goes to show how important the regulatory environment is. this along with that history, the ease of movement of people, language, culture and institutions all play their part.
Yes Britain will decline, all of the old west is declining relative to the 'new' east, and we will certainly decline all the faster if we integrate our financial sector regulation with that of europe.
You might be right about the timeline, I for one won't put any certainty on predictions cast decades into the future.[/QUOTE]

It's just a guess. I'm not a political analyst or an economic expert. We know it will happen but for "when", your guess is as good as mine...

The point about france was that france and others see in the EU security, where the UK does not.

I would even be to sure about that, there really isn't any net advantage to Britain for being inside the euro.