NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in Britain. I want you to put forward your arguments FOR becoming a more involved part of the EU or AGAINST it. I used to think the EU was a good thing but I don't have any facts. Please mould my clay-like mind! :D

i think we should, as the manufacturing industry around here (liverpool area) would benefit from it

why/how?

why/how?

sinply because of the lack of a tariff

I think the EU as an economic union is a fantastic idea. However, I'm against it being a political union- there's far too much cultural diffrentiation between the various mamber nations for it to work.

why/how?

sinply because of the lack of a tariff
UK goods are already enjoying tariff-free access to other EU nations' markets. Maastricht Treaty... free movement of goods, people and capital... Ring a bell?

I think the EU as an economic union is a fantastic idea. However, I'm against it being a political union- there's far too much cultural diffrentiation between the various member nations for it to work.

If there's an economic union then imo it's inevitable that sooner or later it will become a political union as well, even without actively pursuing that goal. I also hear the "cultural difference" argument very much lately, and while it sounds like a catchy one-liner, people seldom explain what they mean with it and why it is a problem. Care to elaborate?

The concept of European union (indeed, of global union) is, uh, nice, but won't feasibly work until humanity undergoes something of a mutation of values. We're too easily divided by too many issues and even by emotional instincts to make unions work.

As for the EU itself, this would-be noble institution has become the perfect example of a corrupted ideal. There are countless cases of corruption in various departments. Sadly, whistleblowers are hung out to dry.

I'm no nationalist, or even a patriot (I'm British/English/whatever). I have no respect for Daily Mail-style rants over bananas and measurements. I appreciate the contributions to environmental legislation that the EU has amde and recognise the need for a counterbalance for potential US hegemony. For these reasons, I support our membership of the EU in the hope that changes will be made. However, I'm sceptical and see little reason to adopt the euro. As for the constitution, I haven't read it yet but would like to - anyone know where I can get a copy or a web link?

I think the EU as an economic union is a fantastic idea. However, I'm against it being a political union- there's far too much cultural diffrentiation between the various member nations for it to work.

If there's an economic union then imo it's inevitable that sooner or later it will become a political union as well, even without actively pursuing that goal. I also hear the "cultural difference" argument very much lately, and while it sounds like a catchy one-liner, people seldom explain what they mean with it and why it is a problem. Care to elaborate?

I don't use this phrase but I will do my best.

I think it is the idea that the EU is too heterogenous. Because of this it will be impossible to legitslate effectively. Different cultures will expect too many different things to be done that the central authority will be overwhelmed trying to bring about compramise. Also that people will vote regionally rather than politically (this is of course assuming that there will be an elected President and assembly) so that the larger countries (in terms of population) will always impose their will on the smaller ones.

For me I'm all for economic union, and to a certain extent political union. But I am against it due to the bureaucracy and the regulations and the red tape. It spends too much time looking at small things, I think it should have a bigger focus.

european. Economical (except the Euro) Don't want it to be a political union. We are so different from each other it's like trying to unit an Asian union. The commonwealth is where we share the greatest ties with other nations.

My view is tha joining the EU would be the biggest and final mistake that this contry( and Labour) wold ever undergo and it would be irriversible. I consider myself not to be a European for we that live in the UK are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish not a load of puff over the continent I am British and I will fight to remain that way.

Our economy works in a diiferent way to the other European countries our prosperity would suffer if we joined now. I am in favour of joining at some point but it's a question of timing and meeting the economic tests.

The concept of European union (indeed, of global union) is, uh, nice, but won't feasibly work until humanity undergoes something of a mutation of values. We're too easily divided by too many issues and even by emotional instincts to make unions work.

As for the EU itself, this would-be noble institution has become the perfect example of a corrupted ideal. There are countless cases of corruption in various departments. Sadly, whistleblowers are hung out to dry.

I'm no nationalist, or even a patriot (I'm British/English/whatever). I have no respect for Daily Mail-style rants over bananas and measurements. I appreciate the contributions to environmental legislation that the EU has amde and recognise the need for a counterbalance for potential US hegemony. For these reasons, I support our membership of the EU in the hope that changes will be made. However, I'm sceptical and see little reason to adopt the euro. As for the constitution, I haven't read it yet but would like to - anyone know where I can get a copy or a web link?

I would like to read the draft constitution, but from what I can see it's several volumes long. How in the hell can the ordinary person be expected to read through and understand all that lot? The cynic in me says that I've just hit the nail on the head.

I'm not European but the lack of democratic process involved in the EU would make me uneasy. Does the drafted constitution address this?

The US united 13 feuding colonies into a single nation. Britain united the english, scottish, welsh, and north irish under one flag. Europe is on a much larger scale and would have its work cut out for it, but I see no reason it couldn't become a political union, given time of course.

The US united 13 feuding colonies into a single nation.

Of course they didn't get it right the first try and had to sneak through a different constitution to replace the first, ineffective one. :wink:

The concept of European union (indeed, of global union) is, uh, nice, but won't feasibly work until humanity undergoes something of a mutation of values. We're too easily divided by too many issues and even by emotional instincts to make unions work.

As for the EU itself, this would-be noble institution has become the perfect example of a corrupted ideal. There are countless cases of corruption in various departments. Sadly, whistleblowers are hung out to dry.

I'm no nationalist, or even a patriot (I'm British/English/whatever). I have no respect for Daily Mail-style rants over bananas and measurements. I appreciate the contributions to environmental legislation that the EU has amde and recognise the need for a counterbalance for potential US hegemony. For these reasons, I support our membership of the EU in the hope that changes will be made. However, I'm sceptical and see little reason to adopt the euro. As for the constitution, I haven't read it yet but would like to - anyone know where I can get a copy or a web link?

I would like to read the draft constitution, but from what I can see it's several volumes long. How in the hell can the ordinary person be expected to read through and understand all that lot? The cynic in me says that I've just hit the nail on the head.

I think the cynic in you is right.

I'm not European but the lack of democratic process involved in the EU would make me uneasy. Does the drafted constitution address this?

I'm not sure. The draft treaty outlining an EU constitution is 263 pages long. You can read it in PDF format here (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00850en03.pdf).

Good luck.

/edit/ My mistake, there is a more up to date version. I'm downloading it as we speak, then I'll update the link.
/edit/ The second version is here (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00850-co05en03.pdf), and corrects parts of the previous document, so should be read in addition to, not instead of it.

The US united 13 feuding colonies into a single nation. Britain united the english, scottish, welsh, and north irish under one flag. Europe is on a much larger scale and would have its work cut out for it, but I see no reason it couldn't become a political union, given time of course.

The British (or rather, England) tried to unite England, Scotland and Ireland (Wales was conquered). With Scotland and Wales England was successful because they were quite similar (culturally, protestant English was the lingua franca to) also, because they were on the same island they could buy into the 'Island race' myth (which is still prevelent today). Ireland was a completely different kettle of fish. Not on the island, Catholic and non-English speaking (right up to the end of the 19th century). The English 'planted' [mainland] British protestants in Ireland, gave them land in an effort to bring them under control, with little success as the Irish Free State was set up in 1921 (iirc). The six counties (N. Ireland) is a legacy of failure for the British (in that they failed to maintain the union) and the Irish (they failed to take back the whole island). Also, union with England helped Scotland and Wales considerably (esp Wales). Ireland benefited not at all, they were treated as lower and Britian was a colonail force in Ireland rather than the unifying, helpful force it was in Scot and W.

It'd be interesting to see if the EU can over come cultural differences if it tries for real economic union. By cultural I mean that there are many different cultures in Europe and they will be diluted {or tempered, depending on your belief} with political union, political power will be 'outsourced' to a different culture which may be hard for even non-nationalists to stomach. That someone who is not from their culture, and will therefore understand what they want effectively (I realise the possible counter arguement). I don't really buy into the cultural arguement, but one of the more effective ways I have heard it stated is, Is it possible to realistically balance the interests of a Greek fisherman and a Liverpool factory worker? To help one the other must lose out. And for people who are graded as doing OK, they will commonly be overloooked and will eventually become resentful. This arguement of course does make a lot of assumptions though.

I'm not sure. The draft treaty outlining an EU constitution is 263 pages long. You can read it in PDF format here (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00850en03.pdf).

Good luck.

/edit/ My mistake, there is a more up to date version. I'm downloading it as we speak, then I'll update the link.
/edit/ The second version is here (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00850-co05en03.pdf), and corrects parts of the previous document, so should be read in addition to, not instead of it.

Thank you. Which will happen first: me finishing reading the constitution or the referendum?

Christ.

The European Union rocks!

Damn you Benelux!


Ahem. Though not a European, I have several opinions about the EU. I can see the benefits of an economic cooperation. However, I personally am opposed to the creation of solid European political bloc. If memory serves, Germany was pushing hard for such a political bloc. To me, it smacks of a bid to resume some semblence of imperialistic domination.

If memory serves again, I believe there was a conference in Helsinki that called for members of the EU to be able to mobilize large numbers of troops (I don't remember the exact number), and be able to field up to 2,500 for two years. Now that conference and a key one put forth by Germany were held after the collapse of the USSR. Though it is only speculation, I feel that power brokers in Europe are making a bid to restore the world to a two super power system. I also speculate that Europe is not really resentful of the US for becoming a super power, but upset from losing a dominant position in weltpolitik.

Granted, that's all baseless speculation.

Anyway, if no political bloc is formed that is fine by me. If a political bloc is formed, that's also fine by me - what better place to have a World War than Europe?

Erm, I definitely hope that nobody in Europe wants a war whatsoever (and that noone outside the EU wants one, for that matter). Also, as it currently looks, Germany isn't at all profiting from the EU it worked so hard to establish, mainly because they let the rest of the EU nations decide that they need to pay about 1/4 of the total EU funding. Pretty stupid, but they get what they deserve if they are incompetent politicians...
However, the part of the EU that worries me least is the Euro. As you can see from my thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144647

I'm much more concerned about the lack of democracy and honesty within the EU. The most important thing is to have democratic control over everything in the EU. Furthermore, the citizens definitely need to have a lot more say in all the EU's decisions and workings. This shouldn't be done an a per-nation basis, IMO, because that would benefit protectionism.

So if you're going to join, it would be cool if you'd push for these points to make the EU a better thing. While I believe the idea is good, the existing EU definitely can and needs to be improved.

I think the EU as an economic union is a fantastic idea. However, I'm against it being a political union- there's far too much cultural diffrentiation between the various mamber nations for it to work.

For me it is just the opposite, I only want a political unian, economics are less important then a strong democratic area in a world dominated by US hurds and terror.