Politics Get Out of Europe Before You Wreck It: A French Message to Britain

Coolboygcp

His Royal Highness
Messages
156
Reaction score
13
Points
0
Location
Floridé, Le Monde, Florida, The Earth, Florida, Di
Ethnic group
English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, French, Irish, Greek
Source~


By Michel Rocard said:
There is, between you and us continental Europeans, a disagreement which is turning ugly. Your immense history justifies a limitless admiration for you. You were the inventors of democracy and of human rights, you dominated the world for centuries, first ruling the oceans and after that the world of finance. And when apocalypse threatened, your courage and tenacity – you held on long, American and Russian help arriving late in the day – saved our honour and freedom.

We know this and we have never shied away from saying, including in this commemorative week, that we owe you an immense debt. This should not, however, allow you to treat us with contempt and double-dealing.

You do not like Europe – that is your right and it is understandable. You nevertheless joined 41 years ago, but on a misunderstanding. You never shared the true meaning of the project which Winston Churchill, speaking on your behalf, set out in Zurich in 1946 with his incredible words: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe … Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America – and, I trust, Soviet Russia … must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."

Were you not listening? These were the thoughts of a giant, shared by another giant, Charles de Gaulle.

You wanted trade, and you thought about nothing else. With President de Gaulle gone, you were able to join. But from this point you never, ever allowed even the smallest step towards greater integration, or even the smallest expansion of genuinely joint decisions.

The European community did trade, which suited you, because it defined itself as an economic community, but for those things that should be at the very heart of an economy – taxation, dispute settlement law, social policy – you demanded and imposed the continuation of unanimous decision-making. You wanted paralysis. So many neighbouring countries applauded and envied our achievements and wanted to join. You supported each enlargement; we did too, even though we knew it would dilute the community. But you never allowed the slightest deepening of the union. Europe remained bogged down and badly run, an economic giant, a political dwarf.

Eventually the size and success of the European community meant that it made little sense for it to be involved only in the economic aspects of our shared lives. Diplomacy, defence, justice were all raised. You succeeded in limiting joint political actions to a few narrowly defined circumstances and instances.

Thanks to you, the Maastricht treaty was a failure and only narrowly voted through. You did not have to do much to ensure that the Amsterdam and Nice treaties and the constitutional convention would also be flops because they changed little. Paralysis was guaranteed, because you had already got what you wanted. But you had to make things worse. When you didn't like the agreed rules, you tore them up by seeking derogations, "I want my money back" agreements such as the British budget rebate, and eventually the right to opt out of policies altogether when they did not suit you.

But your demands became even more outrageous. Amid the paralysis and growing anger the continental desire grew for stronger and more powerful leaders.

The nationalities of the Belgian Jean-Luc Dehaene and the Luxembourger Jean-Claude Juncker could not have bothered you, it was enough that they were federalist in outlook, had strong voices and would not be easily pushed around. Two vetoes in 10 years, that takes some nerve. You dared to do it.

Europe is dying from it. The most recent elections have confirmed this. Even the euro, the only policy that you could not block, yet whose rules you were involved in writing, and which therefore bear your influence, remains weak and suffers from the lack of oversight that you were able to make sure would prevail across the EU.

I know, you are not completely alone in this. The refusal to recognise a common European interest, always putting the national interest first – you reintroduced these ideas and made them contagious. Nobody is perfect. Acknowledge at least that you deserve the prize.

Out of this disaster and ahead of the European elections, the tenacious among us managed to inject more democracy into the rules. So it was agreed that the majority in the European parliament would choose the European commission presidency. It hardly changes the essence, but it is a start, a way to begin restoring public interest and engagement. Personally, I voted for Martin Schulz as it would trouble me to see somebody with a monetarist outlook at the head of the commission. But the people have spoken. It may be relative, but there is a majority and its leader is Jean-Claude Juncker, a bold and courageous federalist. Democracy demands that he become the president of the European commission. But you want to prevent this. You want to break the process by which a more democratic Europe could emerge. You are stopping Europe finding the democratic force and legitimacy that it needs. A leader picked in these circumstances will be weakened. But this is what you want. Without internal democracy Europe is unworthy, and is in the process of dying. And you are sending us back to that Europe, you despise us so much. What right do you have? And beware, this contempt will backfire on you. You will eventually be right.

Now you pretend to want to exit; the majority of your people are in no doubt about it. But you have a banking interest in remaining to capitalise on the disorder that you have helped to create.

So go before you wreck everything.

There was a time when being British was synonymous with elegance. Let us rebuild Europe. Regain your elegance and you will regain our esteem.

This article was published in Le Monde on 5 June 2014

So what do you think, Eupedians? Do you agree? Or do you disagree?
 
Where in this pool is answer: UK should stay to help in changing EU back to European Community?
 
Where in this pool is answer: UK should stay to help in changing EU back to European Community?

You're assuming that the French would want to change the EU back to a less integrated form, but they might in fact wish to have the EU shed some countries and increase the level of integration, even though the author of this paper seems to be suggesting that a more co-operative Britain could save the EU as a large scale European union.
 
Not to defend GB much here, actually France can wreck it faster with its broken and stagnant economy.
 
...the marbles should stay in europe, at least.
 
You're assuming that the French would want to change the EU back to a less integrated form, but they might in fact wish to have the EU shed some countries and increase the level of integration, even though the author of this paper seems to be suggesting that a more co-operative Britain could save the EU as a large scale European union.

I would think that the French, as well as the Germans; would want to further integrate Europe. This would be good. A further integrated EU would be more powerful, more competent, and would be a superpower (if the current EU isn't already one.)

But, I think a more integrated Europe can, and should expand. This will be beneficial for Europe overall, as it will add more land, taxpayers, power, etc. I think that in due time, countries such as Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, Serbia, Iceland, Morocco, Bosnia, etc. can, and will join the EU. But I also think that current EFTA nations such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, etc. should join the EU. Also, why doesn't the EU consider countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, an independent Québec, and other Commonwealth countries. These Commonwealth countries have similar cultures, the same languages as some European nations, a majority European population, etc. And if Britain stays in the EU, the admit ion of these nations will help to bolster it's position in the EU, as it would have some of it's closest brethren in the same "community" as itself.
 
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.
 
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.

Actually, I agree with you. As an outsider, whose view may therefore not count, I do think that the EU can only be meaningful as a political and economic unit if it limits its borders to its Western European core, countries whose people share common values and economic interests. Expansion into the Balkans and Eastern Europe probably does more harm than good to both the goals of the EU and, in the short run, the economies of Balkan and Eastern European countries. Certainly those Balkan and eastern European countries will eventually become more democratic and more politically stable as a result of EU membership, but economic integration may take a long time even if the EU survives the experiment, and I suspect it may not. I think the EU would succeed better in its aims if its membership was limited to the Latin and Germanic countries of Europe, plus Poland and the Czech republic. Britain isn't ready to become part of a political and economic superpower, so leave it behind.
 
I do not want to hear foolish things of countries like Canada or USA joining the EU.

If these countries were still part of the main European lands (aka colonies) it is fine. But since they are not (they made that choice long ago), they have ABSOLUTELY no right to be in the EU.

With respect,
-E-

P.S. I expect "nogoods" for this statement.

I didn't say anything about the USA joining the EU. Why is it foolish for countries like Canada, Australia, and Zealand; which have a shared culture and history with Europe. The vast majority of Canandians, Australians, and New Zealanders are of European descent.

These countries are not "officially" colonies, but they share a monarch with the UK, speak the same language as it, are part of many groups with the UK (Five Eyes, AUSCANNZUKUS, ABCA Armies, etc.) The UK and Canada now share many embassies. All of these countries share the Westminster system, they all use the metric system, they all (except for Canada) drive on the left side of the road. They all have very similar cultures, similar values, etc. Additionally, there are already three Commonwealth nations in in the EU. (The UK, Cyprus, and Malta.) why not add a few more? Also, Ireland has a similar culture to the UK, and to the Commonwealth nations; and the entry of Commonwealth nations into the EU would benefit the UK, would benefit Ireland, would benefit the Commonwealth nations, and would benefit the EU.

Think about it, would you rather the EU accept countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, FYROM, etc. Or would you rather the EU accept fellow "Western" and "European" countries that share the same values as Western Europeans, that share the same language as some Western Europeans, and share a similar culture to that of Western Europeans. I would much rather the EU accept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, keep the UK, further integrate, and enlarge, and become an effective United States of Europe.

I am not the only one who dares this vision. Look on Google, and you can finds hundreds of articles, websites, threads, forums, and posts that discuss this, and many Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would like their countries to join the EU, and many Europeans would like the same.

If these countries joined the EU, it would get much, much richer than it currently is. It would be the world's foremost economic power, political power, and superpower. With this extra money from these countries, amazing infrastructure projects could be completed, poor, Eastern European nations could become rich, and the EU, as well as Europeans would only benefit.
 
Actually, I agree with you. As an outsider, whose view may therefore not count, I do think that the EU can only be meaningful as a political and economic unit if it limits its borders to its Western European core, countries whose people share common values and economic interests. Expansion into the Balkans and Eastern Europe probably does more harm than good to both the goals of the EU and, in the short run, the economies of Balkan and Eastern European countries. Certainly those Balkan and eastern European countries will eventually become more democratic and more politically stable as a result of EU membership, but economic integration may take a long time even if the EU survives the experiment, and I suspect it may not. I think the EU would succeed better in its aims if its membership was limited to the Latin and Germanic countries of Europe, plus Poland and the Czech republic. Britain isn't ready to become part of a political and economic superpower, so leave it behind.

Why limit the Borders? The EU has already expanded, so it cannot just shed members at this point. If it did, it would only be idiotic; as the EU has already put a lot of money into these countries.

It doesn't do more harm than good to Eastern European/Balkan economies. I don't know where you got that information, but it is incorrect. If you could provide a reference for that statement, it would be appreciated. I could provide dozens of references for the contrary.

It doesn't do more harm than good to the EU. Sure, is it good for the EU economy in the very short run? Maybe not. But within a couple of years, it is good for the European economy. When these new EU member's economies grow, as does the EU's economy.

And also, why in the world would you not want your own country to join the EU? I know of many Canadians who would love to join the EU. Would you rather your country continue on this path of being the US's sidekick? Or would you rather it become part of the EU? Your country would be an equal partner, it is not an equal partner at present. If Canada stays on this path, what if 30, 40, 50 years from now it becomes part of America? Would you want that?

Why should Canada not be united with it's motherland? Why should Canada not be united with a group of nations that share the same values as it? The answer is; it should be. I truly believe that one day, it will be.
 
I didn't say anything about the USA joining the EU. Why is it foolish for countries like Canada, Australia, and Zealand; which have a shared culture and history with Europe. The vast majority of Canandians, Australians, and New Zealanders are of European descent.

These countries are not "officially" colonies, but they share a monarch with the UK, speak the same language as it, are part of many groups with the UK (Five Eyes, AUSCANNZUKUS, ABCA Armies, etc.) The UK and Canada now share many embassies. All of these countries share the Westminster system, they all use the metric system, they all (except for Canada) drive on the left side of the road. They all have very similar cultures, similar values, etc. Additionally, there are already three Commonwealth nations in in the EU. (The UK, Cyprus, and Malta.) why not add a few more? Also, Ireland has a similar culture to the UK, and to the Commonwealth nations; and the entry of Commonwealth nations into the EU would benefit the UK, would benefit Ireland, would benefit the Commonwealth nations, and would benefit the EU.

Think about it, would you rather the EU accept countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, FYROM, etc. Or would you rather the EU accept fellow "Western" and "European" countries that share the same values as Western Europeans, that share the same language as some Western Europeans, and share a similar culture to that of Western Europeans. I would much rather the EU accept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, keep the UK, further integrate, and enlarge, and become an effective United States of Europe.

I am not the only one who dares this vision. Look on Google, and you can finds hundreds of articles, websites, threads, forums, and posts that discuss this, and many Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would like their countries to join the EU, and many Europeans would like the same.

If these countries joined the EU, it would get much, much richer than it currently is. It would be the world's foremost economic power, political power, and superpower. With this extra money from these countries, amazing infrastructure projects could be completed, poor, Eastern European nations could become rich, and the EU, as well as Europeans would only benefit.

Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K. They're two separate countries that increasingly share less and less in common, although both countries do have significant and rapidly growing non-Caucasian populations.

I've never met anyone here in Canada who thinks we should join the EU. Canada has been trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, but that's something else entirely. As for the Irish, they don't much like the English. Read a bit of history and you'll understand why.

If the EU tried to expand beyond the borders of Europe, that would negate the whole point of the EU as a source of European unity.
 
Actually, Canada joining the EU would be an interesting experiment. There is quite a lot of experience in Canada when it comes to dealing with linguistic differences, allowing for cultural autonomy while maintaining socio-political integration, and some people inside the UK might be more prepared to learn from Canada about "federalism" than from, say, Mr. Juncker. The British, but also the European discussion would change substantially if the enlargement perspective is not anymore solely towards Turkey and Ukraine (to name the elephants in the room; accessions of Serbia and other pats of former Yugoslavia are technically well manageable). If Canada should really be interested, this would also send powerful signals to countries like Norway and Switzerland, which could help the EU, not only by opening their wallets, but also by increasing pressure for grass-roots, community-oriented approaches.

Half of the Caribbean (Martinique, Guadeloupe, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, St. Martin, etc.) is already in the EU, further enlargement there will anyway come sooner or later onto the agenda. That would be a golden opportunity to do away with the "one Commissioner per member state" principle, which is an important driving force behind the ever-growing bureaucracy in Brussels (though I fear we won't see any respective reform under a Juncker presidency).

Australia is a different case- it has become quite "Asian" over the last decades. A closer integration into the SE Asian economic sphere is probably not only in Australia's self-interest, but would also provide Europe with an additional communication channel to that region.
 
Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K. They're two separate countries that increasingly share less and less in common, although both countries do have significant and rapidly growing non-Caucasian populations.

I've never met anyone here in Canada who thinks we should join the EU. Canada has been trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, but that's something else entirely. As for the Irish, they don't much like the English. Read a bit of history and you'll understand why.

If the EU tried to expand beyond the borders of Europe, that would negate the whole point of the EU as a source of European unity.
First off, do some damn research. I am not even Canadian, but yet, I know that the UK and Canada share embassies. They have for a few years now. Reference.

Here is a quote from William Hague:

"As the prime minister said when addressing the Canadian parliament last year: 'We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values.' We have stood shoulder to shoulder from the great wars of the last century to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and supporting Arab spring nations like Libya and Syria. We are first cousins.

"So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada's in places where that suits both countries. It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost."


So, you are incorrect again. Also, it seems that William Hague agrees with me. :LOL:
Also, the EU and Canada are signing an "Association Agreement". Yes, this is like a free trade agreement; but it is much more than that. This is bigger than NAFTA. With this agreement, Canada and the EU will only become closer. Many nations have signed Association Agreements with the EU prior to joining it.

The UK and Canada are very close, they aren't growing apart much. Much of your television is from the UK, as is your Queen, and your Royal Family. Your ancestry is from the UK. Your language is from the UK. (Assuming you are not a Francophone.) Until the Canada Act, your country was still, effectively; British. It still is close to Britain, culturally, linguistically, politically, etc.

References in support of EU membership for Canada:

http://angularangularities.blogspot.com/2010/10/canada-applies-to-join-eu.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/29/comment.eu
http://rabble.ca/news/why-doesnt-canada-join-european-union
http://www.spiegel.de/international/german-papers-it-s-time-for-canada-to-join-the-eu-a-344556.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Potential_EU_Membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Canada

Also, relations between the UK and Ireland are at an all time high. Things are going quite well between the bot if them. In fact, your Queen went there a few years ago; and many thousands of people came to see her. There are many all-islands institutions and organisations. Irish citizens can vote in the UK. The two nations share a passport agreement. The list goes on, and on. Ireland will likely rejoin the Commonwealth in the coming years, as relations with the UK are going well.
 
Actually, Canada joining the EU would be an interesting experiment. There is quite a lot of experience in Canada when it comes to dealing with linguistic differences, allowing for cultural autonomy while maintaining socio-political integration, and some people inside the UK might be more prepared to learn from Canada about "federalism" than from, say, Mr. Juncker. The British, but also the European discussion would change substantially if the enlargement perspective is not anymore solely towards Turkey and Ukraine (to name the elephants in the room; accessions of Serbia and other pats of former Yugoslavia are technically well manageable). If Canada should really be interested, this would also send powerful signals to countries like Norway and Switzerland, which could help the EU, not only by opening their wallets, but also by increasing pressure for grass-roots, community-oriented approaches.

Half of the Caribbean (Martinique, Guadeloupe, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, St. Martin, etc.) is already in the EU, further enlargement there will anyway come sooner or later onto the agenda. That would be a golden opportunity to do away with the "one Commissioner per member state" principle, which is an important driving force behind the ever-growing bureaucracy in Brussels (though I fear we won't see any respective reform under a Juncker presidency).

Australia is a different case- it has become quite "Asian" over the last decades. A closer integration into the SE Asian economic sphere is probably not only in Australia's self-interest, but would also provide Europe with an additional communication channel to that region.
Queen of GB is also a monarch of Canada and Australia, so technical we have a back door open to EU, lol, if we really wanted to.
 
Nonsense. Canada does not share any embassies with the U.K.
I'm not 100% sure but I think we do share few embassies with GB, especially in third world where Canadian citizens movement is minimal and not match trade going on either. This arraignment saves us good few million dollars a year. To be precise we don't share embassy, but we share a building with GB, built and own by GB.
 
I'm not 100% sure but I think we do share few embassies with GB, especially in third world where Canadian citizens movement is minimal and not match trade going on either. This arraignment saves us good few million dollars a year. To be precise we don't share embassy, but we share a building with GB, built and own by GB.

There certainly hasn't been much publicity about this, and I doubt many Canadians would be pleased by this latest act of idiocy by Harper if they knew about it.

The trade agreement could be useful or not, depending on the terms, but there seems to be a lot of secrecy about it.
 

This thread has been viewed 28153 times.

Back
Top