|
OwlFancier posted:Because many Britons are extremely ill informed about what the EU is, does, and restricts us from doing, as well as being severely misapprehensive of exactly how powerful Britain as an international entity is. I fully agree with this, but I think the rest of your post is overplaying it a bit - I have always been wary of arguments that conflate or explain UK Eurosceptism with nostalgia for the days of Empire. They certainly overlap (especially for that generation), and can feed eachother, but they are not the same. To try to answer Waitwhatno's question - simply put there are frankly no positive narratives about the EU in the UK, only negative ones. The economic, cultural and social benefits which have (in all likelihood) come about from EU membership are simply not associated with/credited to the EU. Instead, the relentlessly hostile media does not highlight the benefits of membership, instead portraying extreme/objectional fringe cases as the norm, creating negative perceptions and ensuring there are literally no popular arguments made for remaining beyond trade/narrow economic interest/power. I see this when talking with European colleagues - positive tropes and perceptions they have about the EU that they take for granted (though many of these have been eroded in recent years, with the Eurozone/refugee crises) are greeted with literal bafflement and bemusement in the UK, and vice versa. EDIT: Given Waithatno didn't seem that familiar with the background I thought I should expand on it by summarising (quickly and very badly) a few examples, most of which are big generalisations: ----------- A common argument made by pro-Europeans, that the EU has been the sole/main guarantor of peace, economic growth and human rights in Europe, from the Cold War to today. In the UK, this argument is treated with literal derision: -NATO is seen as more relevant on defence (I actually have some sympathy with this, as I have always though the claim the EU was primarily responsible for bringing peace to Europe is overreaching massively). -On economic growth, access to the Common Market is genuinely welcomed, but the EU is otherwise generally seen as being harmful to growth (through overregulation and bureaucracy, such as 'bonkers Brussels rules banning bendy bananas', as well as employer unfriendly measures like preventing people from being worked to death for 90+hrs a week, etc). -Human/social rights gains in recent decades are generally not associated with/attributed to the EU. Instead, the main association between the EU and human rights is the perception it is more interested in protecting the rights of 'Hate preachers' and so on, by making unpopular rulings preventing them from being deported. ---------- Similarly, in most of Europe, Schengen and the freedom of movement are seen as founding principles, worth defending and bringing economic and social opportunities to citizens (the fallout from the refugee crisis notwithstanding). In the UK, whilst elites strongly support freedom of movement (for differing reasons on both the left and right), the wider public do not really perceive the benefits to them (ie: such as ease of work travel, cheap holidays to Spain/France, etc). Freedom of movement is instead perceived primarily in terms of enabling mass immigration, allowing hordes of foreigners to come to the UK and take our jerbs/live high on benefits/plunder our women. ----------- Across much of Europe, the 'Dream' of European integration still has emotional appeal (although this has been severely dented in recent years with the Eurozone and refugee crises). Integration is seen as a good in and of itself, rather than just a means to an end. In Eastern Europe, joining the EU is seen as a sign of modernity and aspiration - an exclusive club of 'advanced' nations. In the UK, the 'Dream' of integration is generally perceived as a nightmare - an attempt to construct a literal Empire and destroy national identities. There is a widespread perception that the UK originally only signed up to join a 'Common Market' (ie: free trade), and that subsequent generations of British and European politicians and bureaucrats have pursued further integration without any mandate to do so, whilst ignoring dissent (such as the French, Dutch and Irish Referendums). There is a perception that even with an opt out from 'Ever Closer Union', the UK will still be fighting constant diplomatic rearguard actions to prevent itself being subject to further integration, etc. ------------ Finally, in most countries (Germany being the biggest exception), the EU is seen as a source of investment and funds. Its easy to support to be supportive of the EU when it is plowing investment/tangible net returns. The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, receiving less than it puts in. This means it is seen as draining wealth from the country, using it to subsidise feckless French farmers and corrupt Eastern European officials (the fact EU accounts have not been signed off for many years is often cited). This means that arguments regarding the economic benefits of EU membership have to take into account trade - which is a lot less tangible and harder to directly attribute to the EU. -------------- TL:DR: People in UK generally perceive the EU in a bad light due to negative narratives constantly spewed by the media, which downplays/ignores the benefits of EU membership (human rights, freedom of movement, growth, etc) instead focussing on generally irrelevant fringe cases, portraying them as the norm rather than the exception. This means that beyond narrow trade/economic interests, there are no popular pro-EU narratives that enjoy widespread acceptance. EDIT: I've generally used the term UK - though the above is of course quite different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than it is for England, for various reasons. Tigey fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Jun 8, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
But applicable human rights are a council of Europe product not eu 😱
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
It all stems from lacking proper education on how the EU functions, its core pillars and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the effort post. These point are absolutely ridiculous and I've never been happier in my life that Germany doesn't allow referendums on a national level. I don't even know what to say. Well, I guess I could wish Britain good luck and a happy life in the EEA, same as the EU in every way, except for higher membership fees and no political representation in decisions that directly affect them and the future of their country.  Also, regarding the EU and permanent peace in Europe: I always saw NATO and military alliances in general as a more temporal solution that could fall apart on short notice. Huge geopolitical changes happen all the time and nobody could have foreseen situations like France leaving NATO, the Yugoslavian civil war or Russia just suddenly attacking and plundering Ukraine. Unlike NATO, the EEC made war literally impossible, due to the integrated economies. Even if the countries had decided to go to war, they couldn't have done it. NATO, on the other hand, could have theoretically been disbanded at any time by a single orange troll winning the world's yuuuugest popularity contest. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
You say that but Estonia was getting all whiny that Corbyn wasn't particularly fond of NATO. They're of the opinion that without NATO there that Russia is going to instantly roll in the tanks and make them all speak Russian in Georgian accents while each personally being forced to make tiny statues of Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
quote:It all stems from lacking proper education on how the EU functions, its core pillars and so on. Probably intentional and for the best. If people knew how it worked they would be against it even more. It's rather opaquely run with a lack of democratic institutions which would prevent the EU from joining itself, as Martin Schulz admits. quote:Unlike NATO, the EEC made war literally impossible, due to the integrated economies. Even if the countries had decided to go to war, they couldn't have done it. At the time of WW1 you had a common currency (gold/silver) and a lot of international trade. Trade is no guarantee for peace on its own. You need France and Germany at the same table for a peaceful Western and Central Europe and Russia for the East. quote:NATO, on the other hand, could have theoretically been disbanded at any time by a single orange troll winning the world's yuuuugest popularity contest. In the Cold War the Europeans actually paid for their own defense; the US made up only half of NATO spending. Today the US spends like 75%. There's no reason the US should take on the responsibility to defend Europe; it's not their job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:You say that but Estonia was getting all whiny that Corbyn wasn't particularly fond of NATO. They're of the opinion that without NATO there that Russia is going to instantly roll in the tanks and make them all speak Russian in Georgian accents while each personally being forced to make tiny statues of Stalin. Well yeah, I have no doubts about that. I don't really question NATO's Russia repelling properties. I was thinking more along the lines of "What would keep the UK and France from fighting over some bullshit colonial sheep island or against each other in some bullshit colonial proxy war?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Riso posted:In the Cold War the Europeans actually paid for their own defense; the US made up only half of NATO spending. Today the US spends like 75%. There's no reason the US should take on the responsibility to defend Europe; it's not their job. Especially when Turkey are willing to shoot down Russian planes to show how totally grown up they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Well yeah, I have no doubts about that. I don't really question NATO's Russia repelling properties. We already wage warfare against France via our unlawful use of biological weapons: our cuisine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We already wage warfare against France via our unlawful use of biological weapons: our cuisine. Albion employs a far more perfidious tool against France: low tax rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Riso posted:Albion employs a far more perfidious tool against France: low tax rates. We also make fun of their HON HON HON accents to hurt their feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Especially when Turkey are willing to shoot down Russian planes to show how totally grown up they are. It's OK, don't worry. If we jack up Greece's and Cyprus's defence budgets by the same amount as Turkey's, Erdogan will lose all interest in Russia and start sabre rattling with Greece again, channeling all that aggression into a save direction. No worries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We also make fun of their HON HON HON accents to hurt their feelings. thats ok we make fun of your bad food
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:thats ok we make fun of your bad food Already made that joke slowpoke! Tesseraction posted:We already wage warfare against France via our unlawful use of biological weapons: our cuisine.  waitwhatno posted:It's OK, don't worry. If we jack up Greece's and Cyprus's defence budgets by the same amount as Turkey's, Erdogan will lose all interest in Russia and start sabre rattling with Greece again, channeling all that aggression into a save direction. No worries. Greece's economy will be saved by geopolitical dick waving? I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Huge geopolitical changes happen all the time and nobody could have foreseen situations like France leaving NATO, the Yugoslavian civil war or Russia just suddenly attacking and plundering Ukraine. Tesseraction posted:You say that but Estonia was getting all whiny that Corbyn wasn't particularly fond of NATO. They're of the opinion that without NATO there that Russia is going to instantly roll in the tanks and make them all speak Russian in Georgian accents while each personally being forced to make tiny statues of Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Chances are that this would not be that far from the truth, if NATO did disband. Tragic though that would be, Russian is a better language than Estonian IMO. I'd buy a Stalin statue to support their livelihood but I'm not a tankie so I'd probably not put it on display.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Are you serious? Some people must have foreseen France leaving, what with the French being immensely butthurt at the time about their loss of influence in nearly every international organization, and their self-image as the most important country in the world. Russia attacking Ukraine was hardly out of character either. I get that you come from a country which has almost made a virtue out of not thinking strategically, but you'd have to be blind to not consider the possibility of Russian aggression after Georgia. I admit that I don't know that much about France and NATO, but I was under the impression that the decision to leave only came about after De Gaulle's return and that it was a massive change of course for the country. Do you have some source on that subject? Also, can you show a single reputable source that predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It was certainly a complete shock to Ukraine and it's people, so I'm kinda sceptical about that claim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Russia attacking Ukraine was hardly out of character either. I get that you come from a country which has almost made a virtue out of not thinking strategically, but you'd have to be blind to not consider the possibility of Russian aggression after Georgia. Russia didn't start the Georgian war, Georgia did. They even showed restrained by not taking over the whole country. The Ukrainian situation is also a lot more messy than "evil Russia invaded".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
The echr is not a eu organ
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Riso posted:Russia didn't start the Georgian war, Georgia did. They even showed restrained by not taking over the whole country. I think he's referring to the fact that Russia have been sneakily moving the barbed wire border of South Ossetia further and further into Georgia during the nights. Which is hilarious, but obviously not fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I admit that I don't know that much about France and NATO, but I was under the impression that the decision to leave only came about after De Gaulle's return and that it was a massive change of course for the country. Do you have some source on that subject? waitwhatno posted:Also, can you show a single reputable source that predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It was certainly a complete shock to Ukraine and it's people, so I'm kinda sceptical about that claim. As for it being a shock to the people of Ukraine, so what if it was? The people of Ukraine have been living in a massively corrupt state which is heavily influenced by Russia on a cultural and political level, which could easily skew their perception of things. They don't necessarily have a special insight just because they became victims. Riso posted:Russia didn't start the Georgian war, Georgia did. They even showed restrained by not taking over the whole country. Riso posted:The Ukrainian situation is also a lot more messy than "evil Russia invaded".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
nice nazi propaganmda war being waged in here by danish pastry man
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:nice nazi propaganmda war being waged in here by danish pastry man
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, it's really confusing to me that Riso is on the other side of the argument. He has betrayed his race. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, it's really confusing to me that Riso is on the other side of the argument. He has betrayed his race. I only base this on the redtext, but European fascists loving love (and are in many cases significantly funded by) Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I only base this on the redtext, but European fascists loving love (and are in many cases significantly funded by) Russia. actually you'll find most nazis in europe love their ukrainian brothers and want them to stay in charge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:actually you'll find most nazis in europe love their ukrainian brothers and want them to stay in charge. actually, it's complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think he's referring to the fact that Russia have been sneakily moving the barbed wire border of South Ossetia further and further into Georgia during the nights. Which is hilarious, but obviously not fair. I hadn't heard about that; it's really hilarious. quote:As for the latter; declining to conquer a country is not restraint. It is when you could have easily moved into Tiblisi and dictated whatever terms you wanted. The US showed significantly less restraint in many cases. quote:Please explain your reasoning. I'd rather not turn this into the Ukrainian thread, part deux. quote:actually you'll find most nazis in europe love their ukrainian brothers and want them to stay in charge. Ukrainian nazis have been out of power for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Riso posted:It is when you could have easily moved into Tiblisi and dictated whatever terms you wanted. The US showed significantly less restraint in many cases. Riso posted:I'd rather not turn this into the Ukrainian thread, part deux.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Putin is funding parties across the EU who are chomping at the bits to tear it apart. However in many cases Russia plays lender of last resort. The Front National for example can't get loans from anyone else. Also many of said parties don't want to rip it apart but stop the elite's aim of a US-style federation. A confederated Europe is a much more sensible approach considering the various cultures and histories. European nations of course could stop all that outside funding they don't like by copying a Russian law that prohibits funding of non-governmental organisations from outside the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The US hasn't conquered a country in a long time *eyes the smouldering wreck of Iraq* Well, I suppose you're right that 'conquer' doesn't seem to be the correct word...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Whataboutism is a fine and long-practiced art of the Russian apologist. Respekt
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Riso posted:European nations of course could stop all that outside funding they don't like by copying a Russian law that prohibits funding of non-governmental organisations from outside the country. Tesseraction posted:*eyes the smouldering wreck of Iraq*
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If the US had annexed Iraq, I imagine most of the Middle East would look like Syria now. However great a crime the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was, a conquest would have been far far worse. Eh, thing is it was meant to be a conquest but failed. You're right, though, that it's not a conquest like Saipan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Eh, thing is it was meant to be a conquest
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:According to who? It's basically the fundamental principle of the Project for a New American Century. Wolfowitz and co. were planning on invading Iraq in early 90s in order to secure the oil reserves. They weren't going to make it a 51st state, they were planning on having a useful idiot in charge. Sadly for them, he was a useless idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's basically the fundamental principle of the Project for a New American Century. Wolfowitz and co. were planning on invading Iraq in early 90s in order to secure the oil reserves. They weren't going to make it a 51st state, they were planning on having a useful idiot in charge. Sadly for them, he was a useless idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Rolling in and destroying the government of a country and then installing your own is a conquest by any definition, even if it isn't intended to be permanent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's hardly conquest. Eh, potayto potahto. They own the country, don't have the responsibility to look after it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's hardly conquest. And furthermore Mexicans aren't a race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:42
|
|