If I understand you correctly, you are calling for a debate similar to one I submitted in the very early days of OpenDemocracy about how to make a united Europe REAL to its people (I think you were already a reader then, Reinhard?) The discussions subsequently died away, and moved into the field of politics, as the European debate tends to do... I firmly believe that the most essential European debate that should be taking place is the one about what it is that we Europeans actually have in common; there is a lot of talk about Europeanisation, but very little about what it actually means for 'real' people. I suspect that the reason for this is that it is also the most difficult debate to have. On the other hand, it is essential, for without a shared identity, there can be no shared consensus about Europe, and without that, the political project loses all legitimacy. As a firm believer in a European future, it worries me that this debate fails to take off - it suggests to me that the politicians are either unconcerned that they are not taking 'the people' with them, or that they don't know how to do it! I don't blame them for the latter - it is really down to ordinary Europeans to 'take themselves along' with the project! - but the 'default' setting for European debate seems to be political not social, and this I think is wrong. It seems to me that there are two approaches to identifying a shared European identity: firstly to examine what it is that we ALREADY share, and secondly to try to develop something that could be there, but is not yet so. And herein lies the problem: I suspect that the first approach would be very depressing in its result. Ask the average person in a European street what their priorities are, and the answer would probably be dismally parochial: more money, less work, better weather and fewer meddling politicians. At one level, such concerns are almost universal, and as such they could form the basis of a shared identity - but it's hardly inspiring stuff, nor even distinctly European! From a British perspective, the other side to our anti-Europeanism is the romanticisation of the continent into a place where people live according to higher liberal ideals, as exemplified by the willingness to pay more tax, to value 'la bella vita', to implement better infrastructure and social and environmental policies. But how much of this is accurate - or are these manifestations of continental culture really a mix of holiday impressions and the imposition of a rigid system by less accountable bureaucrats on a more compliant population? Anecdotally, I am regrettably unsure that the average European outlook is really so different from that of the average American: ironic really, since there is a large body of opinion that seeks to define Europe as the antithesis of America. The second approach is to try to 'find' (or should that be manufacture?) a common identity for the future. To some extent this is happening - we already share a common culture of consumption thanks to the success of the single market in Europeanising many products; technology is being harmonised, and better transport allows us to move between states more easily than ever. However, the degree to which changing geography is making the leap into changing perceptions is not clear. How many consumers in the average supermarket are really aware of the psychological or cultural significance of the internationalised products on offer? How many see Eurostar, Thalys and the rest as a manifestation of increased cultural cohesion - or is it simply a less inconvenient way of moving around? And what percentage of the European population truly is internationalised in its thinking, let alone its actions? I suspect a lot less than the wishful thinking from Brussels would have us believe. Having said that, however, I am always struck, on the continent, by how much tangible evidence of integration there is compared with here in the U.K. - or is that just my tourist's eyes again? As a convinced European, I do believe that it is possible to create a shared experience for 'ordinary people' - and that we will be stronger, not weaker for it. It need not imply the loss of our traditional cultures, but should add to them. However, it must be built by consensus, from the bottom up, not by politicians seeking to impose something on an unwilling population. And here lies another dilemma: what happens if the average European is simply too short-sighted even to want this longer vision? What should happen then, in a democracy? Again from the U.K. perspective, I suspect that people WILL have difficulty with these ideas for as long as they feel like a 'grand projet' imposed from above, in the continental style, rather than something apparently more homely. However, as I said before, without the consent of the people, what real legitimacy does Political Europe have? I hope that this discussion can at long last take off. Electronic media are excellent places for such transnational discussions, though virtual encounters can never take the place of real ones! I have written a lot more on this: may I humbly commend my own website www.realeurope.eu.com to readers for further thoughts? p.s. recent evidence of cultural convergence? some German friends of mine were seen to own a CD by a German immitation Irish band called 'Paddy Goes to Holyhead'. Excellent music; canny impersonation of the original; my friends understood the reference to the '80's band, but not the one to Irish history! Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock

You are right, npan, the true Europe is to be found in the small things, of which the most important, for those countries that have it, is the shared money in their pockets. It serves as a daily reminder of European commonality. It is highly significant that yet again, the British have not felt it possible to commit to a major European step like the Euro. I would like to add the EU flag national identifiers on many car registration plates as another small but significant sign (although predictably, they have been subverted in Britain). And, for continental countries, the network of Euroroutes reminds you that at least some journeys don't stop at national frontiers. I live within 500m of a British Euroroute (Dublin-Brussels), though I doubt many people know it - yet again, the Brits do not see fit to identify such things. Transport is an essential everyday aspect in linking places, as much in the mind as in the physical sense. Destinations on road signs are a daily reminder of places we might identify with. Eurocity trains are another expression of this connectedness, but again the British decided that they were not viable beyond London... For Europe really to exist, 'ordinary' people have got to be able to give a meaningful answer to the question "What does it mean to be European?", in the way they mostly can about their own national identities. I don't mean a hard-focussed, uniform answer (which I don't think would happen at the national level either) - but it has to mean more than football, cash and the fact that I can now buy the same brand of olive oil in my local supermarket as the alimentari in the small Italian town where I sometimes stay... Message was edited by: sandistock

The most interesting this is how most EU advocates had thought that joining the EU would allow for greater economic stability. Funny how things didn't work out that way at all. My question now is, what is there left to do?? Are countries like Germany going to be forced to leave the EU?

AQ, But isn't the problem with the EU basically that it is founded on the premise that 'something is worth what it's not' ?? Doesn't this idea permeate its very core ?

First of all sandistock, perhaps it is a pity that you are unwilling, unable and incapable of appreciating that opposition to the European Union is a perfectly honourable and honest intellectual position to take. And by the way personal abuse is not tolerated on Open Democracy, nor is it argument, and as a teacher one would have expected you to set a more courteous example. But no matter. In Europe democracy has proved to be a very fragile flower and was basically destroyed within living memory, so is it wise to place so much faith in so fragile a model as that found in much of continental Europe ? While you display the usual deep contempt for our form of government, it has proved to be remarkably resilient and effective. The same is true of the United States. The British system – it is in reality the English system – was/is a careful balance where there were many checks and balances naturally built into the system, but it also relied upon individuals having a sense of ‘propriety’ and honour, which partly explains why Blair has been so bad at the job. No former Prime Minister would have used the JIC, for example, as he did simply because they would have never have thought of crossing that unspoken line. However, in part Blair’s actions may be rooted in the inability to separate party (and personal) interest from the interests of the State, which you are appointed to serve. The end does not justify the means, and perhaps you too would do well to remember that. I freely admit our system requires some reform and I have discussed various aspects of this on other threads, and while you may hate me and my views I do have some knowledge of the topic, so your personal abuse of me is not argument and nor is it appropriate. One of the problems in the British relationship to, and involvement with the EU, is a difference in attitude and mind set. The British are an anarchic people who loath being told what to do, and it is this spirit which made them start to control the power of the King long before most of Europe. The notion of Liberty is set deep within the English soul, and yet it is really a different notion and concept of liberty from most continental Europeans. We have our Common Law, our ancient Liberties and ways of doing things, all of which have been carefully evolved and have stood the test of time. You hail the continental model, and yet within living memory tyrants of various description arrived and merely tore up the documents in which you place so much faith. They didn’t arrive here and tear up the Common Law did they ? Inherent in your post is a lack of understanding and a woeful lack of love for these ancient rights and liberties. An example of this ‘conflict’ may be found in the European Arrest Warrant. It is now possible to be arrested for something which is not a crime in the UK (holocaust denial) and extradited to an EU country (Germany) which you have never visited. This was made abundantly clear in the House of Lords. Such things are a nonsense. If they want a common judicial system let them adopt the Common Law, Trial by Jury, Habious Corpus, the Presumption of Innocence etc, as John Mortimer has said, but of course they wont. ‘As for the current economic difficulties - it is too easy to pin them at the door of the E.U. I agree that it is not categorically possible to deny this either, but it is much more likely that it is part of the global economic cycle - and you have to acknowledge that historically the continent has far out-performed the U.K’ The UK was right not to join the Euro. There are actually two considerations here. First is the impact of the Euro on the UK economy, but secondly, and as important, is the effect of Sterling on the Euro. Sterling is a huge currency and as Sir Eddie George remarked it would be akin to an elephant getting into a rowing boat. The comments I made about the Euro (I think it was on this thread, but it might have been on another one) were my own observations. The example I gave in Greece are all true. I have watched the decline in the tourist market, which is 75%+ of the island economy. This is amply demonstrated by the lack of cruise ships: I remember the days of 7 or more anchored in the bay and yet the year before last you were luck to see two. 9/11 had something to do with it, but it cannot and does not explain it all away. I also think you are not looking at German economic performance correctly. The German economic miracle was basically over by the mid 1960s and it had already begun to experience difficulties before unification. Kohl, purely for political reasons, paid too much for unification and this has made a bad situation worse. As I said there are now more people unemployed in Germany than when Hitler came to power in 1933. There seems to be no hope of a revival in Germany until there is some serious economic reform, which is unlikely to come. The Euro is not helping the situation. You have a situation where the Central Bank is unable to set a rate which suits all – just as was predicated. Some economies are in grave danger of overheating while German is stagnant, and yet because of the size of the German economy this must weigh more heavily on Bankers minds. The economies of Europe from information I recently read seem to be diverging, not converging, so the stresses and strains will get worse and not better. Basically it was created far too quickly and it doesn’t have firm foundations which is partly why it has been volatile in the markets. After all a currency is a store of value and a unit of exchange and it seems that most Europhiles place far too much emphasis on the later and hardly any on the former. Again the USA has a useful lesson. After it was founded the USA did not have one currency and I seem to recall that the Federal Reserve was about the last institution created, not the first. Even there you find that the ‘one size fits all’ interest rate is many consequences. Some States struggle while others boom, and if you travel in the States you soon discover this for yourself. Your faith in the European Parliament is interesting. Where you present last week when they declined to reform their expenses – and flagrant abuse thereof ?? The way the Parliament is structured means that many of the smaller parties which are nationally based are squeezed out or denied funding unless they join blocks with which they may have little in common. An example is the Conservatives alliance, and again while you may personally hate the Tories they did win a huge number of votes, so in your brave new world are those voices not to be heard merely because they do not agree with you ? You place emphasis on legislation originating from the EU. This now comprises a vast amount of the new law enacted every year, and yet just how much of this legislation is properly scrutinised ? Very little. Again there is a huge democratic deficit which seriously needs to be addressed. Too much law is bad law. While there is a case for EU law in some very restricted areas, one major reform which ought to be brought in is to require any law to receive approval from National Parliaments, which are the bulwarks of democracy and democratic accountability. The EU has no such accountability now and the EU parliament has not shown enough balls in this regard. Why, for example, have the EU accounts not be ratified by the auditors for the last 10 years ? Will the Parliament dismiss the Commission and deny the executive body finance until they are accepted ? No. The Council of Ministers are able to legislate by decree in a way that I am sure you must find unacceptable. So where is the rigorous democratic control ? The Commission has also grown from being the creature of the member States to having its own agenda. Your assertion that ‘people all too easily forget that it can only do what is conferred on it by the member states - it is US not THEM - and this is set to be strengthened by the Constitution’ is disingenuous to be the most charitable. Within the new EU Constitution you will find there is a clause which states that any area is the province of the member states unless the EU decides to act – I think in the document it is put the other way around. This means that the EU can enjoy unlimited power without check or hindrance. If you study the United States constitution you will find that the States are strong and the powers ceded to the centre are relatively weak, something which is often forgotten. Similarly the founding fathers wrote a tight and concise document which provided a general frame within which the State could function and power be controlled and checked. By contrast the EU has written a document which tries to set in stone views, attitudes and prejudices of the here and now. I am sure as your politics are firmly left of centre this is something with which you heartily agree, but by trying to bind future generations to your views you are being the opposite of the democrat, as you well know. Had the EU been serious about ‘subsidiarity’ they would have written a document which took relatively few powers to the centre and left the vast majority of power at National level. I cannot think of a major area of life where the EU has returned power to the member states. Rather it is a one way street where it accumulates more and more powers. This is a very unhealthy situation to have. ‘if the E.U. is not working, it is mostly because redundant nationalists like you prevent it from doing so. You sit on the sidelines with your easy swipes at the system, but at no point do you ever substantiate your claims’. To quote Dr Fishler, in a democracy you have to make a case, to convince and to persuade. You cannot ‘IMPOSE’. I am not the one advocating ‘change’ it is you, so why are you so afraid of making your case, of arguing your case, of persuading those like myself who are reluctant and basically against change ? ‘I don't buy your cheap swipe at me about car registration plates - the point I was making (as you well know) was simply that it is a way of demonstrating allegiance to our common interest’ A cheap swipe it might have been, but the original comment was cheap, pathetic and basically silly. I don’t need to put a bloody flag on my car number plate, and if ever I felt the need to do so I would have my own coat of arms there ! But isn’t the idea interesting. Had I or anyone else suggested putting the Union Flag (‘Jack’) or the Cross of St. George there you would have been the first to jump up and down and scream how it was xenophobic nationalism. So is your idea not just xenophobic internationalism ?? And in a way isn’t that what your love affair with the EU is all about ? I do not share your love of the ‘European Project’ because I do not believe it is swimming with the tide of history, but rather against it. We are seeing a more fragmented world not a world of vast unions as you seem to be saying. The Soviet Union, an artificial creation like the EU, fell apart, as did Yugoslavia with particularly bloody consequences. The EU’s day has passed because countries are getting smaller and nationalism, or perhaps the sense of nation, is stronger not weaker. Nationalism is not in itself a bad or a wrong thing as you imply. Love of country, of the traditions and institutions of your country is not xenophobia nor is it in any sense wrong. But seeking to destroy these institutions merely because you don’t happen to like them, because they don’t serve your political philosophy, or because you fail utterly to understand them is. I do have a vision for Europe. But my vision is not one you would accept much less understand for that vision is based upon the Nation State. I have no objection to co-operation at an international level and I support things like NATO where there is co-operation, but there we have a difference. We share sovereignty; we do not cede it. My view is a pragmatic view and it is a sustainable view because it follows the traditional English view of ensuring no one power dominates the continent, be it Spain, France, Russia or Germany. I want a Europe of difference, one which is dynamic and vibrant. The EU you are busy building – another absurd phrase – is none of this but actually the opposite. And while I can understand your desire for a Europe that lives in peace, sometimes there is the ‘law of unintended consequences’ and your overarching idealism may produce the opposite result. ‘If you lack enough idealism to see that, then you certainly lack enough to have a proper understanding of what the European Project is really about’. You speak of ‘idealism’ to see what the European Project is reminded me of others who had ‘idealisum’: the ‘camp-fires twinkled through the trees, smoke was rising grey against the dark blue evening sky. . . and the hum of hundreds of young men discussing the glorious mission to which Fate, they felt, had magnanimously committed them’, only they were the Nazis and their ‘Ausländer Deutsch’ movement. Like you they thought they were crating Heaven on earth, and yet what they succeeded in creating was a vision of Hell. How can you be sure your distorted vision, your idealism and your bigoted zeal will not do exactly the same ? The dismissal of any view which challenges your own reminds me of their fervour and this makes me profoundly uneasy and very very wary.

Sandistock, I am afraid the reply I penned is not as well written as it ought to have been, and it was written from memory. Alas due to a few things going on at present I do not have a vast amount of time to spare to spend the hours trawling the Net to build a better argument against the EU, although I will do so when my time is a little more fluid. I wonder if you might tell me what the hell 'European Studies' is and at what level you are teaching this ? Might I also press you to consider another point which I did not write about but mentioned in an earlier post. It is no secret that I am a High Church Tory and I was once a Europhile. Why is it that people such as myself are now firmly Eurosceptic ? Also many on the left - Tony Blair is a notable example - were firmly against the EU (he fought the 82 election of a withdrawal ticket) and now think it is the best thing since sliced bread. I am sure you have travelled a similar road. Why ? It is an interesting question which might be interesting to discuss and to answer.

Owly, Once again I thank you for your long answer to my previous comments – the trouble is, that I scarcely know where to begin in answering, so many issues does your reply bring to mind. I am also very conscious that I tend to write far too long posts, and that no one person has the right to monopolise such forums. I hope that other readers will indulge me the length of this post in the interest of replying to Owly, and hopefully generating some good food for discussion. Your comment about your previous Europhilia having been replaced with scepticism sounded almost rueful; I shall live with the dream of changing your mind! I hope I have not misjudged you from the tone of your arguments – please forgive me if I have – such is the nature of the Internet! I shall also need to add some more personal detail of my own, since I cannot hope to explain my strong belief in European integration without reference to it. It may surprise you to learn this, but I do not consider myself a political person; despite my intermittent activity in this and several other similar forums, politics per se holds relatively little interest for me. People often ask me why I don’t become involved in formal politics, but I hope that it is not just cowardice that makes me reply that I have no wish to dance the ritual dance of party politics, to constrain myself within the dictates of the party Whip and fall under the spell of the whole circus for its own sake. My agenda, for better or worse, is different. What you and many others seem to forget that politics under these conditions is pointless, sterile, devoid of legitimacy. It is the Tail Wagging The Dog - but it is how those caught up in that political circus see life – as if life serves politics, rather than the other way round. What interests me more is the everyday experience of life – how people manage (or not) to live fulfilled, socially responsible, materially secure but environmentally sustainable lives – and how they organise their societies (with varying degrees of success) to make this possible; for me politics is nothing more that an expression of this latter point – as made by the recent advertising campaign – it is not an end in itself! I also confess to being an idealist – as you say, not a very British thing to be. However, in the Street of Life, the idealist sees the other end, aims at it and hopes to overcome any obstacles as they are encountered; the pragmatist/empiricist progresses instead with reference only to where he has come from, and complacently assumes that the rest of the journey will be the same. Trouble is, when you walk looking behind you, you are the more likely to take a wrong turning, meet a dead end, or even walk into a lamppost! This is exactly what is happening to Britain. Even you concede that the system is in need of some amendment – but I wonder whether you realise just how much? As a culture, we have spent so long wallowing in the afterglow of our supposedly glorious past, that we have failed to notice that it is serving us ever less well in the very different world of today (see later for how). You may decry idealism, but if you look at some of those continental neighbours of ours where idealism is less despised, then despite some false starts, you may observe some damned fine monuments and civic amenities that have resulted along the way – all because some person, however unaccountable, had some VISION. The British don’t do the “Vision Thing” any more - to their detriment. (And by the way, I am not arguing for a lack of accountability here). You are correct to say that continental democracy has historically been fragile – but that does not mean that it continues to be so – here we go down that street again! That very fragility has given them cause to reconsider, and build something much more durable and appropriate for a modern society than we ever have. And I am not so sure that the British record is always as enviable as you suggest, though space prevents a full-scale historical debate here! You sound to me as though you come at life from a very ‘Establishment’ perspective; if this is so, then the past of this country is a very good role model for you – it was great if you happened to be a chap rather than a chav – and it was all too convenient not to have to worry too much about the hoi polloi so long as they kept themselves in their place, and you could placate them with a few of your well-chosen ‘gentlemen’s agreements’. You had every reason to assume that the British model was great, and to wish to perpetuate it. And how could such a perspective NOT inform your view of the Continent? The fundamental error that you make, like almost everyone else (at least in Britain) is to look at the European issue through the wrong end of the telescope. The question is not fundamentally about the technicalities and even failures of political governance (which is what grabs the headlines), but about what kind of future we want. It is about asking whether we want to be part of a gradually-crystallising European community or whether we want to remain a metaphorical as well as literal island. I had toyed with laboriously replying to all the points you drew out of my last post, but apart from being tedious, I’m not sure it would serve much purpose. To be honest, I am really not concerned whether the E.U. is a perfect organisation – I think I already know the answer to that – but rather how well it does a job, and how well it compares with the alternatives. I also happen to believe that it is easier to improve it by engagement rather than withdrawal. Perhaps rather cynically, I accept that some politicians and bureaucrats will ALWAYS abuse their position; without the benefit of experience, I cannot categorically deny that I would be tempted, too, if I were in their place – can you? I guess you know the old quote about the effects of Power – and I can’t see a way around it. Therefore it is pointless to judge the E.U. on these terms. What might be more useful is to ask how it compares against, say, Westminster. I have expounded more than enough elsewhere about the deficiencies of our domestic system – largely because it is still supposedly based on the system of graces and favours that you acknowledge. But are you really prepared to have this as an acceptable way to run a complex, supposedly democratic developed country in the 21st Century? - because I most certainly am not. I could go on and on with examples, but let me just return to one: the horrific vote by MEP’s last week not to reform their extortionate and inflated expenses structure. Well, until last year, M.P.’s by comparison had never even publicly declared WHAT their expenses were – and you may well recall the revelations that occurred when they finally did. Not only were they hugely variable, but we were treated to the spectacle of London MP’s claiming massive travel expenses to Westminster; some even keeping flats in central London when they only live a short tube ride away. And we could all see what happens to the proceeds when such flats are sold at a profit… Likewise somewhat older controversies about the register of Members’ Interests – or even the huge discussion about whether the public should even be allowed, via the modern wonders of television, actually to see what their M.P.s were up to! All of these have been transparent in the E.U. for years. On the bits of the continent I respect, they presume in favour of the ordinary citizen; in Britain, we presume AGAINST (we are only subjects, after all). Being an elitist Tory, this, I suspect, you find threatening. The fact of the matter is that neither I nor (I suspect) you really know what is justifiable and probably never will; in the absence of more information then any attempt to judge is nothing more than political opportunism – selectively as useful to one side as to the other.. All I can say is that if it is reasonable, as it surely is, for a Hebridean M.P. to retain a flat in Westminster, then it would seem equally reasonable that a Portuguese or Greek M.E.P. should retain one in Brussels, and claim the living expenses that being a public representative in a capital city entails. And why, up to a point, should that not include some reward for the gruelling job it is? As I said before, there may well be abuse, but all of the M.E.P.’S I have had the good fortune to meet have appeared (as far as one could tell) eminently respectable. Another reasonable question to ask could be, is the structure and machinery of the system logical, transparent and accountable? One thing that is certain, the basic structure E.U. was designed from scratch, and consists of a totally logical set of institutions, all of which act as checks and balances on the others. I fully accept that the system doesn’t work as well as it should – which is why the Constitution may be ONE step in the right direction. It is also interesting to note that, in many respects, the E.P. acts more like an elected SECOND chamber to the Council’s first; it is in the latter (behind closed doors) that most of the squabbling goes on between domestic politicians – and this needs reform. Please note that we do not have an elected second chamber in Britain. However, even these basic claims are more than can be said about British domestic politics, which operates in a system still riddled with pointless ritual and blurred boundaries. There is neither clear separation of powers, nor restraint on the power of the executive. The one reason Blair has been able to disregard your beloved governmental conventions is that there is no way of safeguarding them. Lord Hailsham has been proved dead right in his observation about elective dictatorship - yet you would preserve this system! (in the hope that one day, if your lot are elected, it will serve them just as well?) When I am discussing constitutional structure with my students, I give them diagrams of the British, French, American and E.U. models, helpfully derived from the Oxford-Hachette dictionary; the British one looks like a crazy spider’s web! And what is more, unlike the French model for instance, nowhere does the British one make ANY reference to ‘le Peuple’ or any other such term to indicate that it exists in the interests of all British citizens – because it DOESN’T! It still belongs to the Queen. I have digressed into politics! But this was by means of addressing all those technical issues that you raised. My point here is not whether the system is perfect, but whether it is adequate, acknowledging the human weakness endemic in such things. In my opinion, you have fallen into exactly the usual British trap of criticising the E.U. using different criteria from the ones you use for the domestic situation, where you are prepared to accept a lot more uncertainty, compromise and deficiency simply because it is British. This, I am sure, derives once again from your unshakeable belief that the U.K. is still the most democratic and virtuous system in the world, (even though the U.N. HDI index would differ) and therefore all others are by implication inferior. I have seen this attitude too many times in the way the British think about Europe, from the ‘Save the Pound’ campaigner in the street who once told me assuredly that “Germany is not a democracy” through to the M.E.P. who hosted my party last week. For all his courtesy to us, he exudes this patrician British condescension towards his continental counterparts every time he opens his mouth – and my students spotted it straight away… It is simply not sustainable to judge the E.U. on the conduct of its micro-affairs. I have no idea why the Auditors have not endorsed the budget; I agree that it doesn’t sound good, and should be investigated, but at least they spotted it. Under the circumstances, I would have been more worried if they had NOT refused to do so – but then we would never have known… The only credible assessment of the E.U. on this front is to admit honestly that (as with all political systems) no one really knows; anything else is just making political capital. So given my scandalous utter lack of concern on this front, just where does my unshakeable belief in ‘Europe’ come from? Well, it has to be somewhere better, since I would be the first to admit that anyone who formed ANY unshakeable belief based on political evidence must be mad… It also certainly does not come from spending sufficient hours trawling the Internet looking for likely evidence to build a political case against it! It comes from spending sufficient hours travelling the length and breadth of Europe (well, almost!) seeing what is going on there: something like fifty trips over the past fifteen years, since I really started getting interested in all this. Initially, I didn’t go with an agenda in mind; my opinions have simply distilled from the plethora of experiences in that time. I am quite fluent (albeit not idiomatically so) in French, and I have limited but workable German and Italian. I am therefore able to communicate in many parts of the continent. Amongst those experiences have been: · Multiple visits to Lausanne to stay with a friend who works for the I.O.C.; having befriended a number of other people who live in the area. · Multiple visits to stay with good friends near Heidelberg in Germany; stays with several other people in the same area through a choir exchange. · Stays of a week at a time with three different French families south of Paris on school exchanges · The wedding of some Dutch friends of mine in Eindhoven · Staying with an old family friend for a week in western France · Multiple visits to a friend’s converted farmhouse in northern Tuscany; having ‘befriended’ the owner of a local alimentari there. · Having stayed in people’s houses in Prague and Budapest in the early 1990’s · Having been to numerous parties all over the place, including memorably one held by a Catalan girl, at which there were over a dozen nationalities. · Holidays in many other parts of the continents, often travelling by train – which is a great way to start conversations… · Any number of conversations had at shared restaurant tables, on trains, in buses and in shops across the continent…and this isn’t all! · Add to this my frequent and ongoing email discussions with people in several countries. Please excuse my self-indulgence with this long list; what I want to show you is that this is why I have come to my views; politics has little to do with it! What I see is a ‘tapestry’ of different cultures, (I like to think of it as a family of nations) but all of which have far more in common than they think – and that includes Britain. People’s concerns are mostly the same – but what I also see (and hear about) is places where the towns are cleaner and more orderly than ours; places where the public transport kicks ours into oblivion (just look at the TGV/ICE and urban tram systems); places where friends of mine enjoy more generous employment and parental rights than I; places where concern for the environment is light years ahead of ours; places that seem to enjoy a better work-life balance; places where workers are skilled enough to produce high quality products from houses to live in to motor cars rather better than MG Rover; places where the arts, culture and food are genuinely valued; places (almost everywhere in fact) that don’t have the same social menaces of over-drinking and loutish behaviour that we do; places where development has been controlled so as not to degrade the countryside unlike in Britain. I could go on… I am sure you will torpedo me for being either naïve or anecdotal, but I know what I see, and what I see, more often than not, I like. And it is a consistent picture, try as I might to bias myself in Britain’s favour. Some of this exists despite the political system, but a lot of it because of it – and the different social model that created it. And yes, before you raise the point, I have seen the French bidonvilles and some of the other grottier bits of the continent, too – I am not blind to the social problems that exist elsewhere. The continent is not some kind or nirvana – I am all the more assured in my conclusions for having seen that, too. In short, I see places that have created, in my eyes, superior life experiences for their citizens – and to me that is more important than the mechanics of the political system. Up to a point, I don’t even care if they are not fully democratic, if they work in the interests of the people. I also know that people feel most comfortable under the system them know, even if it is not ultimately good for them, since people hate change. We British might criticise the Swiss for their authoritarianism, or the Germans for their efficiency – but what is wrong with those qualities if they create equitable, orderly, balanced societies where people have good lives? The Swiss don’t as a rule seem to feel overburdened by their system – and the U.N. has recognised it as more democratic than ours. I don’t care how much political cynicism is used to demolish such a case – usually the “but Britain is different” argument – I know what I see, and without wishing to be arrogant, I suspect it is a lot more than the average British Eurosceptic has seen (and maybe even Europhile?). Most people have no problem with the idea of differential economic development – in the sense that the U.K. is more developed than, say, Mozambique, and most would have no problem concluding that one was a ‘better’ to live than the other as a result. We also generally have no problem with emulating the economic success of others. I see the same thing in social terms; much of the continent is simply more civilised –socially developed, if you will - than the U.K., and we would do well to learn from it. I agree with you that historically the British are an unruly lot, but I see that as no virtue; it has led us to create an unequal society that is now being positively bad for its inhabitants. Just check the relative statistics on income disparities; major health complaints; obesity; marital breakdown; environmental awareness; childhood pregnancy; childhood poverty; length of the working week etc. etc. if you want the evidence. The complacency with which you defend the British system (and more tellingly dismiss the alternatives) is exactly the reason why we have tackled all of the above issues less successfully than our neighbours. I see the E.U. as nothing more than the logical political way in which those civilised values can be brought here – and it is for this reason that it commands my support. I will finish with a few more random points: 1. You are probably right about the Euro, timing wise, but then I have no problem in waiting until the time is right, frustrating though that is. However, I also have no problem in seeing it as a political project – another of those symbols, like the car flags, of which you are so dismissive. I am surprised at this, since I would have thought that a High Church Tory would have had an impressive appreciation of the value of symbolism, even of a minor kind! 2. Smaller parties may be squeezed in the E.P. – not that they are at all under-represented in the British parliament, of course! The Lib Dems and Greens regularly poll far more votes than they ever gain seats or influence – the very dilemma I face in my own voting on May 5th - but being a British failing, that’s O.K. isn’t it? 3. Plenty of Germans during the 1930’s did not oppose certain political trends for fear of ‘swimming against the tide of history’ but that did not make them right. 4. I do not fear Europe losing diversity through the E.U. In fact the E.U. is a strong supporter of regional diversity through its regional and cultural programmes. What is more, I am positively enriched, not diminished, by the cultural attributes that I have assimilated from elsewhere – and let me assure you I do practice what I preach - my way of life has changed significantly in the light of attractive influences from elsewhere, not self-consciously, but just because I took on board things I thought were better. Are you really saying you want an end to all Indian/Chinese/Italian food in the U.K.? 5. My identity is ‘nested’. I am a south-westerner (by birth, no longer residence); a Briton (and proudly, a critical friend of my country) and a European all at once. I see no contradiction or clash of interests. I am equally at home in Somerset, elsewhere in the U.K. or on much of the continent. I am so used to it over there that I usually almost forget that I am ‘abroad’ at all. I have done that consciously – and it works. 6. Might I direct you towards the various sites of the Slow Movement http://www.slowfood.com as one indication of how European culture is coming together for mutual benefit? 7. I do not know where your Europhilia went; perhaps you actually just fell out of love with politics – but as I said, Europe is not primarily about politics for me – nor, dare I suggest for you, if you could see it! Try un-learning the assumption that the British always know/do it best, and evaluate other ways on their own merits, not just as inferior to what you already know! Perhaps you should get out and about more often, rather than surfing the net looking for criticism! Europe is about people, not sterile electronic arguments. 8. I am actually rather cautious about the Constitution – despite some good points, I fear that it will institutionalise much of the stalemate forced on the E.U. by the sceptics. 9. No. I don’t know that I am not conjuring up some terrible hell for the future; if I were certain of the fact, I would most definitely be in the wrong. However, as one of the MEP’s said to us last week, people are always stronger when they work together than separately. The human race faces some pretty big problems at present – and for my money, for our bit of the planet, this is the best shot we have. Finally, as I said before, I don’t dismiss your view – that would certainly be wrong and hypocritical of me. And I certainly don’t “hate you and all you stand for” – any more than I do any one else. I expect we would get on well enough were we to meet in the street! I just don’t agree with you! Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock

I agree that Europe has disappeared as an election issue, along with the Environment, Transport, Electoral Reform etc. I think this is disgraceful, and have said so to both Labour and Lib Dem candidates that I have seen so far; I will say the same to the Con. if he dares to come near me! I stand guilty as charged of idealism; the interpretation, of course, depends on your point of view. However, I would rather be a naive idealistic optimist than a cynical pessimist any day - and in the long term, they get more done! I have yet to encounter very many free-marketeers who are interested in anything more long term than their next year's profit statement. Do I need to repeat that I agree the E.U. is not perfect? And that this does not worry me unduly? It never WILL be perfect, and in that it is no different from any other political system. What is more important is to identify where the imperfections lie and try to deal with them - and there is a much more pressing case for this at the British domestic level. I hope that contact with the E.U. will indirectly make the British nation face up to its domestic democratic inadequacies, even if only because the two systems are clearly incompatible as they stand. They will have done us a favour. Remember, politics does not affect the detail of ordinary lives half as much as the politicians would like us to believe - it simply provides a background, and most sensible people just get on with it anyway, as they did even in Eastern Europe under Communism...which is admittedly not a justification for poor politics. If E.U. legislation is not scrutinised, that is not entirely the E.U.'s fault. The in-house scrutiny I have observed seemed fair enough. On the other hand, the House of Commons does not even have a regular committee for European Affairs; the Minister for Europe is not even a member of the Cabinet! And I have met several M.P.'s (of various persuasions) who clearly had no more than the sketchiest understanding of how the E.U. works. Very few ever seem to have any contact with parliamentarians in other countries, either. Ironically, the Lords are better, with a committee to scrutinise such matters. Most other countries have integrated their European and Domestic politics - in Finland for example, their E.U. Cabinet Committee has weekly meetings with the Parliament's opposite number. Doesn't happen here! Yet another case for reform. And this is without even getting into the (persuasive but admittedly difficult to substantiate) accusations that domestic governments 'gold plate' E.U. legislation. I agree that not all dreams are realisable, but if you look up for a moment from your hard-bitten 'realism' and take a look arond Europe, you will see that this 'ideal' is beginning to take root. Admittedly it is a lot less noticeable in the U.K., but that is our own fault. How else are there blue flags flying on beaches all round Europe? (and by the way why is it the U.K. that took so long to gain many, and is actually losing them again?) How else are transport and telecommunications becoming integrated? Or would you prefer to continue not to be able to use your mobile phone on the continent, to have no budget airlines, and to have queues and currency exchange at every border crossing? Or do you simply not go to the continent often enough for it to make any difference? It takes idealism to see the need for such things; pragmatism merely pollutes, then turns its back! I will stop for fear of writing another epic. I look forward to your reply, which I hope will be more civil and even handed than your last one on the U.K. election strand. In the mean time, might I suggest two pieces of recommended reading: 1. The current edition of 'Prospect' magazine has an enlightening article on the need for U.K. electoral reform 2. 'Remaking the Landscape' Ed. Jennifer Jenkins, Profile Books 2002. We will see if you really address any more of my points than you accuse me of failing to do with yours. p.s. I see you are back to quoting figures again! Do you really have any more chance of verifying that 75% figure than I do of refuting it? Stalemate again! p.p.s I see your true authoritarian tendencies coming through in the phrase 'governing other people'; I though democracy was meant to be about peoples governing THEMSELVES!!! p.p.p.s I spend several hours a week in objective (so much as one can) consideration of the E.U. - please do me the credit of accepting that I might be able to temper my personal beliefs under professional circumstances! On the other hand, it is exactly the increased knowledge obtained by teaching this course that informs my personal conclusions. Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock

Thankyou ewdtaylor for bringing another perspective to this heated discussion! Much as though Owly may be surprised to hear it, I have few problems with your observations over national compliance within the E.U., although, as always, I try to question the provenance of such claims. This is not an avoidance tactic, but merely a distrust of so-called 'facts' about the E.U. which may be nothing more than mis-information. My point was that, without owning up to inside information (which no one yet has), none of us knows for certain one way or the other, any more than with our domestic politics, and therefore claims made on this basis are unprovable. I suspect that on the fishing issue, however you are correct. This is what the European Court of Justice is for. Neither do I offer any excuse for the C.A.P. beyond the point that its origins were an honest wish to support remote rural communities. I agree that it has become an abomination - not least in its abuse by British (and other)grain barons - and needs abolition or replacement by incentives for environmental custodianship. I also totally agree that most people are not motivated by fostering a European Revolution - and nor am I! In fact quite the opposite - my whole thesis hinges on the fact that European integration should be about ordinary people living ordinary lives - better. These discussions here can become very theoretical and removed from reality; what I believe is that some countries have developed some aspects of their societies more successfully than others, and that Europeanisation should be a force for the dissemination of good practice, wherever it comes from. I see British traditionalism/exceptionalism as standing in the way of this. I believe the E.U. already has in place the makings of its final form: when coupled with the national parliaments, it is effectively an embryonic federal organisation; I would argue that in fact we need to boost the power and accountability of the EP further, while balancing (or even replacing) the Council with MEP's directly accountable to domestic parliaments - not just the national executives. In other words, something like a federal structure in its true continental sense, meaning devolved power. Federal systems work! I fully accept that this may take decades to achieve, though. I have relatively few issues with the despised Commission - it is not, as you claim, one of the 'main institutions'; it has no power of decision. The Consitution requires it to consult national parliaments as a first step to new legislation abd this is an improvement - and it needs to remain properly impartial and removed from national interests. Again the Constitution moves it further in this direction. To show that my views are not set in stone, I have just read a plausible article in 'Prospect' that proposes that the U.K. IS in fact moving towards the European consensus in its model of Welfare and the Public Sector; perhaps I was too hasty to conclude that Britain is incapable of making such changes because of the stalemate caused by so many vested interests. Maybe some mid-ground commonality will eventually emerge. I have also always maintained that there has been a lot more Europeanisation of the British way of life than is commonly realised - and that generally it has been a force for good. I should also emphasise (perhaps more than I do) that I do believe that our partners should move towards our ways of doing things in some areas, not least business regulation (under certain circumstances), the C.A.P. and there also needs to be convergence over concepts of democracy and the role of the State; they clearly see things differently in many ways, but they have things to learn, too. This process will be neither easy or quick, but I do not believe it is impossible. The greatest obstacle for this country is its peculiar island-based Anglo-centric view that is only ever capable of judging things, often with a negative pre-conceptions, against British norms. What I really criticise Owly for is an inability to think poly-culturally - to accept that just because others' ways are not OUR ways, they are not inevitably worse - to accept that our way is merely a way, not the way - and sometimes not the best way. We should be able to accept this fact when it stares us in the face, and learn from it, rather than resort to tabloid-style jingoism or insular superiority. Either is akin to sticking our heads in the sand. I am not a romantic, even if I sound like one: my opinions are founded in the hard evidence of my travels; my only idealism is my hope that we can believe enough in the European process both to bring its benefits (where necessary) to this country. best wishes, IJS Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock

Condescending again! I have NEVER dismissed your views as nonsense just because I don't agree with them. I admit I did echo your use of the c**p word on one occasion. I don't dispute our country's right to make different choices for one moment. I don't say there is anything wrong with holding that view. I just believe it is misled. For a start, the E.U. is US not THEM - and if it doesn't always feel like it, it is becasue of ourown patent failure to engage at critical moments. For sure, democracy (British or otherwise) is the right to be wrong, shortsighted, insular or anything else we choose. Just go and look at those social statistics to see the result.