The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
The inhabitants may treat it as a joke but the people with the actual power, in the Commission, the EU bureaucracy and the national governments definitely do not. It is a country by any meaningful measure except for the one which I suspect we agree is most important - in the minds the people who actually live there.
I do mix with a fair few Europeans, but since I live in Asia they're probably not a very representative sample.
I'm 36 and know what you mean about the generational shift in attitudes towards the Germans. I personally actually quite like most of the Germans I have met, at least in so far as you can generalise about a country of 80 million people. It's a country with much to be admired socially, economically and culturally. And while in no way defending the appalling things that were done in the name of that country I think there is even a sense in which their war guilt was cynically played against them as a cover for the inadequacies of much of the rest of Europe during the reconstruction period after the war; and a sense in which some of the atrocities visited against German civilians were downplayed, along with the role of many people in other countries, including Britain, who had great sympathy for the Nazi movement. It's a whole different can of worms, but not unrelated.
However, distrust of Germany is a bit more complicated than simple "the Nazis killed my grandfather." You'd have to be in your 60s to have any real memory of the aftermath of WW2 playing a significant part in your life, and much older still to actually remember the war. The societal memories and mythologies linger but don't translate so easily into a serious political force IMO.
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy. They are a natural centre of Europe geographically and a bridge between the major groups from the latin south to Scandinavia, the Slavs in the east and the maritime west. So it's quite natural that proud countries like Britain and France with our own democratic traditions would be wary of throwing in our lot with a more powerful neighbour.
I also think there is a sense in which some people, including some Germans see the European Union as a natural extension of the binding together of the disparate states of Germany which occurred under Bismark. This is not to say a German empire as such, it seems more like the American view of their national story being something natural and beneficial to anyone lucky enough to be part of it. As someone who believes quite strongly in the liberal traditions of England and the English speaking world I really don't find this idea attractive at all.
Regardless of all that though, I don't see the European Union as a German empire by the back door. I think it's something that grew out of the misguided and desperate state of Europe in the aftermath of WW2 when it faced a loss of relevance between the new two major powers of the Soviet Union and the United States. It was taken up enthusiastically by France, which it had to be if it was to mean anything at all, and by Italy, and some time later and less enthusiastically by our own ruling class, who in their way were as defeated and sidelined by WW2 as were those of the rest of Europe.
I also think the world has moved on a lot since then, and a Europe of free, open and independent democracies is a much better model than creating a country called Europe, with a flag, anthem and the other trappings of a state to which the population owe no allegiance.
I do mix with a fair few Europeans, but since I live in Asia they're probably not a very representative sample.
I'm 36 and know what you mean about the generational shift in attitudes towards the Germans. I personally actually quite like most of the Germans I have met, at least in so far as you can generalise about a country of 80 million people. It's a country with much to be admired socially, economically and culturally. And while in no way defending the appalling things that were done in the name of that country I think there is even a sense in which their war guilt was cynically played against them as a cover for the inadequacies of much of the rest of Europe during the reconstruction period after the war; and a sense in which some of the atrocities visited against German civilians were downplayed, along with the role of many people in other countries, including Britain, who had great sympathy for the Nazi movement. It's a whole different can of worms, but not unrelated.
However, distrust of Germany is a bit more complicated than simple "the Nazis killed my grandfather." You'd have to be in your 60s to have any real memory of the aftermath of WW2 playing a significant part in your life, and much older still to actually remember the war. The societal memories and mythologies linger but don't translate so easily into a serious political force IMO.
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy. They are a natural centre of Europe geographically and a bridge between the major groups from the latin south to Scandinavia, the Slavs in the east and the maritime west. So it's quite natural that proud countries like Britain and France with our own democratic traditions would be wary of throwing in our lot with a more powerful neighbour.
I also think there is a sense in which some people, including some Germans see the European Union as a natural extension of the binding together of the disparate states of Germany which occurred under Bismark. This is not to say a German empire as such, it seems more like the American view of their national story being something natural and beneficial to anyone lucky enough to be part of it. As someone who believes quite strongly in the liberal traditions of England and the English speaking world I really don't find this idea attractive at all.
Regardless of all that though, I don't see the European Union as a German empire by the back door. I think it's something that grew out of the misguided and desperate state of Europe in the aftermath of WW2 when it faced a loss of relevance between the new two major powers of the Soviet Union and the United States. It was taken up enthusiastically by France, which it had to be if it was to mean anything at all, and by Italy, and some time later and less enthusiastically by our own ruling class, who in their way were as defeated and sidelined by WW2 as were those of the rest of Europe.
I also think the world has moved on a lot since then, and a Europe of free, open and independent democracies is a much better model than creating a country called Europe, with a flag, anthem and the other trappings of a state to which the population owe no allegiance.
FiF said:
But it comes back to my point about what are countries and why do they exist? The human nature to live in groups for mutual comfort, aid and protection. Recycle that discussion.
Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
Ah. You said what I wanted in far fewer words.Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
AJS- said:
FiF said:
But it comes back to my point about what are countries and why do they exist? The human nature to live in groups for mutual comfort, aid and protection. Recycle that discussion.
Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
Ah. You said what I wanted in far fewer words.Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-...
AJS- said:
-
-
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy.
-
-
Which is precisely why a fully independent Germany in a Europe where everyone else is fully independent is not good for anyone, Europe needs balance and Germany needs shackling. However, there are degrees of independence, which is where the "vote outers" need to identify a winning position and focus on that.-
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy.
-
-
V8 Fettler said:
AJS- said:
-
-
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy.
-
-
Which is precisely why a fully independent Germany in a Europe where everyone else is fully independent is not good for anyone, Europe needs balance and Germany needs shackling. However, there are degrees of independence, which is where the "vote outers" need to identify a winning position and focus on that.-
Germany is a powerful country, significantly bigger than France, Italy or the UK in population and with a very powerful economy.
-
-
s2art said:
Why does Germany need shackling. Or to put it another way, does the USA or China need shackling? The world is a different place than it was 50-60 years ago, we have gone global and the WTO has brought tariff barriers down to the extent that FTAs are merely 'nice to have' rather than essential. Geographical proximity is becoming less important day by day.
Ask the Japanese about being in close geographical proximity to an unshackled China.V8 Fettler said:
s2art said:
Why does Germany need shackling. Or to put it another way, does the USA or China need shackling? The world is a different place than it was 50-60 years ago, we have gone global and the WTO has brought tariff barriers down to the extent that FTAs are merely 'nice to have' rather than essential. Geographical proximity is becoming less important day by day.
Ask the Japanese about being in close geographical proximity to an unshackled China.s2art said:
V8 Fettler said:
s2art said:
Why does Germany need shackling. Or to put it another way, does the USA or China need shackling? The world is a different place than it was 50-60 years ago, we have gone global and the WTO has brought tariff barriers down to the extent that FTAs are merely 'nice to have' rather than essential. Geographical proximity is becoming less important day by day.
Ask the Japanese about being in close geographical proximity to an unshackled China.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/250430bc-41ba-11e2-a8c3-...
Balance.
Indeed. Fear Uncertainty Doubt. It's all they have really.
Oh and cheaper roaming charges.
Having said that the Out campaign do need to spell out the plan to practically achieve exit. The plans / ideas that have already been developed need to be really polished up and put into formats which can be easily digested. Many people aren't sufficiently interested to go into the details so might just allow the FUD campaign to gain mileage.
Oh and cheaper roaming charges.
Having said that the Out campaign do need to spell out the plan to practically achieve exit. The plans / ideas that have already been developed need to be really polished up and put into formats which can be easily digested. Many people aren't sufficiently interested to go into the details so might just allow the FUD campaign to gain mileage.
dirk01 said:
I think it is fair to say that neither side has put together a coherent argument on this thread as yet.
I don't think anyone has tried. We've had "the sky is falling" from in and "FFS" from out. No rush, any minds that can be changed will be changed in the last month or so; that's just the way "democracy" works.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff