Europe, Euroscepticism & the Big State

[Marmora Man]

Transferred from the "Ken Clarke" thread to avoid confusion.

I am not, and never have been, a Little Englander. I entirely see and "get" the greater globalisation tide and the need for ever greater co-operation between nations and nationalities. What I do not enjoy or support is the EU soft left, overly bureaucratic and dogmatic approach that leaves little room for enterprise, initiative or personal freedoms, and appears to believe that only an elite political clique can make the right decisions. As a well known libertarian poster on this forum I deplore large and expensive government; the EU is a nightmare example of what I least like in political rule.

I don't think the concept of an integrated and consolidated Europe should be confused with frustration at bureaucracy.

In theory no - but the reality is that the integrated and consolidated Europe on offer is the petty, bureaucratic, detail obsessed big state the consequences of which we all are having to learn to live with. Something I do not want.

Ken Clarke's sensible and generally balanced political views have ignored the reality of life in Europe in favour of the theoretical utopia that political fantasists and dreamers insist will, one day, come about.

[StraferJack]

Not many people would argue with the large or expensive bit. But I'm curious as to the model you would like to adopt. History is long, so some real world examples would be better than a libertarian "in my view"

Because your nightmare is actually a lot of people's "pretty good". Living with imperfection is easy when you look at what Europe has been up to in the past, and what it needs to do in the future

[????]

Luckily for MM and me the tide is with us at the moment....accross Europe.

Personally, I think we're just about ok with what we've now (with its imperfections as you say Strafer) but when, and by and large it was bureacrats, were trying to drive it to something more of a political union largely against the will of the majority of the people, in even the traditionally pro Countries, i was very uncomfortable.

Economically the Euro will fail - or lose members or become two tiered. The Eurotrading zone makes sense.

Politically, the difference in political cultures between let's say Italy, the UK and France are, just between those three IMMENSE. Just 3 easy examples being attitudes to bureacracy, elites and political, ahem, 'patronage' within those three state..... let alone shadier areas such as corruption.

Sell me anything further than where we are now in terms other than vague idealistic ..."You know, nations are defunct, we want a global federation"

[StraferJack]

I'm not dismissive of those concerns at all - not all of them anyway

But as for political cultures being too different - wasn't the same said about the USA? And bitterly fought? And echoes through to the current day? But I'm not sure anyone with wits would reverse it now? Sarah Palin might so that gives you some idea..

I'm guilty of taking the "it'll be a bumpy ride, and the landing will be rough but ultimately the plane will land ok" thinking but whilst I agree with the challenges faced, the goal seems "right" to me

You are correct that the tide is with you across Europe at the moment - not sure I would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with many of the more vocal exponents tho'

[????]

The US example is a bit hackneyed, not comparable and over used by those in favour as a trot out example - 19th century then largely agricultural based series of miniscule population states surrounded by the British Empire on one side and an agressive Mexico down south, with no real history or long evolved political culture...and even then it still ended up with a horrific and bloody Civil War. Id drop it pro-Euros.

[mockney piers]

Aggressive Mexico?

You are kidding me aren't you.

[????]

You not seen the Alamo mockers?

[StraferJack]

I use it not to compare structurally - just at the time the same "challenges" would have been used as evidence against even trying.

[StraferJack]

plus the language used against the EU, or any of the projects echoes almost word for word the language used by extreme Republicans in the US - so on that score at least there are parallels and it's interesting (to me) anyway why that would be

[mockney piers]

The Alamo in Texas yes, formerly (now) of, errrr Mexico?

[????]

Actually what I notice is how aggresseive, sneering and, and down right untrue has been the langauage from pro-europeans against anyone who dared question it.

"little englander"

"Europphile"

etc etc

As I said before, one of the things that intiially started me questioning my own 'liberalism' was the lack of debate and labelling and smearing of those that questioned the left's moral certainty.

[????]

The colonists of most of Mexican Texas were from the US states. They colonised and developed huge areas of land and fought agaibnst the native americans and then an increasing dicatatorial Mexico tried to cghange their propert rights leading to war and the Alamo. The new state of Texas later joined the union largely for protection.....that was my point.

[StraferJack]

I think you are exaggerating to make a point there. [pre mexico post] I don't accept the notion that everyone against the EU is smeared. Plus, to be fair, you aren't shy of smearing either with the constant "smug" "liberal" yaadda yadda

I would also argue that the wider proponets of the EU are often far from left-leaning.

I would also argue there is a lack of "aggression" or "sneering" on this thread so far so I'm wondering why you are so quick to fire that gun

[mockney piers]

Way to rewrite history, did they make the desert bloom did they, unlike those unworthy lazy mexicans.

sheesh, poor little Texans.

In fact the Union wanted nothing to do with Texas, troublesome arrogant upstarts causing friction with the neighbours, until the press got involved, whipped up public fervour and when hostilities broke out the union had its hand somewhat forced, can't let nasty swarthy people kill white gringos even if you don't like them.

Dictatorial my arse, just trying to assert legitimate control on territory they were having stolen from them, which if you recall ended up being some 60% of the country.

You want to sob for someone it's not going to be poor ickle monroe doctrine spoting, social darwinism wielding US of A.

Bloody hell. Mexicans quite like the Brits on the whole, don't let them read this or they may change their minds.

I guess this is probably wayyyyy off topic mind.

[????]

I was referring to traditional arguments NOT this thread. Though I've seen previous go down that route.

Actually I nearly pointed in my post out that even in the usual suspects (media - no names, usual suspects) have recently subdued a bit because enough people in general and in other bits of the media said and have pointed out that to question the european project and it's potential downfalls and 'dangers' didn't make you

A) member of the Tea party

B) a Daily Mail reading colonel from Tunbridge Wells

c) a member of UKIP/BNP

D) someone who 'never ate that foreigh muck'

Shite, even poeople who have lived in europe and speak foreighn languages, maybe had european partners/friends and families question it.

Come on Strafer . From Same old Tory Cuts to this stuff there are a large number of 'progressives' who don't really want to debate ...seriously, made me question my views a while back and contributed to them shifting...a bit, not as far as you think.

Not, on the whole on here from the sensible I'd add.

Yes I ham it up a bit but I like to give you lot some of your own medecine ;-)

[StraferJack]

so that's what a B with a close bracket does! Cool

[StraferJack]

But there are pitfalls to Europe reverting to pre-EU business as well, right?

[????]

Mockney your post is a small example of my previous point - history's not perfect to act like I'm some sort of Jeremy Clarkson anti-Mexican racists for having a different view to you kind of shows my point a bit. Social darwinism is a bit strong to level against someoone who diasgreed with you...a smeer even. My point , to be clear, on my original post was that the main reason that Texas joined the US - and it was an independent republic for some time - was for its security. Maybe I should have said against previous mexican aggression, or potential mexican aggression but shhhheseeesh.

Actually the Mexican govt invited and incentivised settlers from the US to come in and help quell the Comanches, then a move away from federailism towards centralism sparked a revolt and the Alamo etc. The US was not involved.

[????]

Strafer

Personally, I think we're just about ok with what we've now

[StraferJack]

????. Which is roughly where I am too. But to get even this far took an awful lot of work an stick from doom mongers and nay sayers, right?

If the whole thing implodes it will be more to do with the financial repercussions of the global banking system (I'm aware you may disagree with that but I promise not to smear you because of it)

[Huguenot]

You can dislike 'Little Englander' if you want, it's definitely used to diminish views perceived as over protective or lily livered. I find anyone who rejects European integration simply on the basis that it's just too difficult do come across as a little bit wimpish.

The fact that so many anti-European arguments are based on querulous untruths about johnny foreigner exerting control over the dignified but enslaved British nation reinforces the point. To be scared of something that doesn't exist is no less chicken hearted than a small child worried about the ogre in the cupboard.

However, how you can see 'Europhile' as a smear is beyond me. The suffix '-phile' means platonic love, so I'm very proud to be a Europhile.

[????]

I meant Europhobe

You pick on the bigoted argument Huge not the ones based in some truth

Try Political Culture first please...as my earlier point.

[Huguenot]

Yeah, it'll be a challenge. One that we're quite capable of addressing.

As said by someone else:

"The 21st century will be different. China and India already lay claim to superpower status. Russia imperiously waves its nuclear arsenal and natural gas reserves as a VIP pass to international summits. Brazil has economic and diplomatic aspirations equal to its geographical expanse.

"That doesn't mean Europe is in decline, or that individual states must subordinate their interests. It simply means that the rivalries of last century need to be held in perspective against the advantages of collaboration on a range of global issues: trade, security of energy supply, cross-border crime, climate change, migration, financial stability."

And that's all it is - a cost/benefit calculation.

[Marmora Man]

However, how you can see 'Europhile' as a smear is beyond me. The suffix '-phile' means platonic love, so I'm very proud to be a Europhile.

Because, Hugenot, as you know very well all words carry meanings and baggage over and above the strict interpretation of their origins / roots. Europhile has become a word associated with unthinking Euro enthusiasts - hence the smear that it carries. I doubt you would line yourself up with the unthinking.

Like ??? and Strafer Jack - I can live with where we are - I'd prefer it to be more federal, trading partnership than a grandious programme for inevitable political, financial and cultural union that some Euro enthusiasts appear to want. However, if it stops in the here and now I wouldn't eek to reverse, very, much of what's currently in place.

I will argue against further and deeper integration - not because Britain does it better - or Italy does it worse but because I prefer smaller, decentralised, less bureaucratic, more personalised, more free minded, more flexible and less statist arrangements. I mix and meet with many people from all levels of society and from many different countries - most prefer to be left to get on with things at their own pace in their own way. Sure, they like to know that society will look after them if things get tough, but few are asking or seeking to live under a huge rigid umbrella of European state with pettifogging rules on nahviour and actions.

[StraferJack]

It's perfectly possible to live unfettered under a "rigid umbrella" tho. Again, look to citizens of the us

Good to hear there is no appetite for reversal, but I do wonder at how many previous stages people would have said the same thing