Without the UK the Poms will have les to whinge about, because they wouldn`t be sending money to those regions, and those regions can rule and tax themselves .
I`m a firm beleiver in giving any region or people independence if they want it, whether it be Scotland, , London , Cornwall (a county in Engaland ) or the Forest of Dean ( an area)or Brittany (not in my remit ).
Part amicably and then get on is far better than a forced union.
The fish and chips brigade probably dont take any interst in political matters and many people leave the UK for other areas of the world. Good luck to them althogh I would understand any country putting barriers to any immigration .
Ireland may have had its problems, and may have been as bad as you outlined up to the sixties, but I`m sure it would have grown up anyway .One thing to learn is always respect an Irish businessman . The EU may have helped your country but that is your country, and circumstances are different for us.
Our catastrophic economy is also mainly down to our establishments stupidity .But being in the EU and chucking much needed money into it definately doesn`t help .WE would pull out of the recession/depression sooner if we left the EU project .
(I like Obama`s take on this – he will beleive that Amerca is out of recession when people are back in jobs and have confidence to spend.Not just about statistics ).
The Brussels bureaucracy may be smaller than Birmingham`s but that is not the full picture. Civil servants in Birmingham (and London ,Dublin, Berlin Paris et al )take their orders from Brussels, not the other way round . I know that is a simplistic way of seeing it but that is the truth. Therefore Brussels bureaucracy is smaller because it delegates to the countries and the regions .So yes Whitehall is inefficient, but it is our inefficiency that we can rectify. Would you want London to overide Dublin on the grounds of efficiency ?

In place of fish and chip eaters why dnt we call them Beans ?

Yes I know the fish&chips&warm beer is a stereotype which I used to illustrate the famous English (British?) inability/unwillingness to adapt to local conditions but noted that even those who might seem to conform to that stereotype is some ways seem to have no problems with the EU when living abroad.

Some of my best friends are English and I wish them no ill whatsoever. English Euroscepticism seems to me to be a profoundly sad derogation from the outstanding British achievements of previous centuries and the (sometimes over-) confidence which this created.

Ireland has willingly pooled some of its Sovereignty with other EU members because we can see the logic of dealing with common problems in a common way. We must remember that all politics now takes place in the context of a globalising economy dominated by (mostly US) global corporations, and whatever chance the EU has of regulating them in the name of the common good, a small country like Ireland has almost none.

The issues of energy, food, and physical security are common to us all, as are the issues raised by peak oil and global warming. Most of the more progressive social and employment legislation in Ireland has been EU inspired, and the economies of scale require access to common markets with level playing pitch rules. Even the US has now been forced to adopt a more collective, multilateral, and cooperative mode compared to the “we’ll show ‘em” Bush Blair years.

So no, I have no problem at all pooling some Sovereignty and think there are many things best handled at an EU level. That is the widely held view in Ireland, even though our inability to devalue our currency in response to the current economic crisis makes life even more difficult for us just at the moment.

The bottom line is that the Celtic Tiger (for all its faults) simply wouldn’t have happened without the EU, and contrary to myth, EU subsidies were just a minor factor in this. Access to markets, the social reforms engendered by EU membership, good industrial policies, a good industrial relations system, a good educational system and low corporate tax rates were all more important factors in that development.

Even now, our catastrophic economic problems were largely of our own making – a failure to regulate the banks, promotion of a property bubble, runaway inflation, and very poor property taxation policies – were far more at fault than the Euro or economic policies emanating from the EU.

So if anything, Brussels rule is more popular in Ireland than Dublin rule in Ireland at the moment, and given our proud history of seeking independence, that takes some doing. Yes, som things are always managed/regulated from closer to home, and getting that balance right can be difficult. But if the Brits could get over their fixation with “straight bananas” and really studied the detail of what was happening, they might find Brussels a lot more effective than Whitehall. (Of course it is in the interests of Whitehall to maintain an industry claiming precisely the opposite and appealing to British Nationalism to get a free pass for their own idiocies).

If I recall correctly, the “Brussels Bureacuracy” is smaller than Birmingham City Council. Although that may not be quite comparing like with like, the Brussels Bureaucracy is in fact remarkably small for it to have such a powerful )(positive or negative. depending on your point of view) influence on the Governance of 27 meber states.

No, I not looking for a eurojob, nor EUphoric at a EUtopia, but I do remember the alternative: rampant nationalism throughout Europe leading to two World Wars and a small insular, provincial, backward, inward looking, poverty stricken, priest ridden, class ridden, child abusing, sexist, chauvinist, sectarian and strife ridden land…

The EU hasn’t been sole responsible for changing all of that, but it has been the largest single factor – and one of the truly great political projects in the history of mankind. We will only truly appreciate it when it is no more.

The problem you outline is is seen as a problem for EUrophile you and then a problem for EUrosceptic me. I know that the ECHR is seperate to the EU (but linked stronly) and the EUs own court is the ECJ. Would I be right in saying that the colleagues of the project actually like confusion about the respective responsibilies of EU and allied institutions – until we get EUrosceptically confused.
Lately it seems the press have been more EUrosceptic, but not too long ago the EUrosceptic side of the argument was dismissed and ridiculed before any consideration was given to the issues raised. Have we reached the stage pointed out by Ghandi -”first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they argue with you, then you`ve won “.? It seems that the first two hurdles have been passed and EUrophiles cannot rely on Glittering Generalities and tired old cliches ,it only remains to show the status quo can be changed.
I`ve admitted to you that some EUrosceptic arguments have been dubious but I wont counter them because of the deviousness of EUrophiles in other areas.Fairs fair there isn`t it ?

Frank Shnittger,

Welcome to the debate which by it`s very nature should have input from people outside the UK. In a dichotermous way though, one of your posts points out the problem. We dont want 26 other countries ruling Britian even if we have a say in it. As an Irishman I`m sure you`ll see the point in that.
The elite of Britian was previously enthusiatic about the EU project, but as you point out, some nowrealise it was not the way that they could take the reins and rule the world and be on equal terms with the USA and USSR. Now scales fall from their eyes and they know they are outclassed by all the other nationalities functionaries.
You mention a racist aspect but then printed a stereotype of a Brit abroad. I know they exist but is that all you see ?
If we do leave the EU and there is the breakup of the UK,that would not be the end of the world.Pre 1922 many thought Ireland leaving the UK was a catastrophe. No offence but a couple of decades later we had our “finest hour”.If the break up happens the Ulster Unionists may see a better future in a united Ireland (Perhaps Ireland can rejoin the Commonwealth so they can swear loyalty to the Queen but pay their taxes and accept rule rom Dublin – EU excepted from this scenario of course.Whatever it takes to ease them in )
Just think. Without the UK there would be no whinging Poms.

Do you see that Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on the one hand, Switzerland on the other hand, have unfair advantages?

By the way, formally the English language would be upheld mainly through the EU membership of Ireland, if the UK makes the “grand opt-out”.

Scotland might opt for the more progressive union, but that is their choice.

Every organisation needs constructive and contributing members; the EU is no exception. Until England, by a broad supportive majority, accepts its responsibility, it is in the wrong club.

I actually have a sneaking suspicious that when actually faced with the prospect of leaving the EU with all the possible repercussion’s for UK Unity and integrity, a referendum to leave might not actually be carried, despite all current opinion poll evidence to the contrary.

The UK elite strategy, as I read it, is not actually to leave the EU, but an attempt to hobble it to being no more than the original free-trade area. But that is not what every other EU member has signed up for, and thus the endemic conflict between the EU and the UK.

The one thing I would not grant the UK is all the benefits of the EU, and none of the responsibilities. If they choose to vote to go out, then they are out. No free trade. No political influence. No border free travel or rights of residence or to work for UK citizens in the EU. No say in how the EU develops in the future. No derogation from UN Treaties on Climate Change, Human Rights, and disarmament.

The UK will become a pariah state as far as the rest of the EU is concerned. Associate status – such as that given to Switzerland or EFTA states should not be on offer. A country which breaks a solemn Treaty with all other Member states should not be allowed to benefit from that decision.

I broadly agree with what you say. It is astounding for an outsider that Britain has joined something akin to a European cooperative, and only keeps griping about what others do, never even thinking about what it could or should contribute.

This attitude, as you correctly point out, includes powerful media and political elites, who behave more or less like the political equivalent of football hooligans. In addition, they constantly picture themselves as victims of some horrible conspiracy.

I really think that Europe would be better off with the UK out. I am less sure about Britain, although five years would probably be too short a time to change opinions; think decades, Nosemonkey.

If Britain is constitutionally incapable of acting constructively, why can’t the UK political parties jointly decide to arrange the In or Out referendum to settle the matter for a few decades at least?

In Ireland the NO campaign was made up of extreme Republicans (Sinn Fein), fundamentalist Catholics who condemned their own Bishops (COIR), US funded neo conservatives (Libertas) Irish neutrality activists (PANA) and traditional extreme left-wingers (Socialist Party) and Nationalists (National Platform) all of which have, in the past, opposed our membership from before we ever joined.

Together these groups generate c. 10% of the vote in General elections (which under our proportional representation system gives them a few seats in Parliament). However EU membership is supported by 70%+ of the population as a whole.

Where the UK is unique, it seems to me, is that such Eurosceptic attitudes reach up right into the elite in British society, have control of many powerful media outlets, and have generally managed to dominate popular debate. It seems almost as if (to an outside observer) that the UK elite resent losing much of their power and influence to the EU and are not above sabotaging their own country in the hope of getting it back.

Much of their discourse about the EU is laughably misinformed, not even worthy of serious engagement, and quite frankly racist and insulting to the rest of Europe. If they do get their way and pull the UK out, it will not just be a single De Gaulle who will say Non to any attempt at re-entry in the future. England will become just a small off-shore island off the northwest of Europe – with most of its retired and mobile population moving to the EU to live in any case.

Perhaps the reason only the Eurosceptics get heard in the UK is that so many of the Europhiles have already moved to Spain and France and other EU countries to avail of their better health services, standards of living, quality of life and climate. They are famous for still wanting their fish and chips and warm beers and not really adapting to the local language and culture, but I have never heard them say a bad word against the EU. Their only gripe is that Sterling is losing so much value against the Euro – as is the UK within the EU.

Take this article in yesterday’s Observer (usually more or less pro-EU) as a prime example – it’s a piece attacking the EU for something that the EU had nothing to do with (a ruling by the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights, reported as “the EU’s manic drive to standardise behaviour and attitudes”).

This European Court of Human Rights = an EU institution nonsense started in the eurosceptic press – initially as misleadingly-phrased pieces, designed to smear the EU (“European Court rules…” is usually taken by readers to mean “EU court” – and the eurosceptic press knows this). Now it’s got to the stage that it is explicitly being referred to as an EU institution – something that is plain wrong.

When pro-EU voices distort the debate, however, they are usually (though not always, I’ll freely admit) guilty of little more than oversimplification – their interpretation can be disputed (notably the perennial claim that the EU has had some role in maintaining peace in Europe), but can rarely be categorically ruled as wrong. Anti-EU claims, on the other hand, can far more regularly be proved to be factually inaccurate, rather than just a matter of opinion.

Plus, of course, it was anti-EU distortions that originally turned me pro-EU – they were one of the primary reasons I started the blog in the first place, so it’s only natural that I still focus more on them.

Frank – I agree with pretty much all of that.

I sometimes wonder if it might do the UK some good to leave the EU. Give it five years, we’d be pleading to be let back in – and the anti-EU crowd would finally be shown to have been basing their projections of a glorious non-EU future on little more than ideological faith. The only trouble is, as you note, just what damage would be wrought in the meantime…