jump to navigation

What We Face Part 2 23 March 2007

Posted by David in EU, Europe, European Union.

A while back I highlighted some of the crazy comments from Euro-fanatics posted on the BBC. Well… there’s more. And the level of lunacy is as high as ever.

“UK politicians always emphasise what the UK got out of Europe, when the real question has to be: What can the UK (or any other Member State) do for Europe?” Ronald Vopel, Brussels, Belgium 

Like serfs? I thought the (deluded) pro-EU argument was that membership benefited us, not that we should work for it?

Almost every specific complaint I have heard about the EU is alleviated (if not entirely solved) by the proposed constitution – things like “lack of democracy” “overbureaucracy” “indecisiveness”, etc. . I think the only reason people are afraid of it is that it makes the EU sound too much like a country – which I personally don’t have a problem with (I’m primarily European and I think nation states are getting outdated) but I see how others might. Look beyond the name and read the content! Tivadar, Bremen, Germany

Not even worthy of a reply, I’m guessing Tivadar read the EU published condensed constitution, not the many thousands of pages long text. And why are nation states outdated? And so what even if they are? I myself think huge multi-nation empires and federations are outdated, with proof being Yugoslavia, USSR, Czechoslovakia…

Some people are so anti-European that they can’t even acknowledge the benefits the EU has brought. For example, it is correct to say that the EU stopped wars in Europe. After centuries of fighting each other, some European countries decided to share the resources required for war in order to put a stop to all this through the European Coal and Steel Community, which preceded the EEC and now the EU. It was this and not NATO that was designed to prevent further wars between France, Germany, Britain and others. Since then the EU has brought huge benefits to the people of Europe, including free trade. However Eurosceptics who seem to know or understand little about the EU won’t acknowledge this but readily point to the EU’s quality standards for bananas. These were necessary for free trade within the EU, but perhaps Eurosceptics don’t like free trade, or bananas! David, Dublin, Ireland

Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, forming the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), demands that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” I think they had maintaining peace in mind, and there is no such commitment in the reams of EU law.

And free trade doesn’t need the EU, see NAFTA, EFTA and the Swiss trade agreement. Quality standard rules imposed from government are not necessary for free trade either, as we have been trading freely within in the UK for years without them.

Where do they get these people?



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: