The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
EU Central has utterly failed to communicate or explain any of the benefits of membership to the UK's population
Granted this is the Commission's failure, but is it the Commission's fault?
The fact that an "official" European voice is conspicuously absent in all member countries implies at the very least that this is not a priority for the national governments. And I imagine e.g. the likes of Poland would become downright irate at the notion of the Commission actively talking up the benefits of Europe. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
It's as much about media presence as blatant propaganda. Where are the TV dramas set in Europe? Where's the European soccer squad? Where's the cross-channel music scene?
Most British people get far more TV exposure to New York and LA than they do to Paris, Berlin or Vienna.
You don't win an argument like this by talking up benefits in a rational way. You do it by creating an inclusive European identity through popular and middle-brow media, and persuading people they belong to it.
Bein' outplayed and outclassed, 'ats anuva fing entirely. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
For instance, the Dutch Zeg 'ns Aaa was a hit on Spanish TV in the 1990's.
The sad fact is, Britons are not interested in mixing with Europeans who speak funny. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
And yes, Euro-soaps, or soap operas with European connections, would go a long way to helping solve that.
Those of us with towering ET intellects will of course find the idea endearingly chucklesome, but in fact soaps have a long and global history of being used deliberately as mild - and sometimes not so mild - public education and propaganda.
They might steal a format if it's successful in another country, and they're happy to put foreign productions in post-prime slots and niche broadcasters, but the very thought of putting foreign content into a high-profile slot is enough to make them mess themselves.
Certainly in Germany, the public broadcasters are as risk-averse as the private-sector ones. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
the very thought of putting foreign content into a high-profile slot is enough to make them mess themselves
But I still have a suspicion that if Euro content was perceived to be as sexy as US content, subtitles wouldn't be an insurmountable problem.
What's the share of non-US, non-Spanish movies in Spain theaters ? Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
And a grumbly bumbly old pub keeper wif a heart of gold, I reckon they were put in entirely to nail down the pommie export trade. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Rich, reclusive Ricardo Montelban clone media magnate (his friends call him "Sly", his juvenile friends call him "Papi") lives on a large estate on a fashionable Mediterranean island. At the beginning of very episode, an a large government aircraft flies in an assortment of sexy starlets, sophisticated international criminals, brutal mafia killers and naive photographers, their arrival being announced by the magnate's pet dwarf ("Boss, boss, de plane, de plane!").
In the first episode, Sly organizes an 18th birthday party for "Tina", but Sly's wife misunderstands... scope for both drama and comedy there.
Or is that too far-fetched for suspension of belief? The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
8-)# I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
No one is suggesting a poster or ad campaign with Merkel and Sarkozy winking and giving thumbs up signs and a banner saying "Your friends in Europe."
Come to think about it - why not?
Seriously, when it comes to talking up the importance of Europe, the various heads of state are usually most conspicuous by their absence. Europe would garner a lot more interest if the heads of state put it on the political agenda more often.
We've seen how effective Europe can be used for negative politics. Maybe it's time for Merkel, Sark et. al. to try making points with the benefits of Europe. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
It's the language - or rather the languages. There are other continents that contend with more than one language, but a babel of languages?
Hopefully technologies for instantaneous translation will swamp the media soon. Because I don't see a solution to a united Europe until they do. Cultures are artificially divided by language. You can't be me, I'm taken
How about Africa?
How about India? The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
India was united first by a common colonial power, then by a common struggle against that colonial power.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
To many people, Brown is a symbol of the EU. A vote against one is a vote against the other. Because elections are lost and not won, Brown has become the scapegoat for the City meltdown, for rising unemployment, for recession, and (worst of all) for collapsing house prices.
Because Brown has never been an aggressive Euro-skeptic, he's seen as someone who plays for the away team, and not a staunch patriot - unlike the UKIP and the Tories.
And since 'everyone knows' Brussels is corrupt, it makes perfect sense - in narrative logic - that he's semi-European, not One of Us, and likely to be stealing money from UK taxpayers.
It's easy to underestimate the not so latent xenophobia and the fundamental irrationality of the middle-englanders.
Because Brown has never been an aggressive Euro-skeptic
When was the last time Brown made any kind of significant overtly critical media noise about Europe in public?
what other country can boast a media environment where the internet rollout is less than latvia or rural india, the dead tree rags are owned by the first family, and where supporting 'murdoch's evil agenda®' is actually a vote for greater freedom and objectivity?
as for a euro pov, i rate cult tv as a perfect example, lotsa foreign flicks from all over the world, along with cutting-edge-6-months-ago americana, subtitles and choice of dub or original s/track available.
then there's current tv which is really good too. yes 90% is unwatchable, but that 10% is easily worth the euro p. day, worth more than that to evade the berlu-filter factor, made even easier by the fact that 90% of that is the intellectual level of a slow 8 year old with a voyeur streak.
so it is being done, arte tv is another excellent example. that and cult and current should be the top viewed channels in europe, available in all euro-tongues, this would do more for the sorry state of ignorance and 'm'enefregismo' (don't give a fuck attitude) that is the italian disease.
looked at from here, sky uk news is hopelessly parochial, and don't get me started on the yank main network news channels!
i wonder how controlled by murdoch all his organisation is, because right now some of his channels are all that's standing between now and greater media lockdown.
if sky were banned from italy, i would take that as a powerful reason to read the writing on the wall, same if beppe grillo's website was hacked to pieces.
but then on the other hand it might force the issues many are discussing over the web, into the piazzas, one step closer to really uniting the people to state their will, and test the state's resolve to hold onto the undeserved power it has today, votes bought through enabling italy's lowest common denominator to become the dominant political force through near-unilateral media control.
pravda with bimbos, greasy old bald guys with combovers and jowl-tucks spoonfeeding steaming bullshit daily, fresh from the liars' mouths, aaagh.
gimme sky uk news again, i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i take it back, at least adam boulton comes on once in a while.
bbc world is less tabloid, but a bit constipated and middlebrow, risk averse, to put it mildly.
euronews has great mag/culture section, where they tell you about which art exhibitions are on europe wide, but the overall programming is a bit on the bland side.
still the vestiges are already up and running...
i've never lived in a place surrounded by so much shitty tv, where i was also able with skysat to actually feel well served, abundantly so.
just another example of italy's love affair with duality. i'm glad some of my sub will go to supporting the channels i dig, but i get the horrors about financing the rest of the murdoch-ery, same with buying petrol, or using plastic bags.
ugh! (but thanks), just another daily dose of cog-diss, swallow it like a good lad, it won't kill ya hehe....yet... 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
And since 'everyone knows' Brussels is corrupt
in the UK, is there a sentiment then among Britain-firsters and Euroskeptics that by being for Europe, one is betraying one's country, not being patriotic, hating one's country, hating freedom, and so on? i always presumed that it was not so much a matter of tribalistic national loyalty, but rather something closer to national arrogance and ignorance about the practical cost-benefits of EU membership, a notion that Britain does it better than the feckless Continentals. in contrast, embracing an internationalist or non-American point of view in the U.S. lays one open to accusations of being un-American = anti-American. does a similar dynamic exist in Britain, i.e. by saying that one is for Europe, it is a short step to being called disloyal to one's country, if not a traitor outright?
if not, then there is more room for propagandizing the benefits of EU membership without having to waste time and energy defending oneself against attacks of disloyalty and treason. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
So if you are for the EU, you are willfully letting Britain go to rack and ruin. There isn't real logic to it. But that is the view of the 'patriots'.
Others who are anti EU are so because they see European Parliament as an irrelevant, undemocratic, wasteful body that brings no real benefit. Others are anti-EU simply because they haven't heard any reason not to be, they are ill informed.
Take (please), the Costa Brits with their depreciating Spanish villas and loud wails that their failure to learn Spanish in the five years they've been living there puts them at a disadvantage in the local job market.
Or the UKIP voting (I think) GP next door who plans to retire to Germany for the better health care.
I honestly don't know how to start negotiating with mindsets like that.
if the UK left the EU, how significantly would life change for these people? and how significantly would life change for British people in general? (i could speculate based on the list of benefits articulated by the EU Commission, but that would be more guess work than anything grounded in reality.)
there is a movie called A Day Without a Mexican (see trailer below). maybe there is a role for a movie called A Day Without the EU.
Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
And then we can see an attack on our employment rights and equality legislation.
Example:
School cancels Christmas nativity in favour of Muslim Eid celebrations - Telegraph
A junior school has cancelled its Christmas performances because they got in the way of the Muslim children celebrating Eid. Greenwood Junior School sent out a letter to parents saying the three day festival of Eid al-Adha, which takes place between 8-11 December, meant that Muslim children would be off school. That meant planning for a traditional pantomime were shelved because the school felt it would be too difficult to run both celebrations side by side. The move has left parents furious.
Greenwood Junior School sent out a letter to parents saying the three day festival of Eid al-Adha, which takes place between 8-11 December, meant that Muslim children would be off school.
That meant planning for a traditional pantomime were shelved because the school felt it would be too difficult to run both celebrations side by side.
The move has left parents furious.
I linked in another comment to a BBC piece about a report on "citizenship lessons" in Schools which drew criticism because it mentioned discussing the slave trade, the legacy of Empire, and the European Union. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
Though how you go about being more unserious than the UK euro-sceptics is beyond me.
The rise of the UKIP and the BNP are the direct responsibility of Brussels
The UKIP represents pure, unadulterated eurosceptic vote. They poll very badly in every election but the Euro ones (unlike the BNP which polls consistently). So the EU's communication strategy shares part of the blame there.
But the fact is the LibDems are the only British party to be explicitly pro-EU. Even the Labour party is lukewarm about it. Therefore, the ferment for the UKIP vote is laid down by the entire UK political class. And the media don't help, what else is new? The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Cameron will be Prime minister in no less than 12 months, that is certain.
However, emboldened by the fact that 52.5% of the vote in this election was at least as Eurosceptic as himself (Tory, UKIP and BNP), Cameron will push on with his plan to "un-ratify" the Lisbon Treaty. This may trigger Scottich independence. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Really? There's a lot can happen in 12 months. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Unless you mean there's going to be some sort of brownshirt coup in the interim... The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
I don't think Brown will resign, for exactly the same reasons; and it still looks like he still weighs too much in the party for a vote of no confidence. Worst of all, there is hardly anyone I see capable of replacing Brown at Labour's helm, be it as a PM or for the following elections.
"To many people, Brown is a symbol of the EU"
Wasn't it Blair the pro-european and Brown the skeptical one?
"Secession would have to be negotiated, and - for once - there would be some reality based discussion in the UK about what that would mean in practice"
The UK would fall back in Switzerland's situation, with an association agreement and likely paying more for the right to access the Common market.
"The older generation in the UK remains profoundly ignorant and racist, and there's almost no concept of the UK as part of Europe. Events and experiences which could build a European identity - like the Eurovision Song Contest - are treated as jokes."
This is because it is not clear yet what the European identity is. Greeks have little to do with Finns, no more than the Slovens with the Welsh. Too little is done to emphasize the things in common or to acknowledge that Europe is a dire patchwork of cultures. Brussels must build bridges that look a bit less artificial - human rights or economic stuff is not enough, without the cultural part. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
In the 1970's the Tories were pro-EEC because of the free market dimension and Labour was against.
In the 1980's the Tories became anti-EEC as it started acquiring a political dimension culminating in the EU. Labour stayed lukewarm.
With the two major parties undermining the EU and most of the media (the only exceptions being the LibDems and The Independent, both "minority interests") against the EU, how could the EU possibly break through with a positive message, if they had one? The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Even just by taking an interest, which is something that doesn't seem to have happened in any obvious way.
This shouldn't be hard to understand. If you have a well-funded and established anti-culture, it shouldn't surprise anyone that if you don't put up some kind of opposition, you're going to get your arse kicked.
'We don't do that' stops being an excuse when it's almost guaranteed to end in a debilitating political crisis.
By playing the culture card. By selling Europe at the popular level.
But they don't have the manpower and (shockingly) the media access (or they have the access but not the savvy).
If 10 British MEPs cannot reach the British public, how can the EU Commission? The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Savvy, of course, seems to be a different issue.
And it's not just the UK. After the Lisbon fiasco, after Poland, and after these elections here, there's still no realisation that there might, perhaps, be a problem with the EU's communication strategy.
The UKIP came second. How much more of a hint is needed?
Notice that, despite the quip that the UKIP is just the BNP with 12 years of 'public school', there was a campaign to vote against the BNP but not against the UKIP.
Because the UKIP is exclusively and anti-EU protest vote unlike the BNP whose vote is consistent across elections.
So maybe the EU has ignored the rise of British Euroscepticism for too long but, on the other hand, if Britons don't want to be in the EU, who's the EU to force them to stay? The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Especially in light of a fairly contast no to EU presence.
There hasn't been any decent pro EU campaign or easily available literature in the UK.
It wasn't, and isn't.
That's why it's a 36 year failure, and not a 36 day one.
Because if they had any interest in pushing a positive message about the EU, they would have. Instead you get things like
Blair sets out red lines on EU constitution | World news | guardian.co.uk
Tony Blair has set out Britain's red lines for accepting or rejecting a new EU constitution, as the UK looked more likely to be isolated at this week's crunch Brussels summit.Last night the French and Spanish government appeared to be in agreement that they would press for a new charter of fundamental rights and more majority voting - both of which the UK opposes. Today Mr Blair set out four no-go zones for negotiations on which he insisted he would not compromise.
Last night the French and Spanish government appeared to be in agreement that they would press for a new charter of fundamental rights and more majority voting - both of which the UK opposes.
Today Mr Blair set out four no-go zones for negotiations on which he insisted he would not compromise.
Gordon Brown 'ashamed' to sign Lisbon Treaty, say Tories - Times Online
Gordon Brown will travel to Portugal to sign the reworked European Union constitutional treaty, but he will not attend the actual signing ceremony for the document, it was confirmed today in a decision that the former Tory leader William Hague called a "ridiculous fudge". The Prime Minister's attendance at the signing of the controversial EU Reform Treaty in Lisbon on Thursday had been in doubt for several weeks because of a clash in his schedule. Mr Brown was due to make his first appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee, a heavyweight group of senior backbench MPs, at exactly the same time as the Treaty of Lisbon is being signed by the other 26 EU leaders. "The Liaison Committee must come first," an aide said. Mr Brown would have faced little criticism at home if he did miss the signing of the Treaty, which replaced the failed EU constitution dumped after its rejection by French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005.
The Prime Minister's attendance at the signing of the controversial EU Reform Treaty in Lisbon on Thursday had been in doubt for several weeks because of a clash in his schedule.
Mr Brown was due to make his first appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee, a heavyweight group of senior backbench MPs, at exactly the same time as the Treaty of Lisbon is being signed by the other 26 EU leaders. "The Liaison Committee must come first," an aide said.
Mr Brown would have faced little criticism at home if he did miss the signing of the Treaty, which replaced the failed EU constitution dumped after its rejection by French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005.
How hard would it have been for a vehemently sceptical and hostile UK government to organise a referendum in the UK? What do you think the result would have been?
New Labour, like Thatcher's Tories, has always taken an aggressive and not very helpful negotiating position. But that's very different to planning full secession - and there has never been any interest in that.
In fact the resistance has always been against left-leaning legislation, not against the EU as a whole. The business benefits of the EU are obvious, and I'm not convinced that the Tories are going to go against that, even if voters want them to.
THE BRITISH Conservative Party leader David Cameron has threatened, should Gordon Brown call an early general election, that if he wins he would scrap the Lisbon Treaty ... In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday Mr Cameron said there was now a 50/50 chance of an early election. If the Conservatives won an election, Mr Cameron said the party "could have a referendum [on Lisbon] in October" and lead the campaign for a no vote. ... Most political analysts predict a No campaign led by the Conservatives in a referendum on Lisbon would doom the treaty to defeat and prompt a major crisis within the Union.
...
In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday Mr Cameron said there was now a 50/50 chance of an early election. If the Conservatives won an election, Mr Cameron said the party "could have a referendum [on Lisbon] in October" and lead the campaign for a no vote.
Most political analysts predict a No campaign led by the Conservatives in a referendum on Lisbon would doom the treaty to defeat and prompt a major crisis within the Union.
And, note, UKIP voters (17%!) are those who think the Tories are not Eurosceptic enough. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
So if there's an enlargement strategy, and a consolidation strategy - both of which exist - it makes no sense to leave enlargement and consolidation entirely to national governments without making any democratic effort at all to persuade national populations.
You don't even do this in business. You don't throw random people together, tell them they're a team now - yay - and then act surprised when fights break out and some people wander off and find something else to do.
You're effectively arguing for a completely hands-off disinterested Europe. And that can't possibly work - for common sense reasons, never mind strategic ones.
You don't throw random people together, tell them they're a team now - yay - and then act surprised when fights break out and some people wander off and find something else to do.
The UK wanted in, they got in. Now they want out. They should get out. The UKIP election result is actually more meaningful than the Irisn no referendum in respect to EU membership. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
The UKIP election result is actually more meaningful than the Irisn no referendum in respect to EU membership.
Why do you say that? UKIP took a large share of the vote, but we're still talking about less than 17% in an election with very low turnout. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Granted, turnout was low, but so it was in every other EU member state. And when people tout the 70% majority for Lisbon in the Spanish referendum, they forget to mention only 40-45% voted, too... The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
Cameron sleepwalks towards Europe's exit The timing of the government's demise could mark the difference between a serious argument about Britain's relationship with Brussels and a rupture that would set in train its eventual departure. It is clear to all that Mr Cameron wants to derail the process of European integration. His decision to withdraw from the European People's party, the European parliament's mainstream centre-right group, is a step in that direction. By aligning with a hotchpotch of small far-right parties, Mr Cameron has downgraded his party's relationship with its French and German cousins. To move Britain to the sidelines of influence is one thing. To threaten to blow up the Lisbon accord is another. This is what Mr Cameron proposes by pledging to campaign for its rejection in a British referendum. And this is where the timing of the general election really matters. (...) the consequences would be monumental. Mr Cameron might argue that earlier versions of the treaty were rejected in referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. But these were not conscious acts of government. Withdrawal from the EPP is a Tory shot across the bows of European integrationists. Wrecking the Lisbon treaty would be a declaration of war. Such would be the crisis in Britain's relationship with its partners that it would precipitate compelling calls for a re-evaluation of its membership of the EU. Many Conservatives, one suspects, would cheer.
The timing of the government's demise could mark the difference between a serious argument about Britain's relationship with Brussels and a rupture that would set in train its eventual departure.
It is clear to all that Mr Cameron wants to derail the process of European integration. His decision to withdraw from the European People's party, the European parliament's mainstream centre-right group, is a step in that direction. By aligning with a hotchpotch of small far-right parties, Mr Cameron has downgraded his party's relationship with its French and German cousins.
To move Britain to the sidelines of influence is one thing. To threaten to blow up the Lisbon accord is another. This is what Mr Cameron proposes by pledging to campaign for its rejection in a British referendum. And this is where the timing of the general election really matters.
(...)
the consequences would be monumental. Mr Cameron might argue that earlier versions of the treaty were rejected in referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. But these were not conscious acts of government.
Withdrawal from the EPP is a Tory shot across the bows of European integrationists. Wrecking the Lisbon treaty would be a declaration of war. Such would be the crisis in Britain's relationship with its partners that it would precipitate compelling calls for a re-evaluation of its membership of the EU. Many Conservatives, one suspects, would cheer.
The Serious People are not Amused. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But it depends on what 'meddlesome' means in practice.
Media and cultural positivity is not the same as political pressure. This isn't about speechifying and posterating, it's about creating a positive image of the EU which voters can personally identify with.
That process shouldn't mention politics at all. If it's cultural and apolitical it's not meddling. (Well, it is, but it doesn't look like it which makes it much harder to challenge.)
If the Eurosceptic states are alienated and trying to leave anyway and/or sabotage what's already there, what difference would it make?
I think they'll leave eventually. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
One of the most depressing things in the UK is the way in which culture has been completely colonised by the US. It's so pervasive it's part of the background noise, and no one notices.
A trivial example - at a local open microphone night, with exactly one exception, all of the singers sang with a fake US accent.
One even sang a song he'd written about Vietnam, even though I'm pretty sure the closest he'd ever been to Vietnam was his DVD copy of Apocalypse Now.
30-40 years a folk night would have British folk songs - some of which are aggressively socialist and populist - and people would have dared to sing them with a British accent.
Now we have an endless wave of poor Bob Dylan clones.
That's what I mean by meddling. Of course, there's no Central Secratariat of Cultural Propaganda in the US which has made this happen. (Or maybe there is - I don't know.)
But if it's subtle enough, it happens by osmosis. And it has a huge effect on what people who absorb culture and media are able to imagine about the world.
if Britons don't want to be in the EU, who's the EU to force them to stay?
How do you interpret that as me concluding that it is all Brussel's fault? If Britons have only been informed by the no 2 EU campaign then how is that balanced? And how can we address the need to get better information about the benefits of the EU down to your average citizen? Current MEPs and Governments should play their part but why not Brussels also?
Why can't Brussels produce good literature or good campaigns that MEPs can adapt and use for their constituencies?
But elsewhere it has been noted that the left leaning legislation is not especially liked by UK for example - the age regulations are a good example of that. We wouldn't have brought in rights at work on the grounds of age were it not for a European Directive and we are still fighting against getting rid of the mandatory retirement age which actually legitimises age discrimination.
Many employment rights that people have are a result of EU directives, and are now taken for granted. Yet people are hostile about the EU because this message isn't being given to them, they only hear the anti-EU stuff.
That's the point I was making.
I can answer these questions mostly in the affirmative for the LibDems. How about the Greens, or Labour?
My Labour candidates were explicitly pro-EU, yes. They talked about their manifesto commitments in terms of what they wanted to achieve for Wales by being an active part of the EU.
My MEPs have sent out newsletters a few times a year to members about their work, unfortunately not more widely though.
Where are the MEPs and MEP candidates? Do they actually have a clue?
no, not much. the EU is something offshore to the brits, and the links to the continent are not obvious to the low-info voter. the good ones in Wales mentioned are under-reported, meanwhile the media are only too brisk in trying to flog anti EU sentiment, as they know they get controversy points for that.
i think history plays a significant part in this, too.
the brits remember the war dead, and so it's easy to kindle sentiment against 'the continent', source of mayhem and fascism, it doesn't have to be overt, dog-whistle stuff is all that's necessary.
it's not even that fleet st. is really against the EU, they're just sluts for sales, and tickling the old stereotypes and prejudices pays off.
the problem with not joining the 'continent' community is that you're left out there alone with wet depends, when you could use a little help.
but after looking down your nose at europe (wogs begin at calais), it becomes an irrational attachment to some dwindling embers of uber-nationalism to suffer rather than be seen to be taking charity, or accepting legislative common sense from abroad.
it's ridiculously self-destructive, but there you go. old habits die hard, and the best the UK can come up with is endless dithering, and/or an aggressive, manipulative sense of entitlement which are seen from the rest of europe as antithetical to the spirit of the aquis.
of course every country stands up for its own interests, and brits are far from being the only monkey-wrenchers, the poles really take it to new levels, but i suspect there is some-behind-the scenes gameplaying going on (Libertarse) that is trying to undermine the EU, a pincer movement, with the UK and ireland on one side and poland on the other.
the EU made some silly mistakes way back with excessive regulation over cucumber straightness and similar folderol, and the gutter press really don't have to work too hard to get the old xenophobe gears grinding.
what's missing, as others have pointed out, is a feeling of community between the brits and the great land mass they once were physically part of, and (sigh) was lobbing v2's at them 70 years ago.
better education about european history, with special emphasis on the brilliant contributions to everyday life by science and culture from 'continentals' would help, but even if that were to happen today, we'd still be a generation away from being on the same page, methinks...
it's sad but true, and so unnecessary, but it'll take a lot more good faith before it's possible.
(oh for a million ET's!)
iow, 'perfidious albion'.
meanwhile, as chris points out, a lot can happen in 12 months. cameron is a younger man and thus possibly more flexible, notwithstanding his class loyalties. if his feet are held to the fire, especially about regulation of the City and the environment, it's possible we may see more progress than under brown, who should be put out to pasture where he can waffle out some memoirs.
the problem with that is his time in power has been so inglorious, i think he fears fading from politics with such failure attached to his memory.
which is why we're lucky he's fundamentally a decent, if deluded man, and not as insane as blair, bush or sarko (or berlu, for that matter). i don't think he will do anything major stupid to compensate, just fade slowly to black, remembered more for what he wasn't than what he was, an inneffectual, power-lusting, footdragging politician without a clue as to how to manage a failing economy (his supposed strong point!) let alone govern an ex-empire, crustily long past its due date. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
This is your party's leadership (including a large fraction of the front and back bench) we're talking about. When you fix that you can come back and blame Brussels. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
I personally accept full responsibility for all the shit that MY party has landed on the UK since it came to power in 1997.
I'll go off and fix that now shall I?
Mind you, if you could personally fix that stuff it'd be great too.
Why doesn't Whitehall produce good literature or good campaigns that MPs can adapt and use in elections?
You want an organisation with a stated interest in promoting closer links by democratic means, including but not limited to parliamentary democracy and referenda, to ignore those same democratic means because - er - why, exactly?
Britain in the European Union | Foreign & Commonwealth Office What have we gained? Common EU Myths
What have we gained?
Common EU Myths
Europe: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's (BERR) European Union Membership - The Benefits EU Single Market - Introduction What if we left the European Union? Europe: it's your business (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) [PDF]
European Union Membership - The Benefits
EU Single Market - Introduction
What if we left the European Union?
Europe: it's your business (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) [PDF]
it is a bit sparse. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
And how can we address the need to get better information about the benefits of the EU down to your average citizen?
BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Schools 'must teach Britishness' (25 January 2007)
New topics for citizenship Immigration Devolution Slavery British Empire's legacy The European Union Rule of law Democracy Equality
Did the recommendations of this report actually make it to the classrooms? I doubt it, it is most likely that Alan Johnson simply shelved it. I'd love to be wrong. But if they didn't shelve it, you can be sure the next Tory government will. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
Also, you've ignored my point about left-leaning legislation and not pushing the referendum issue.
Which would - in fact - have been a vote winner for Labour, if they'd wanted to go down that route and sacrifice Euro membership over political expediency.
So - no.
The reality is that there hasn't been any consistent diplomatic position from Labour at all. There's a patchwork of different preferences which seem to depend on who's talking at the time.
Perhaps that's because there are not a few people of quality and influence who stand to lose significant cash in CAP handouts if the UK leaves.
So they're happy to agitate loudly as a negotiating position, and to herd the proles along, but perhaps not as dedicated to the nuclear option as they might seem to be.
The suggestion that it might want to makes absolutely no sense of any kind.
It can't be done, it shouldn't be attempted, no one wants it, it's probably illegal, immoral, and fattening, and the sky will explode if anyone in Brussels so much as considers the possibility.
Congratulations. You and Colman have made my point for me with rare perfection.
Well played.
Now that that's settled - perhaps we can have a diary about how both of you think the pocket nationalists and the sceptics should be handled?
Or is it only a UK problem and not an issue in Spain, Ireland, and elsewhere in the EU?
perhaps we can have a diary about how both of you think the pocket nationalists and the sceptics should be handled?
I thought that's what I have been saying all along.
Or is it only a UK problem and not an issue in Spain
If the "few people of quality and influence" don't realize they can't have CAP and a nationalistic message then they are stupider than I thought.
But, then, the "few people of quality and influence," at least as I can tell from afar, have been operating under a strategy that attempts to skim the economic benefits of EU membership - for them - while fighting, and with all the Opt-Outs granted by the EU: winning, to limit the economic benefits for the British public as well as the social/political benefits. I suspect the nationalistic message is intended to achieve the latter.
Long Term this strategy is meta-stable as it is inherently self-contradictory. I be a' thinking your Ruling Class is either going to have to give-up CAP (economic benefits of EU membership) or the British Exceptionalism message. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
In a word - yes. That's why it's such a farce.
Chris Cook keeps saying that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. In the UK and elsewhere - they very much do.
Take for instance the issue of the sterling. The french franc wasn't wept for too much, nor was the deutsche mark, while the sterling is a mark of britishness even more than London's bobbies, big ben or doubledeckers. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
FT.com | Brussels Blog | Brits, not Irish, loom as threat to the EU's Lisbon treaty
According to a RTE/Sunday Independent opinion poll in Ireland, supporters of the European Union's Lisbon treaty will defeat opponents by a margin of 54 per cent to 28 per cent (with 18 per cent undecided) when the treaty is submitted to a second referendum, probably in October. Such a thumping victory would not only reverse but for all practical purposes bury the memory of Irish voters' rejection of the treaty in June 2008. ... Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government ratified the treaty last year. But the opposition Conservatives have steadfastly opposed it and warned that, should they win power in the UK's next election, due within a year, they will not meekly let things stand as they are. Recently, this position has threatened to harden into a determination to hold a referendum even if all 27 EU member-states have approved the treaty by the time the Tories enter government. This may strike other EU governments as a wholly unreasonable and even legally dubious stance. But consider the following possibility. In the Czech Republic, parliament has passed Lisbon after a long political struggle but President Vaclav Klaus, who intensely dislikes the treaty, has refused to add his signature, as Czech law requires. So, too has President Lech Kaczynski of Poland. As long as they hold out, Lisbon cannot come into force. Other things being equal, both men would probably find it impossible to resist the pressure to sign Lisbon, if Irish voters were to say Yes to the treaty in October. But other things are not equal. Klaus and Kaczynski are looking at events in London and asking themselves how long it will be before Brown's government is out of office and replaced by a Conservative government that sees eye to eye with them on Lisbon.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government ratified the treaty last year. But the opposition Conservatives have steadfastly opposed it and warned that, should they win power in the UK's next election, due within a year, they will not meekly let things stand as they are. Recently, this position has threatened to harden into a determination to hold a referendum even if all 27 EU member-states have approved the treaty by the time the Tories enter government.
This may strike other EU governments as a wholly unreasonable and even legally dubious stance. But consider the following possibility. In the Czech Republic, parliament has passed Lisbon after a long political struggle but President Vaclav Klaus, who intensely dislikes the treaty, has refused to add his signature, as Czech law requires. So, too has President Lech Kaczynski of Poland. As long as they hold out, Lisbon cannot come into force.
Other things being equal, both men would probably find it impossible to resist the pressure to sign Lisbon, if Irish voters were to say Yes to the treaty in October. But other things are not equal. Klaus and Kaczynski are looking at events in London and asking themselves how long it will be before Brown's government is out of office and replaced by a Conservative government that sees eye to eye with them on Lisbon.
how could the EU possibly break through with a positive message, if they had one?
relax, mig, you're doing it right now...
building new and better content, clearer arguments, deeper understanding, and we're just one grain of blog-sand at ET.
MULTIPLY, add more, scale up, work harder, and relax more, time is so on our side in all this.
did brown jump or was he pushed?
still leader-itis, still a sideshow...
yookay, first there's whizzy conman blair revered then reviled, as the cons became more obvious.
now the old myth of sturdy, dependable, no-nonsense, rational, scottish (thrifty) banker wif a keir hardie soul was exalted, basted a few months of projection, and now burned in effigy toasted till done.
which skillset will be next hauled over the coals?
what ideology other than sheer machievelli-ism or boring death-by-dull incompetence is the public willing to have its next fling with?
ah yes, cameron... back to 'the upper class knows best' 19th century thinking, retooled for the analogue age.
wasn't it you TBG, warning us about chubby cheeked babyfaces? 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
With the two major parties undermining the EU and most of the media (the only exceptions being the LibDems and The Independent, both "minority interests") against the EU, how could the EU possibly break through with a positive message, if they had one?
Broadcasting Family Guy in French? Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
a drooling mob of ragingly angry semi-fascist little Englanders
En-Ra-Ha, TBG, En-Ra-Ha.
Well said, TBG. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
but not Austin! Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Not quite.
Of course, you'll have to "order" a copy.
Unfortunately, the European Commissions's web staff forgot to put a link in the HTML to do that.
But being one of those really dogged and web-savvy, EU-curious British types, you will Google the title from that page -- 'No-nonsense guide for UK citizens' -- click on the top result that comes up -- AEDE :: No-nonsense guide for UK citizens -- recognize the same document blurb and author's image as on that European Commission page, and be delighted that here there is a link.
Which you eagerly click on.
Only to discover that your are back at the first EC page without the link.
But you are undeterred. Because you really curious and care about what benefits membership in the EU can bring to you.
So you try the second Google result, which looks promising, because it has 'europe' in the domain name. Your excitement mounts when you see that this page, another copy of the EC page, is titled 'Europe in the UK'. Now we're talking. There is a link there, which you click hopefully.
This takes you to something different: an order form titled 'Publications', with lots of charming text boxes.
Your heart sinks. But with a last sliver of hope of finding something useful, you scroll down and see a list of publications that you can order. You accidentally roll over one of them, and lo and behold, see that they are links. What's more, they are links to PDF's. This is too good to be true. If you click on 'The EU - What's in it for me? A no-nonsense guide for UK citizens to what the European Union delivers', surely you will be charged for it. But no, it's starts downloading a 1.9 MB file which a few seconds later you can open up in your reader.
And here is an enumeration of what those EU benefits to British people are:
Moving Around Europe Freely and Safely Living and Working AbroadStudying AbroadAir Safety - Blacklist of AirlinesTransparent Flight-Ticket PricingCharter of Air Passenger RightsMoving Around without Passport Checks Giving Consumers a Fair Deal At Home and Away The Single Market's Contribution to Economic GrowthShopping AbroadPhoning While Abroad: Roaming and the GSM StandardLiberalization of TelecomsPreventing Market Stitch-Ups: The Car MarketMonitoring Consumer MarketsMP3 Downloads Making Our Food and Environment Safer Climate Change and Sustainable EnergyBathing WaterWasteHazardous ChemicalsLifeAnimal HealthFood LabellingGMOsWatchdogs - the European Food Safety Authority, and the Food and Veterinary OfficeProtecting Consumer Safety: RAPEX Fighting Crime and Policing BordersThe European Arrest WarrantFight Against Money LaunderingCounterfeiting and PiracyExternal Borders Agency Some Things the EU Doesn't Do'The EU has got rid of lbs and ozs and will soon force us to use km on the road''The Lisbon Treaty would force the UK to give up its seat on the UN Security Council''The EU is doing away with 999 as our emergency number''The EU is trying to wipe England off the map''The EU wants to stop pub-goers calling bar staff `love'''The EU wants to drop the Queen from our passports'
Which begs the question: Is all this worth giving up British integrity, dignity and self-respect and putting up with a combination of third rate athletes in bobbing latex birds and irrational legislation about bananas? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
It's exciting stuff, isn't it?
The point of political messaging -- propaganda, to be blunt about it -- is persuasion, not thinking. Having an emotional content to a message really does help persuade. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
That evokes snarkifolous speculation about "bonding" (psychological or physical) and it's role in later life in social and political ... er ... "affairs."
(again, LOL) She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
After all, Britain's own relationship with it proves it. We weren't interested in the proto EU when it was founded, then had to go grovelling and accept allegedly disadvantageous financial terms some years later. When Mrs Thatcher was renegotiating UK contributions in the early 1980's, the impression I took away was that we must really need to be members if we'd accepted membership at any price.
But there is a huge underlying resentment of the EU based on the belief that we have been substantial net contributors when equally wealthy countries (France) haven't pulled their equivalent weight and other countries (Ireland) have rolled in subsidy for years beyond the point when their per capita income exceeded ours. Why we mind when other net contributors apparently don't (or not to the same extent) is another question. However, to the extent that this is true, those in the EU who have treated the perceived unfairness as an ignorable expression of Little Englanderism have effectively forced British politicians into ever more shrill posturing and red line drawing in order to look effectual. They do have to share some of the blame.
The politicians at every level are afraid to fix that.
And as we've seen with Brown recently, when the pols go off message, retribution is speedy and brutal.
That is just the anti-EU spin, right? But corporations are about maximizing profits, and they separate the spin from the reality, can't they? So if the EU in fact, not in spin, helps to improve their profits, what are they gaining by attacking it? Or are you saying that in fact UK corporations' profits are less with the UK in the EU than if it were outside it?
Here is a pure hypothetical: Suppose that EU regulations miraculously changed/disappeared (e.g. under pressure from the supposed resurgence of the right in the recent elections) to become perfectly amenable to the interests and aims of UK corporations. Then would the anti-EU rhetoric in the UK media -- at least the part driven and sponsored by UK corporations -- disappear and give way to pro-EU rhetoric? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Here is a pure hypothetical: Suppose that EU regulations miraculously changed/disappeared (e.g. under pressure from the supposed resurgence of the right in the recent elections) to become perfectly amenable to the interests and aims of UK corporations. Then would the anti-EU rhetoric in the UK media -- at least the part driven and sponsored by UK corporations -- disappear and give way to pro-EU rhetoric?
I think that experiment may have been done in reverse. IIRC, back when the EU was the EEC, the Labour Party's then policy to take us out of the EEC was framed by the media as yet more evidence that they were the Loony Left.
So my answer would be-yes, remove all those nasty workers' rights and equality bits and I expect the UK media would have a change of heart.
But corporations are about maximizing profits, and they separate the spin from the reality, can't they? So if the EU in fact, not in spin, helps to improve their profits, what are they gaining by attacking it?
Needle. Groove. Stuck...
it's the principle, innit?
gvt = brakes, faster profit = ungoverned.
great google almighty, i loved the story of your e-search, marco!!
nothing like making it easy and attractive to random readers. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Sorry for the confusion.
Still, I am curious about the actual, bottom-line benefits to UK corporations with respect to membership vs. non-membership in the EU.
And although it is a completely unrealistic hypothetical, I am still very interested in hearing what might happen in the fantasy scenario of a neoliberal European Union: would the British media, followed by the British population, then embrace the EU? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The perception is that things like worker protections, environmental standards, safety standards, human rights protections, maternity leave and so on are bad for corporate profits. It's not clear to me that this is true in the long run (i.e. in the order of tens of quarters, not one quarter).
The British population would probably hate a neo-liberal EU even more because it would become the excuse for taking away their rights and benefits. The British media might very well love it to bits though, if that's what their bosses told them to do.
But the financial costs of these to UK corporations must surely be less than the financial/economic benefits of being part of the EU, mustn't they?
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has a web page titled What if we Left the European Union? which lists downsides such as:
we might lose the advantages that economies of scale bring to pan-European industries such as car manufacturing or aerospace;we would have to bear the costs of renegotiating bilateral trade agreementswe would risk losing direct inward investment from companies which see the UK as a gateway to the EU.If we wished to continue trading with the EU - for example as a member of European Free Trade Area (EFTA ) (like Switzerland) or the European Economic Area (EEA) (like Norway) - we would still have to comply with EU laws, while having no say in negotiating them. We might even have to keep up contributions to the EU budget as the price of continued access to the Single Market, but get nothing in return.
Are the above points are just pro-EU spin that just try to cover up the larger downsides (to corporations) that you listed above? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
As I recall, and 30+ year old memories are lousy evidence, the UK was sold on the EU by economic arguments. The socio-political justifications were either not mentioned or used as reasons for not joining.
At least in the media I was consuming. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Oh hell no. I didn't even bother considering the socio-political arguments. These are corporations we are talking about here. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
What if we Left the European Union? - BERR
1. basic Single Market freedoms such as the right to live, study and work in Europe might be jeopardised;4. we would lose out on EU funding for research, which currently outweighs our contributions, and would no longer be able to influence the development of the Framework Programme. [this one is quasi corporate relevant as well, perhaps even more so than socio-political relevant]5. guarantees of important protections for consumers could be lost;6. workers' rights could be eroded, making it harder for employees to find a satisfactory work-life balance;7. one of the strongest voices for reform in EU would be lost, with the result that new EU rules would be more likely to be damaging to British interests; [this one also somewhat corporate relevant]
1. basic Single Market freedoms such as the right to live, study and work in Europe might be jeopardised;
4. we would lose out on EU funding for research, which currently outweighs our contributions, and would no longer be able to influence the development of the Framework Programme. [this one is quasi corporate relevant as well, perhaps even more so than socio-political relevant]
5. guarantees of important protections for consumers could be lost;
6. workers' rights could be eroded, making it harder for employees to find a satisfactory work-life balance;
7. one of the strongest voices for reform in EU would be lost, with the result that new EU rules would be more likely to be damaging to British interests; [this one also somewhat corporate relevant]
Since then there's been a drift towards closer cultural and political integration. I'd guess some of the old timers feel this was never part of the deal, which explains part of the push-back.
But as InWales said above, we have our own 'patriotic' wingers who are captivated by a Disneyfied semi-feudal British identity. Brussels threatens this identity and promises a tidal wave of something bad or other.
These wingers don't much like anyone who isn't British.
They'll tolerate some immigrants as long as they work hard for them (middle and upper class) and don't steal their jobs (lower middle and working class). But the idea of being flooded by foreigners - i.e. anyone who isn't English British - makes them break out in a cold sweat.
The core problem is that plastic faked-up identity, and the constant media portrayal of everything that happens in Brussels as a rather floppy and bureaucratic dagger pointed at the heart of it.
And the reason for that portrayal is partly a genuine sense of outrage, and partly the expediency of being able to use public Euroskepticism as a negotiating position.
I'd guess wingers in other countries have similar motivations.
It's reactionary in the widest sense - perhaps because the UK has never quite assimilated the cool rationality of European modernism. The culture moved straight from paternal imperial arrogance to feudal volkisch nostalgia, with a side order of neo-Victorian business brutalism.
There was that hippy thing in the sixties, but apart from that UK political culture has been reliably grim, adversarial, antiquated and desperate. The only vision is a nostalgic one. Looking forward in a positive way is something that seems to terrify people.
I guess the fact that the UK wasn't flooded by (South) Asians after India's independence or that no Ozzies, Kiwis and South African under-30s come to the UK to work explains why the EU worker mobility rules are such a problem... The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
Ozzies, etc, are still part of the Empire, and therefore British by default - obviously.
Besides, Brown and his NuLab friends have by all accounts internalised the institutional cowardice that they've been taught from an early age.
Let's assume, for the moment, they really do accept the Neo-Liberal economic position.
Under that assumption it becomes clear -- to me, at least ;-) -- you can't fight something with nothing and for all intents and purposes we, the Left, ain't got something. At least something that is (a) intellectually up-to-date and (b) persuasive. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
"We are quite the best country in Europe," she declared. "In my lifetime all the problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world." (October 1999
(October 1999
...at peace.
I will never see that - but I am prepared to work toward it. You can't be me, I'm taken
I no longer represent any Anglo-Saxon point of view. That was 40 years ago. I DO represent (in my own mind) the Nordic point of view. The Nordic point of view is imperfect, but, I believe, it represents the best of empathic Europe at the moment. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland: the best models imho for the future of Europe as a continent of PEOPLE...
nice one sven, still looking for a sense of 'psychic home' myself. sure wish i could feel prouder of italy right now. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
:)
funny you say that about childhood, the woods here in italy remind me of the idealised woods i grew up with in england, robin hood, maid marian, and sir lancelot kind.
user-friendly 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
While I agree with you that the peace dividend of the EU is a huge if not the hugest benefit that the EU provides, I wonder how much weight it bears as a selling point to the UK. For if the UK left the EU, how significantly would that increase the probability that war would break out in Europe? I'm guessing not by very much. But even if it did make European peace significantly more precarious, realistically how credible would that be as a disincentive to those seeking UK "independence" from the EU?
Other more vivid and compelling upsides to embracing the EU -- and downsides to rejecting it -- must be identified and communicated. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The second scenario would seriously destabilise Europe, probably to the point of igniting at least a couple of minor wars, and quite possibly a major one.
Well then too bad for the UK, with sympathies to Euro-philes who live there.
JakeS: The second scenario would seriously destabilise Europe, probably to the point of igniting at least a couple of minor wars, and quite possibly a major one.
I supposed that this scenario was so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about. Are you saying that UK withdrawal could encourage other countries to withdraw as well? Or that the EU without the UK would not be able to sustain itself (administratively, financially, economically, whatever)? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
I supposed that this scenario was so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about.
Well, that's true. So the selling point for the UK would not so much be "Europe will disintegrate into bloody, messy wars without the UK in the EU" as "Iceland is not in the EU. Ireland is in the EU. Which one would you guys prefer to be?"
But of course that argument cannot hope to be effective if the British still labour under the delusion that the UK is a serious world power.
except the Americans (who treat them like a disposable landing strip today...)
Now that's not fair. We use them for moral cover, too.
And, anyway, it's not like we treat them as a disposable landing strip for the same reason anymore. It's just that the President knows the PM is Dead Man Walking, so we reckon we might as well cosy up to Merkel and Sarko. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
In the first scenario, the UK is basically a glorified version of Iceland, except that they've managed to piss off everybody nearby
But I just thought of an exceedingly nasty scenario: What if a couple of the kingdoms secede and petition the EU for membership. Now that would be a nasty flash point. Imagine the reaction of a Tory government that had just pulled out of the EU to Wales and Scotland seceding and sending a polite "can we join, pretty please?" letter to Bruxelles.
Which would be perfectly ironic - the UK breaking up completely because it refuses to give up some of its sovereignty by joining the EU.
It would also put Northern Ireland in an interesting position.
at a cost:
What if we Left the European Union? | BERR
If we wished to continue trading with the EU - for example as a member of European Free Trade Area (EFTA ) (like Switzerland) or the European Economic Area (EEA) (like Norway) - we would still have to comply with EU laws, while having no say in negotiating them. We might even have to keep up contributions to the EU budget as the price of continued access to the Single Market, but get nothing in return.
Another part of the answer is that the European parties are coalitions of state-level parties rather than genuine federal parties in their own right (except - maybe, tentatively - for Libertas and Piratpartiet).
And a third part of the answer (which is related to the first) is that the press is a circle jerk. Insiders are interesting and have access because they are insiders. Without the patronage of an insider, you will never be adopted into that club. And the insiders know better than to saw off the branch they're sitting on by allowing their clients to build independent patronage networks of their own without giving them a prominent place.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 18 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 2724 comments
by Cat - Jan 2518 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 219 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments