Another Brexit Casualty

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-17 11:55 AM

 

Elections are reversible. This decision is being presented as irreversible. Public opinion shifts all the time. No-one, no force on earth, can resist that change when it comes. It will come.

 

There's hope for the EU then........with the rise of the right :D ........

 

 

[Tracker]

If the EU ever gets it's act together to provide what the people want rather than what the politically biased politicians want then I could see the UK having another referendum to re-join a rejuvenated 'free trade organisation' in years to come?

Especially if it included all nations in Europe and not just those at the core of a very expensive club hell bent on making it a one size fits all setup that is so cosy for the few at it's heart but not so cosy for others.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-17 10:12 PM........................It was not an accusation but simply a comment based on reading your comment regarding surrendering a degree of independence. How is it that you are prepared to sacrifice a degree (and to what degree?) of national independence to an organisation that even the leader of the former Soviet 'Union' can not understand why it even exists. ...................

There are approximately 500,000,000 people living in the 28 countries that make up the EU. Of those, approximately 65,000,000 (13%) live in the UK. So, 435,000,000 (87%) live in the other 27 countries.

 

The unification of Europe was an idea pushed by Churchill and Roosevelt at the end of WW2. It was the idea that underlay the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community back in 1951. It comprised the original six members of what became the European Economic Community. The unification they then sought was of the six. Other members came later, but that original strand of thinking has never really changed. However, it is now being challenged from within a number of its member states. It is the view, for a relative few, of an idealised world. For others, I think the majority, it is the opposite. I don't think those few will prevail. I also think that if they were to seek to impose their view on a reluctant majority, the EU would split asunder. Ultimately, I have confidence that the pragmatists will prevail.

 

Personal view, but I don't think even those six have ever really wanted full unification into a united states of Europe. I think they all want to retain the essence of what they see as their national characteristics. That impression is reinforced in my mind by having travelled quite widely in those countries. Each country has it own characteristics, which their populations generally celebrate. I see no desire in any of those countries to surrender their national identities to an anonymous, homogenised, super state.

 

Beyond the core six, the same also seems to me true. Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia after the collapse of the communist bloc. That was not because they wanted "further and deeper" integration. Spain is struggling to resist Catalan dreams of independence, having struggle for years to resist Basque dreams of independence. Most of the ex communist bloc countries are struggling to define their national characteristics, and do not seem inclined to be subsumed into an alternative, European, bloc. For them, the EU represents freedom, not oppression. I just don't see any appetite for this all enveloping super state.

 

Gorbachev was looking at the collapse of his world, of a world he was born into, that had existed for the whole of his life. It was a totalitarian, one party, world. He saw the EEC through that prism, and had not understood the differences that democratic governance would bring. He misunderstood the difference between volunteering a bit of independence in return for economic advantage, and having independence denied through force, as happened to both Hungary and Czechoslovakia when the tanks rolled in. So - personal view again - I think he was completely mistaken.

 

So, I see no evidence that those 435,000,000 people, across those 27 other countries, have any greater appetite to disappear into the European "super state" you seem to fear, than has the population of the UK. Quite the reverse, in fact. I have confidence in their collective sense of nationhood. I do not think the majority of the inhabitants of the UK are fundamentally different to the majority of the inhabitants of those other countries. I do not see the future of the EU in the same apocalyptic, dystopian, terms that you seem to see. I see a family of nations co-operating (and sometimes squabbling!) for their collective good, not a gang of aliens conspiring to destroy the UK. To me, those fears are a product of 22 miles of sea.

 

The EU began 66 years ago. It has changed out of recognition over those 66 years. But then, so has the UK. Both will continue to change - within the limits their populations impose.

 

I also think your belief that the UK can be a fully independent, sovereign nation, able to do more or less as it wishes in the world, is misleading. The UK is a member of, signatory to, or affiliate of, numerous international bodies and treaties that restrict its freedom to act with impunity. For example, it is a permanent member of the UN and the Security Council, a member of NATO, the WTO, the G8, the Commonwealth, the WEU, the OSCE, The Council of Europe, the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF, it is a party to the Hague Conventions, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

 

It consistently imports more than it exports, and needs access to foreign markets for its economic survival, which further constrains its ability to act without regard to the consequences.

 

It ranks 21 out of 233 countries on population size, 5th in economic size, yet (according to the OECD) 16th for productivity per hour worked, behind (in order of magnitude) Ireland, Luxemburg, the US, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, France, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia, Italy, Finland and Germany. The UK needs friends; it cannot risk its reputation by reckless action, or it will not gain access to those markets it needs to be able to overcome its present productivity deficit. That deficit requires investment, and that must come from abroad because the UK, in its present condition, can't generate it internally.

 

Sorry for the long answer, but you did ask! :-D

[RogerC]

Firstly I completely disagree with your claim that Churchill/Roosevelt ever, in their wildest dreams, conceived an EU as it is today.  As it was when we joined, an economic trading bloc, possibly yes but as a dominating political/legislative/financial entity?  Never.  

You admit to the EU having changed 'out of recognition', a comment I heartily agree with, over the last 66 years but claim to know what Churchill and Roosevelt had in mind with their plans/ideas back in 1947.  Having read considerably with regard to Churchill I can honestly say I feel you are very badly mistaken if you think the EU today is anything close to his ideas.  I agree he was a proponent of European nations working together and co-operating in commerce etc in order to build a framework whereby they would be less inclined to wage war on each other but to propose his vision was what we have today, and beyond is, in my opinion, to do the man a great disservice.   

In 1957 he said:

"We genuinely wish to join a European free trade area – and if our continental friends wish to reach agreement, I am quite sure a way can be found and that reasonable adjustments can be made to meet the essential interests of all".

The operative phrase being  'European Free Trade area' not a political/legislative monster.

I consider you are taking too much for granted regarding Gorbachov's views on the EU and it's direction.  Introducing 'glasnost' and 'perestroika' is hardly the view of a man who has a distorted view of the world as you seem to think he had.  You add a smokescreen to the debate by referring to Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  In this context they are a complete irrelevance.  Furthermore you go on to say that a number of former Soviet bloc countries see the EU as 'representing freedom' implying that they know more than the former leader of the Soviet Union. Considering Gorbachov was a 'player on the world stage' and the leaders of the Soviet satellites/republics were mostly insignificant in that regard, I find your attributing a greater knowledge of the world outside of the Soviet Union to those Republics 'political puppets' than to Gorbachov to be rather strange.

Like you I to have travelled widely in Europe and indeed the rest of the world.  In fact during my career in aviation I have worked on or 'over' every continent many many times....so I am well aware of the attitudes and ideals of a great many peoples.   Mostly they appear to love their country, are proud of it and do not, from my experiences, want to be subsumed into any form of superstate.

You say you can not see any appetite for an EU superstate.  Amongst the populace likely there is not as I have said previously.  However that doesn't stop the political elite and the 'movers and shakers' in the rarefied atmosphere of the highest levels of politics from working towards that goal.  You comment that Juncker is a 'transient' holder of office.  However it is clear he holds these ideas as a deep seated ambition and where there is one Juncker clearly there are others in the shadows.  Something to be deeply concerned about. 

You do me a disservice if you truly believe I consider the UK freedom from the EU to mean we can act, as you put it, 'as it wishes' or even more incorrectly 'impunity'.  Your comments come across as rather insulting to my intelligence if you truly believe I am unaware of the UK position in world organisations, it's responsibilities and essentially it's sphere of influence.  It is in part because of those memberships, signatories etc that I consider the UK to be more than able to stand proud and succeed outside of the clutches of the EU.

You see a 'family of nations'.  I see an ever invasive sphere of influence and domination emanating from Brussels.

You accuse me of holding apocalyptic and dystopian views.  Both unnecessary, uncalled for and incorrect descriptions to attribute to my stand.  I am wary of the direction of the EU and the ideals of it's higherarchy, I am concerned about the domination of the Union by certain nations, I am concerned that it has been allowed to grow beyond the ideals of an economic union and I disagree with the premise that remaining 'in' will allow us to influence, in any meaningful way, it's direction.  I call that healthy dissatisfaction, healthy concern for my country and willingness to stand against that which threatens to erode our independence and national sovereignty even further. 

You can sit and wait and see if you wish.....Chamberlain I recall had similar ideas and look where that got us.

 

[Brian Kirby]

What I said. "The unification of Europe was an idea pushed by Churchill and Roosevelt at the end of WW2. It was the idea that underlay the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community back in 1951."

 

What you say I said.

RogerC - 2017-10-18 2:35 PM

 

Firstly I completely disagree with your claim that Churchill/Roosevelt ever, in their wildest dreams, conceived an EU as it is today.  As it was when we joined, an economic trading bloc, possibly yes but as a dominating political/legislative/financial entity?  Never.  You admit to the EU having changed 'out of recognition', a comment I heartily agree with, over the last 66 years but claim to know what Churchill and Roosevelt had in mind with their plans/ideas back in 1947.

 

All further conversation or debate is thus rendered impossible. It just goes on and on.

 

Sorry Roger: I'm happy to discuss differing points of view, but not your continual misrepresentations.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-18 4:00 PMWhat I said. "The unification of Europe was an idea pushed by Churchill and Roosevelt at the end of WW2. It was the idea that underlay the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community back in 1951."What you say I said.

RogerC - 2017-10-18 2:35 PMFirstly I completely disagree with your claim that Churchill/Roosevelt ever, in their wildest dreams, conceived an EU as it is today.  As it was when we joined, an economic trading bloc, possibly yes but as a dominating political/legislative/financial entity?  Never.  You admit to the EU having changed 'out of recognition', a comment I heartily agree with, over the last 66 years but claim to know what Churchill and Roosevelt had in mind with their plans/ideas back in 1947.

All further conversation or debate is thus rendered impossible. It just goes on and on.Sorry Roger: I'm happy to discuss differing points of view, but not your continual misrepresentations.

My apologies if I took the use of the word 'unification' to mean something you had not intended it should.  I accept that Churchill was a proponent of the unification of Europe.  However I question that which I consider to infer he would be a proponent of the EU 'unification' as it is today and how it is likely to develop into the future if certain parties have their way.    

I agree Churchill and Roosevelt both had ideas of a co-operative 'commercial' Europe but given Churchill's feelings and thoughts with regard to Empire etc I can not for one minute believe he would have desired the EU to become what it is today.

Conversation/debate will, regarding this part of the subject clearly go on and on due to the fact that there is claim and counter claim, intent attributed (rightly or wrongly) to those who can not answer to confirm or deny ergo it is conjecture based on historical comment and it's interpretation today.