Boris Johnson demands Brit referendum on EU.

[Elliot Kane]

At last, a senior British politician shows real guts and leadership! It's a shame he's the Mayor of London rather than a party leader, but it's a start!

Boris demands a referendum for Britain on the Lisbon Treaty.

[Glance A'Lot]

Tony Blair for EU President?

How about a referendum of us other Europeans on THAT?


I don't know what the rules are on referendums in the UK, but to me that is a populistic claim to get into the news and gather popular attention.

It is the principle of representative democracy that the sovereign (the people) delegates temporary authority to decide.
In this case, what would a referendum now, after the fact achieve? If it's positive, it will result in a 'we knew and told you so' - if it's negative, it won't negate the ratification by a duly elected parliament already effected.


That said, there is quite a popular movement in Germany (which has referendums only at communal and state level, not at federal level) to install such at both federal and European level.
The positive thing I see in that is that it would force the politicians to more transparency by having to explain the issue on vote to the common man instead of discussing it in closed parliamentary circles.

Notwithstanding this, referendums are a touchy subject. Very easily they can be abused or misused for political powerplays or delaying tactics.

What issues should be open to them? If any, this could result in an abundance which will lose the voters' interest.

How to formulate the question? A critical issue - I know of one first hand in Dresden where the same basic issue has been put to vote three times with different phrasing over a period of several years. A critical issue of general public interest was such not decided over a period of 10 years (When the public voted against the interest of the party propagating the referendum they rephrased the question...).

[Elliot Kane]

The most important issue is that all three main parties promised there would be a referendum on whether or not to ratify the EU Constitution, subsequently renamed the Lisbon Treaty. Two of the three went back on their word, so this thing was passed on the basis of a lie.

Any country can withdraw unilaterally from an international agreement just by announcing it is doing so, so a referendum may be more useful than you think, as it would express the will of the British people.

[Glance A'Lot]

Any country can withdraw unilaterally from an international agreement just by announcing it is doing so, so a referendum may be more useful than you think, as it would express the will of the British people.

Yes, but the point is that the current rule requires 100% consent of all 27 countries - once that is effected, majority vote will rule. So withdrawing AFTER is possible, but will not negate this change.

So if the Czecks and the Poles sign before the UK makes a referendum and takes back its agreement it will only lead to the UK leaving the EU, but will not change the 'new EU' structure.
(And I have a notion that, if push came to shove, there will be interested parties who will not exactly speed up the bureaucratic and administrative process)

But if referendums are possible in the UK, and they have been advocated and subsequently denied, I can understand the disillusion.

[Elliot Kane]

It's disillusion with the entire EU, right now, honestly. Brits as a whole are deeply suspicious of it and while most of us would probably prefer to keep to the original idea as it was sold to us (And which we voted on in a referendum, incidentally. Before I was born, but still) as a free trade area, there is a growing feeling that out altogether might be the way to go.

I like the free trade idea. I think that The Empire Of Europe is a very bad idea and will not work well for anyone, in the long term. Europe would need to have a common cultural and linguistic identity first and it does not. Without that, it's doomed regardless.

[Glance A'Lot]

The old question between a federal union (as the USA or Germany) versus a union of (sovereign) states.

I do not believe however that a trade union alone will cut it in the future.

The cultural differences are a challenge, no doubt - just think of the many official languages (of which Belgium alone, which is smaller than the German federal state of Bavaria, has 3 - not to speak of Luxemburg!)...

But do you really believe that the UK can survive economically as a major power outside a European community?
It is not the center of Europe anymore, it, not only geographically, lies at the brink of Europe.
I believe that in today's world no European country can.

With the extant major blocks North America, China, India, and the resources heavy Russia the smaller countries in South America, Asia, Africa and Europe will have to cooperate in more than just economy to prevail.
Australia may be slightly different.

Not that I find this block building, which just puts competitive protectionism at a higher than national level, a worthy goal...

[Elliot Kane]

Considering the existence of the Commonwealth, yes, I believe Britain COULD survive as a major economic power entirely outside of the overly-bureaucratic, hopelessly corrupt and vastly over-protectionist EU.

Currently, Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world, after the US, China and Japan. As we run at a trade deficit with the EU, we stand to do even better without them. And that's not counting the now ten billion pounds a year we give the EU and that we'd get to keep for ourselves if we were outside of it.

The important point, though, is not whether we could remain a MAJOR power in any sense, be it economic, military or anything else. It's whether or not the British idea of Britain as a nation is at all compatible with the Eurocrats' dreams of Empire. And it's not.

Empires never last. They never have.

Would I prefer a quiet backwater country to the burning flames of a grandiose imperial dream gone wrong? I surely would...

[Ubereil]

Elliot, is what's best for England what's best for the world?

Übereil

[Elliot Kane]

In some cases yes, in some no. It would depend on the 'best' in question. Hardly an issue in the current debate though, surely?

[Glance A'Lot]

Actually according to my sources Germany is fourth, and the UK sixth after Germany and France.

And I have me doubts that the Commonwealth will really help (Canada, Australia and India will have other interests) - and a Commonwealth administration may be as complex, bureaucratic and potentially corrupt.

10 billion pounds is what percentage of your national budget? (Germany pays more - though as a great exporter probably also profits more.)

Don't let me be misunderstood - while I do favor a political union, I also do not like the petty in-fights on positions, national voting driven concepts, administrative power plays which currently are galore in the EU (which certainly is far away from a 'union' to date).

Here there is a discussion on where to expand the 'European' Union - is Turkey 'European'?
Actually I think few know that Morrocco once applied and was denied for not being Europe.

Should the geographical Europe be identical to the political Europe (safe Russia, I think there is consensus - even by the Russians)?
Indeed I think not necessarily.

The cultural differences apart, the major problem is the wide economic span - or imbalance. Unfortunately Europe cannot grow together organically - at least not fast - or within clear geographic boundaries.

Some of this is not unknown in other unions - the USA also have their span (New York state, California <-> Alabama, Arkansas) actually also in both in culture and economy.

Do I want an European 'Empire'? - No.
But I want to continue to live in an environment that is so intertwined that the chances of national wars is minimal. The 60 years of peace are a historic record after all (notwithstanding the Balkan conflict, which I would consider a war).

From the German perspective we cannot afford to become a 'quiet backwater country', if we want to keep our living standards. Germany is the world's top exporter with $1.133 trillion exported in 2006 (Eurozone countries included) and generates a trade surplus of €165 billion. We certainly are beneficiary of an ever more globalised economy.

[Ubereil]

Oct 4, 2009 10:43:11 GMT Elliot Kane said:

Currently, Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world, after the US, China and Japan. As we run at a trade deficit with the EU, we stand to do even better without them. And that's not counting the now ten billion pounds a year we give the EU and that we'd get to keep for ourselves if we were outside of it.

That's the point I was reacting to. It does sound an awful lot like you're arguing for the Brittish to get out of the EU for the sole reason that it's what best for Brittain, sod everyone else. The same reasoning can be applied to ritch pepole: if we abolish taxes ritch pepole will do much better. Doesn't mean it's right to abolish taxes.

Übereil

[Glance A'Lot]

is what's best for England what's best for the world?

I think as such this question would have to be denied for any country!

[Elliot Kane]

The point is that the EU is not really good for ANY member country whose people do not want to be part of the Empire. That's as true for Holland and France (Who rejected the European Constitution in their own referenda, before it was renamed 'The Lisbon Treaty' so have also been totally betrayed by their govts) as for any other nation.

Some day, the world will be sufficiently close culturally and linguistically that a world govt will naturally evolve as part of the process of peoples becoming closer. But that day is a long way off.

Right now, the political elite of Europe have decided that they know what is best for their peoples and that best involves the creation of an Empire despite the wishes of many and perhaps most of those peoples.

Even if the Empire in question were NOT completely corrupt, over-bureaucratic and rotten to the core, it would still face the indelible fact that its many peoples do not feel that they are one people. And without that, it's doomed to fail. It's why every Empire always has, in the end.

***

Glance - while the EU has helped stop wars in Europe (Though not entirely, as you yourself note) it's far from the only factor. The threat of the USSR for most of that time and the growing trade links between EU nations were also massive contributory factors. Indeed, it is notable that the wars only started again with the break up of the USSR, suggesting that may have been the main factor. Historically, this would also make sense.

You will also have noted I am sure the one thing above all others that keeps the USA together, despite any internal differences, even above a common language. They all think of themselves first and foremost as Americans.

How many Europeans think of themselves first and foremost as Europeans? Very few, I should imagine.

***

Ube - Sweden had a very strong Empire, once. They were one of the great powers of their day. You know what happened to that, right?

***

For those paying close attention, the template would appear to be the first Holy Roman Empire, with its member states and the elite electing one of their own to be the emperor.

(And I'm waiting for the inevitable comment from ss on this one... ;D)

[Glance A'Lot]

Maybe the reason for my attitude is that I grew up in a federation, based on a constitution that we, the people, also did not have a vote on, as the Allies had a rather close look on what we were allowed to write in there.

But it is a not so bad one - not perfect - but it covers a lot that a European Union also would have to cover.
Not the least what is part of the Federal government, and what is and remains responsibility of the states. One of the most important being the principle of subsidiarity, which stipulates that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority (Not that there aren't any arguments about the latter! )

So for example, foreign policy and defense is central - education and police is NOT (Non central education can be a problem for people moving among states). Anything involving more than one state (infrastructure - Autobahn, railways) is federal (however often subject to the states' consent with mixed funding).

It is this principle that doesn't work in the EU because of political power plays and leads to absurd requirements.

- the state of Schleswig Holstein was by force of fine required to adapt a EU law on teleferics (the highest 'mountain' there is some 100 m high - they simply don't have any - and anyway the German safety standards aren't the least in Europe);
- police was required to change uniform colors from green to blue
(for European wide recognition by foreigners - strangely I always knew what a English Bobby or Spanish Guardia Civil or French Flic or any other local police officer looked like, and never doubted their authority when visiting).

It's petty arguments like these that alienate citizens from the EU.

[Glance A'Lot]

For those paying close attention, the template would appear to be the first Holy Roman Empire, with its member states and the elite electing one of their own to be the emperor.

Well, here is the inevitable comment from me.

The Holy Roman Empire (of German nation) - there is no first or second - also had no common national identity, that is true. The common man saw himself as Saxonian, Bavarian, Swabian or whatever locality (some very small) - even cities were more important than 'nation'. The focus point was the feudal lord - the regional one. Powerful emperors were only those with a strong household in their original fiefs.

Actually, safe from 1918 - '45, Germany never was a centralized state. The Empire of 1870 did at least promote a common national German identity, but still was the Emperor, also King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxonia, etc.
Bismarck was federal chancellor in personell union to prime minister of Prussia.

And with that Germany was even better off than Habsburg-Austria, which always had been a state of many peoples.

*
I agree that there isn't a European identity - and there hardly ever will be. I'm used to that - I'm 'German' only when talking to foreigners, within Germany or among Germans I'm born Swabian, my 'fatherland' is Baden-Württemberg - even though I lived in about half the federation's states. I'm a southern German as opposed to the 'fish heads' (those from the northern coastal states) - and I'm a Wessie (from the old West-German states) even though I spent more than a decade in the Eastern states after reunification. Even though we just celebrated 20 years of re-unification, these differences still are made - and will remain to be made.

I believe local differentiation is deeply rooted in humans - we have English, Scottish, Welsh in the UK - Wallons, Flames in Begium - Castilians, Basks and others in Spain - Italy is split in North, South and Sicily and Sardinia - even the probably most centralized state of France differentiates northern, southern, Alsatian (not to mention Bask and Breton) among itself. All with language or at least dialect differentiation.

I may be wrong, but my feeling is that that is something that differentiates the Americans from us - there national 'state' pride is less common, it seems to me (safe for Texas interestingly - but that was the only (?) state which had a short time of sovereignity and its own independence war). They started as a union, maybe that's why it's easier for them to feel 'American' or at the most of <insert original country> descendance. At least I've hardly heard someone mentioning to be Illinoisian, Iowan, Oregonian, Nebrascan... - I think that was 'lost' when the USA expanded Westward. From reading historic documents, it was still present in the original colonies.

[Elliot Kane]

Tribalism is endemic, yes

It's the differentiation of 'Them' and 'Us' as with so much else.

It sounds like Germany is a lot like Britain, in that we are federated yet retaining separate cultural identities. I must admit, I thought the German states to be closer than they sound from your description. At the least, though, you feel a common identity as Germans in addition to being Swabian, Hanoverian, whatever, right? A common language helps there, of course, regional dialects notwithstanding.

There can be problems even with close federations of long standing, as the growing movement for Scottish independence makes clear. Scotland having maintained a very separate cultural and national identity, many Scots now feel it is time to leave the United Kingdom once and for all. That's after several hundred years of federation.

The difference with America probably amounts to two things: the war of independence and interbreeding. They fought as one to throw the British out, which gave them the beginnings of a common identity as Americans - and moreso as many were fighting against the country of their birth in so doing. The various settlers that had moved to America also did what settlers have always done on founding a new nation: interbred. This also gave them a common identity as Americans, with many and perhaps most being descended from several other nationalities and thus feeling close kinship with none.

You won't find too many people in Europe who even think of 'Europe' as being anything other than a geo-political quirk of map makers. Most of us don't feel we have any greater bond with our fellow Europeans than we do with, say, Americans or Chinese or any other foreign nation.

There is, in short, no sense of common identification whatsoever. No cultural similarity, no common language, no identification of ourselves as European except by reference to a map. Certainly no pride in being European. All of those things would need resolving before a pan-European Empire becomes possible.

The EU is trying to put the cart before the horse.

[Terrordar]

The EU is an undemocratic organism, that has all the problems of a democratic organism, and twice the corruption to boot. Tony Blair as President of the EU? That is criminal.

[Glance A'Lot]

Tony Blair as President of the EU? That is criminal.

By whom?

By the Brits supporting him in order to oust him out of the country and keep him out of national politics?

To me, that sounds like a cunning plan!

[Elliot Kane]

William Rees-Mogg sums up the British position very well

[Glance A'Lot]

Quite nicely put...

And the question "Is Britain really European?" is an interesting one.

Geographically, of course - but historically and out of self understanding?

Maybe really not - or not really.

Britain invaded and got invaded from the continent - not often, granted - but the continent always was 'foreign', even when the South of France was under English rule.
Mentally the channel is larger and deeper than in reality.

Britain meddled on the continent with just about anybody to preserve a balance of powers - respectively to split powers so that no one would match the own...

Britain was not in the middle of the turmoils on the continent. The wars that shaped the continental political scene in the 17th - 19th centuries were 'far away'.
And the wars that shaped Britain were around the globe. Safe for the 20th century, all wars on Britain soil since 1066 were Civil Wars, at least sort of from contemporary perspective.

Britain did not make its wealth on the (European) continent - rather even in spite of and in opposition (at least competition) to.

I never thought of it this way - but I can see that from a British perspective, anything beyond the channel is 'Near East' (Remember, what we Germans call Near East, the Brits call Middle East!)

Also, on a more contemporary notion, there probably are a lot more immigrants from the Commonwealth than from anywhere in Europe - which also is different on the continent, especially Germany. That will add to a 'Non-European' culture tradition.

A vision appears on my horizon (not a serious one )

Britain will form a transatlantic block with Norway, Iceland, a Greenland gaining sovereignity from Denmark (before it is swallowed by Canada, though that'd be 'Commonwealthy' also).
And for the 'common wealth' they'll take over OPEC... ;D