Which is why this referendum could prove to be an uphill struggle for a good number of people. It will be very interesting to see how the In's use their powers of persuasion It will be equally interesting to have an insight into how those citizens who have earned the right to vote since domiciling themselves to this Country also view the situation.
I've never bothered voting for an MEP mainly because, if it was one that stood for what I wanted they would be a lone voice in the mass of Mep from other countries. The EU just does not think in the same way the bloke in the street does, it has a different agenda. That is probably true in a lot of other European countries also. Its a self regulating body of power hungry maniacs that want to rule the world, and is not really accountable to the masses. Regarding the money issues. Can anyone explain why the EU is so keep to sign up so many lame duck countries? That is where the money goes, surely, once we have paid for all the hierarchy, it then goes to bringing those countries up to our standards, but at the same time dragging us down to theirs.
All very well and brilliant. Except for one minor, trivial, almost pedantic detail. We've never really been an island people. We're descended from all sorts of peoples. The Celts, from eastern Europe and Asia. The Norse, from northern Europe. Various Teutonics, from what we now call Germany, Roman, largely Italian but actually a very varied people themselves. Even the whole Anglo Saxon thing that many consider the epitome of englishnes is actually a reference to immigrants from Saxony, now part of Germany. All were ultimately superseded by the reign of the normans, often considered Frenchbut actually descended from Scandinavian and Celtic immigrants into northern France. Fast forward a bit, to modern day with our German /Greek royals. I'd say we're quite European really. Then all of this against a backdrop of conquest the other way too. There's archaeological evidence of movement and trade between Britain and Europe since prehistoric times, and then later of course we've taken control of half the world. I think we're an island nation whenit suits, an imperial nation when it suits, and always a quite fickle nation.
You can get a train from London to Paris. You can even see France from Dover in perfect conditions. What about the isle of Wight? If Britain should be independent of Europe because we're an island, then should the isle of Wight be independent of Britain? What about all the other islands? What about our remaining colonies and annexes? Should we give up northern Ireland? What about the Falklands?
There isn't a race in the world that has not intermingled with other races, and you're right the British is one of them, Clueless. But it doesn't change the fact that we are on a small island completely surrounded by seas, nor does it change the fact that we, the British, have acknowledged, recognised, been comforted by the fact that we are separated by a Channel of sea from Europe. Race, invasions, cultural, differences, have never dented the one thing that defines us as a Nation.......we are an Island people and that fact, during the 19th and 20th Centuries was brought home to us preventing Napoleon and Hitler from just storming across our borders as they did to continental European countries. So while there has never really been a single"tribe" that hasn't been absorbing other "tribes" the fact remains that the channel always has had continual effect on the way we have lived, independently, and survived. What races we are descended from really, in the Island people context, has no real importance. So it's not about Politics it's about a stretch of water that we for centuries have used as a wall to keep us safe.
I didn't say that we should be independant from Europe because we are an island, just pointing out that the historical make up of the country has no bearing on whether we should be run by the EU. But we are geographically an island and who my ancestors were is of no importance to how I feel about the EU.
Nobody is actually saying that. What is being said is that our own sovereignty is slowly being eroded by Countries who have an agenda of being the most powerful and controlling in a Federation......so it's the politics, not us holding up a hand and saying "We're Islanders". Don't confused the two points in the situation, the first being the politics, trading rights, laws being made in foreign courts that deeply affect our own political and legal decisions, and two, our geographical position as an Island race that has defined our thinking. You can name and use any island or dot in the Oceans as an example as to why they can't be independent but it's ineffectual if they actually don't want to. With regard to the Falklands they were quietly offered independence after the war but refused wanting to remain under Britain's protection and development.
I agree. It's your choice. I'm just trying to understand the whole island milaki. It just seems so flawed to me, no matter how I look at it. I should point out that I personally am in favour of us having control of who gets in or out. What I struggle with is the argument that Britain isn't really European because it's an island, and being an island race makes us special. Even the most hard core eurosceptics believe we should trade internationally. We must surely consciously overcome the island mentality for that to work. We can't trade if we can't move people and goods around. Being an island makes no difference there. In military terms, being an island once had a massive benefit. But now it makes no difference. Russia parked a warship in Scotland a year or so ago just for a laugh. It took our royal navy 24 hours to find a suitable ship to go and see what's happening. Every developed nations has long range missiles, and of course there's the more modern threats from terrorism and cyber warfare. So in trade terms, being an island means nothing. In defence terms it means nothing. What about leisure? Well, us brits seem to enjoy our foreign hols. Being an island doesn't seem to impede us or benefit us there. Again, no difference. I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to understand, because I personally am struggling to decide which way to vote, and so far, I've failed to fully understand anyone's arguments either for or against, as they all seem to be emotive and with no discernible logic.
I don't think any of us has mentioned the word "special", Clueless. But partly because we have had to trade as an island, been in conflicts with continental countries over the centuries including a hundred year war with France, had our political views partially formed because we are on an island, I don't think we have ever viewed ourselves as European but more like a close neighbour of it. It sounds like we're the guilty party here and that we must changed our way of thinking. We've probably been the greatest trading nation in all time, wanting to have greater freedom to export where we want, to whom we want, is the driving factor of the situation now. Why, just because we, for example, have left the EU would our trading be affected?? The EU and the UK are interlocked trade wise to such a degree that us leaving it will have no real effect unless the EU stopped all trading with us and that is economically impossible. So the people in the EU who were exporting to us, working on projects with us, and the people in the UK who were exporting to the EU, working on projects with them, will still continue to do so. Politically, economically, defence interests, it would be in reality something that can't be changed. What we're talking about here is regaining Sovereignty, powers of legislation, control of borders.........the trading aspect is really a smoke screen because the trading will continue as it has before. As on Politician said today "Do you think the French will stop importing wine to us, the Germans stop importing Volkswagens and BMW's to us??........there's a lot more to it, but you get the idea.
As always we the Brits seem to miss the point. The reasoning behind the formation of an European alliance was to preserve peace and liberty. Yet just 70 years after the end of WW2 here are the Brits saying it's all about money. We don't see it as a mechanism to promote a greater level of fiscal and social equality any more, merely a financial millstone. If a friend or work colleague was in difficulty would you; a] have a word with his/her other 26 mates, take a collection and respectfully offer it to him/her until times are better or b] say stuff it, if I put that fifty quid in we won't be able to go out for that meal on Friday night. All I'm saying is that it ain't just about the money folks.
Sorry about the length of this post! I don't know if any of you saw the 'Hard Talk' interview between Sarah Montague and Martin Schultz, President of the EU. It was quite interesting. They were discussing the 'agreement' that Cameron has come to with the EU. Although Schultz tried to make out that it was a significant change I'm not sure that it showed anything of the sort. Some of the 'changes' turned out to be things that had already been agreed between other countries and the EU (e.g. child benefits being linked to country of origin) but pointed out that it was for a limited time period only. He was asked about Boris's point that if we vote 'Out' then there would be room for further negotiation. He prevaricated on that point but tried to imply that Cameron's comment 'no further negotiations' was the likely outcome - but wouldn't state that categorically. He is certainly an ardent European Union advocate (as befits the President) but got very uptight about immigration and refugees. He said that all of the EU members (except those not in Schengen) should be taking in the refugees. When asked about Germany and Sweden having stopped their open door policy he got very annoyed. He said that we shouldn't be having a go at Germany (his home country) and Sweden because they had already been extremely generous to refugees (true) but that countries such as Hungary and the Eastern European countries, that weren't accepting refugees, should be taking them as well - and that it is their duty to do so. When challenged about what the EU was going to do about these countries he couldn't come up with an answer but implied that they 'must' comply with the agreement (what agreement?). So, the EU has no control over its member states with regard to refugees. He also said, quite rightly, that he didn't think that countries closing their borders would stop the refugees, but he didn't have an answer to it. They didn't discuss trade agreements and they didn't discuss defence (the Common Security and Defence Policy - CSDP). I don't think that the CSDP does anything but spend more of our money. Since it changed from ESDP, and since the Treaty of Lisbon, it has done little apart from appointing more highly paid positions. The so called agreements between the CSDP and NATO haven't really changed. The CSDP is supposed to command an armed force of joint EU countries and they are 'ready for action' - with their supposed 2,000 man battle group. This is where a lot of the argument is based. Most of us older people still view it as its original purpose - a trading group. It was formed from the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community, altered by the Treaty of Paris and, subsequently the Treaties of Rome. This became the European Economic Community (EEC). We joined it as an Economic Community (that's how it was presented to us and was known as the Single Market or Common Market) in 1973. Twenty years later it was known to be based on it's four pillars of 'free movement of goods, services, people and money'. In the 90's the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam started the change. We signed up to them after they were misrepresented to the 'people' by our politicians (so what's new?) We got a lot cannier afterwards and didn't sign up to the Euro or to Schengen. The Treaty of Lisbon (which altered Maastrcht) was not ratified until 2009. I'm still sitting on the fence until I know more about the possible economic effects of a possible 'Out' vote. Nobody is telling us anything that makes sense and they're all using misrepresentation and scare tactics at the moment. I hope that, eventually, the real figures and ideas will emerge but I'm not just sitting around waiting for it to happen. I'm in the process of trying to organise a local seminar, just on the economic/business effects of the In/Out decisions, but it is likely not to happen until May. I don't even know which way our local MP (a Cabinet Minister) will vote but I'm pretty sure he's an 'In' man. We'll need him and a good 'Out' man to make the seminar/debate a viable one. They'll have questions, from local business, primed in advance (allows them to do their research properly) and then an open forum. Will it come about? I hope so. Re an Island Nation: I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion but I consider us an Island Nation that has been able to produce its own distinct culture through integration. To me this means that we are a homogeneous nation made up of immigrants over thousands of years. Each group of immigrants brings new cultures and thoughts that get subsumed into the whole. I'm sure that if you go back far enough you will find that all of you originated from another country. My parents' families came here in 1913 (mother's side) and over 400 years ago on my father's side. With regard to my local MEP, I know who he is, didn't vote for him, don't like his policies and never liked his policies when he was my local Councillor!
