Just as I finish being inspired by a Tim Worstall link he comes up with another good one. In this case he reproduces his correspondence with the nice EUrocrat who is in charge of Latin or soemthing like that. The final resposne form the Eurocrat seem sot me to be well worth picking over:
Allow me please to give you some facts: - The European Union has not existed since 1992. Under a different name, but with the same aims, it was founded in 1957 (as a positive result of WWII).
Um really? in 1957 what was formed by the Treaty of Rome was Euratom and the EEC, these bodies plus the original 1951 ECSC were merged into a single entity in 1965. This was then amended in 1987 and 1992 to create the current EU.
- Since 1957 till 2004 no war has been fought between Europe's eternal enemies -Germany, France and Britain. (The American Army alone is not responsible for that.)
However other wars were fought between other eternal enemies in the Balkans, the American Army wasn't responsible for that either. Moreover the American Army did permit Germany and France to remain unoccupied by the Soviet Union which rather helped the establishment of the EEC. Had the American Army not being present one wonders just how they would have withstood the Soviets. Finally it is worth pointing out that between the Battle of Waterloo 1815 and 1870 the French and the Germans failed to fight each other, and Britain failed to fight either between the Battle of Waterloo and the First World War. There was no EU or any similar body in the 19th century.
- The Balkan countries are beginning to join the Union, which is a guarantee that they won't butcher each other any more.
Why? I don't see that membership of the EU in any way guarantees that they will not fight. They were joined together as Yugoslavia after 1945 for approx 50 years and then started fighting. Why should they not start again in (say) 2035?
I'm not an economist, but do you know why Britain invented EFTA? Not only because of economics, but also because of politics -you only have to check the date when it was founded and the countries that were invited to join (almost a circle around the emerging united Europe) to see the game.
An interestingly selective view of things that ignores the fact that Britain would have been happy to join the EEC etc. except that De Gaulle vetoed the attempt. It is a little difficult to join something when its members won't let you.
When Britain realized that its encircling strategy didn't work, it left EFTA and joined the Community. 1973. I was living in London at the time and remember well the debates for and against. Since then, many things have happened, but Europe keeps growing while some Britons keep kicking against it. Why?
Because the EU has not been an unmixed benefit to Britain perhaps? Not to mention the fact that the EU/EEC and their British supporters have frequently lied about the putative benefits and drawbacks.
However much I admire the British, I must tell you I don't understand that idea of "loss of sovereignty" that keeps coming up almost every time I watch the BBC. Have you ever asked yourself what amount of sovereignty the French have lost? Or the Irish?
As I noted below the French have dominated the EU and ignored any thing that rules against them which not surprisingly means they don't worry about loss of sovereignty. The Irish have benefitted so much economically from the EU that the trade of sovereignty for EU money is clearly a reasonable one.
The euro has been adopted and everybody is happy with it, especially if you're a traveller. Only the British have to waste time changing money at borders. That's not fair.
Apart from the minor detail that the Euro is not in use in Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, there is a major deal in that "grudgingly accept" is not at all the same as "happy with". The Eurozone's "stability pact" has been breached by almost every country in the zone and despite EU enforced regulation the Euro has not been a clear boon for businesses. OK so its handy for tourists and people such as me who live near a border but the average inhabitant of Paris or Berlin gains no benefit from it.
I think that the problem lies deep in contemporary history. Britain enters the 20th century as the biggest empire on earth, and exits it as a second-rate power. That has to be digested and absorbed and it takes some time, but it is unhealthy to prolong it endlessly.
I think that would be a significant oversimplification. It is true that Britain has indeed lost an empire, but I really don't see why loss of empire should be so putatively traumatic. Could is possibly be that what Britains dislike is being taken advantage of?
Believe me, nobody in Europe has lost sovereignty (and those who deal with that here in Brussels aren't aliens, but your fellow citizens, sent here by your own government).
Really? Just what do they put in the coffee in Brussels? Just for starters, the fact that court cases may be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights is clearly a loss of sovereignty to all nations of the EU. There are of course hundreds of other examples but that is sufficient to prove that statement wrong.
One last thought: Only people who aren't sure of their identity fear losing it (Cicero might have said that). Like you, I'm an insignificant citizen. But I don't think that in the modern world you can live in your ivory tower.
Well surprisingly I do agree with that in part. Insecurity certainly helps. I don't think it is the sole reason but I think it is one reason. I also think another reason would be that people are attempting to force you the submerge your identity.
Sorry for being so long, and thanks again. To you and to the EU (without it I wouldn't have been able to exchange these lines with you).
Snarkily I note that without the EU the writer wouldn't have a job as EUrocrat in charge of Latin and hence that is clearly true.
In any case he fails to explain why one should not conclude that "Unio Europaea Delenda Est"