British Union v European Union

David Agnew · 19-09-2007, 01:36 PM

Most people who are against the European Union are in favour of maintaining the British union (United Kingdom). This may appear inconsistent, so I thought I would put up a few points as to why the British union is good and the European Union is bad:

* There is a British 'demos'. There really is a British 'people'. There is a common culture (based on Christianity) and a common language: English. There are minority languages (Welsh, Gaelic), but almost 100% of people understand English. The continent is culturally similar, but there is no common language. Stable multilingual states are unusual (there is Switzerland, but even Canada is politically unstable). There are also a lot of other minor cultural similarities that exist in the British Isles that don't exist on the continent (largely due to broadcasting) There is no European demos.

* The UK was democratic (this has been undermined by devolution). There are national political parties (almost; they are confined to GB). There are no pan European political parties, and it isn't democratic.

* The British Isles form a 'natural' unit of government, the continent does not.

* The UK was fairish (although long unfair to the English). The EU is unfair both in terms of representation in its institutions, and who picks up the bills (and who helps themselves to the cash)

* History. There never has been political union on the continent except under the Romans. (The Napoleonic and Hitlerite empires were brief).

Do you agree with these points?

Millennium3 · 19-09-2007, 01:50 PM

Generally yes, but I would have thought the fact that we are primarily an island which makes it in everyone's interest, over-ridingly from a defence point of view, to be politically together. Essencially a common language, also of course, a fabulous history of achievement.

Phil Sheldon · 19-09-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Agnew

Most people who are against the European Union are in favour of maintaining the British union (United Kingdom). This may appear inconsistent, so I thought I would put up a few points as to why the British union is good and the European Union is bad:

* There is a British 'demos'. There really is a British 'people'. There is a common culture (based on Christianity) and a common language: English. There are minority languages (Welsh, Gaelic), but almost 100% of people understand English. The continent is culturally similar, but there is no common language. Stable multilingual states are unusual (there is Switzerland, but even Canada is politically unstable). There are also a lot of other minor cultural similarities that exist in the British Isles that don't exist on the continent (largely due to broadcasting) There is no European demos.

* The UK was democratic (this has been undermined by devolution). There are national political parties (almost; they are confined to GB). There are no pan European political parties, and it isn't democratic.

* The British Isles form a 'natural' unit of government, the continent does not.

* The UK was fairish (although long unfair to the English). The EU is unfair both in terms of representation in its institutions, and who picks up the bills (and who helps themselves to the cash)

* History. There never has been political union on the continent except under the Romans. (The Napoleonic and Hitlerite empires were brief).

Do you agree with these points?

Fairly accurate synopsis David.
Being an island race has caused us to forge our own views of 'Johnny Foreigner'. This is not being insular,it is more the ability to look dispassionately at what most of us perceive to be 'different' styles of governments,work ethics,press freedoms and above all we have a stable fiscal policy that confirms London as the financial capital of Europe.

g hall · 19-09-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Sheldon

above all we have a stable fiscal policy that confirms London as the financial capital of Europe.

Until Gordon Brown got his hands on it

Akria · 19-09-2007, 07:14 PM

Just one or two things.

Firstly, the Holy Roman Empire. This covered a large part of Europe as one state and lasted for quite a long time.

Secondly, there has not always been a British 'demos'. Your argument there, if you hold it to be a good argument, could then have conceivably been used to prevent any political union amongst the states of the British Isles at any point in history.

Akria

steve fowler · 19-09-2007, 09:01 PM

The difference between the British Union and the European Union is our British Union can survive and change with the times where as the European Union can not as it is an idea that is nearly a 100 years old and can not change with the times.

The modern world is moving on but the EU is stuck in the past and it will crumble and die! and when that day comes i hope i will be there cheering and hoping that it will be replaced with something that will do what the voters ask it to do.

Akria · 19-09-2007, 09:52 PM

Regarding 100 years:
Napoleon spoke of a union of the European nations.
Doubtless it was an idea even before him.
It is hardly new.

Then again, the Act of Union was signed in 1707, if I recall correctly. The UK is thus 300 years old; the EU is a mere 50.

I can think of no fundamental barrier to the EU changing with the times.
It is younger than the UK as well.

I am not pro-EU. I am merely against logic which seems to me to be illogical.

Akria

Phil Sheldon · 19-09-2007, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Regarding 100 years:

I am merely against logic which seems to me to be illogical.

Akria

Are you related to Doctor Spock?

Akria · 20-09-2007, 12:39 AM

No. And I don't understand the relevance of the question.

I am anti-EU; that is, anti the current implementation. I welcome the principle of a closer Europe, though.

Akria

Christina · 20-09-2007, 11:02 AM

I think the only consistent position of anti-EU people, is to be in favour of letting the people decide. We should not impose a British Union, but encourage a voluntary one and allow for referendums if people want them.

19-09-2007, 01:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
David Agnew Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maidenhead Posts: 296	British Union v European Union Most people who are against the European Union are in favour of maintaining the British union (United Kingdom). This may appear inconsistent, so I thought I would put up a few points as to why the British union is good and the European Union is bad: * There is a British 'demos'. There really is a British 'people'. There is a common culture (based on Christianity) and a common language: English. There are minority languages (Welsh, Gaelic), but almost 100% of people understand English. The continent is culturally similar, but there is no common language. Stable multilingual states are unusual (there is Switzerland, but even Canada is politically unstable). There are also a lot of other minor cultural similarities that exist in the British Isles that don't exist on the continent (largely due to broadcasting) There is no European demos. * The UK was democratic (this has been undermined by devolution). There are national political parties (almost; they are confined to GB). There are no pan European political parties, and it isn't democratic. * The British Isles form a 'natural' unit of government, the continent does not. * The UK was fairish (although long unfair to the English). The EU is unfair both in terms of representation in its institutions, and who picks up the bills (and who helps themselves to the cash) * History. There never has been political union on the continent except under the Romans. (The Napoleonic and Hitlerite empires were brief). Do you agree with these points?

19-09-2007, 07:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,477 Party: None	Just one or two things. Firstly, the Holy Roman Empire. This covered a large part of Europe as one state and lasted for quite a long time. Secondly, there has not always been a British 'demos'. Your argument there, if you hold it to be a good argument, could then have conceivably been used to prevent any political union amongst the states of the British Isles at any point in history. Akria __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

19-09-2007, 09:52 PM	#7 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,477 Party: None	Regarding 100 years: Napoleon spoke of a union of the European nations. Doubtless it was an idea even before him. It is hardly new. Then again, the Act of Union was signed in 1707, if I recall correctly. The UK is thus 300 years old; the EU is a mere 50. I can think of no fundamental barrier to the EU changing with the times. It is younger than the UK as well. I am not pro-EU. I am merely against logic which seems to me to be illogical. Akria __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

20-09-2007, 12:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,477 Party: None	No. And I don't understand the relevance of the question. I am anti-EU; that is, anti the current implementation. I welcome the principle of a closer Europe, though. Akria __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-09-2007, 01:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,610	Generally yes, but I would have thought the fact that we are primarily an island which makes it in everyone's interest, over-ridingly from a defence point of view, to be politically together. Essencially a common language, also of course, a fabulous history of achievement.

19-09-2007, 09:01 PM	#6 (permalink)
steve fowler Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,201 Party: None	The difference between the British Union and the European Union is our British Union can survive and change with the times where as the European Union can not as it is an idea that is nearly a 100 years old and can not change with the times. The modern world is moving on but the EU is stuck in the past and it will crumble and die! and when that day comes i hope i will be there cheering and hoping that it will be replaced with something that will do what the voters ask it to do.

20-09-2007, 11:02 AM	#10 (permalink)
Christina Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Eccleston, St Helens Posts: 1,529	I think the only consistent position of anti-EU people, is to be in favour of letting the people decide. We should not impose a British Union, but encourage a voluntary one and allow for referendums if people want them.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/41658-british-union-v-european-union.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
British Democracy Forum (& UKIP) - Powered by vBulletin	This thread	Refback	19-09-2007 07:34 PM