The Pro Argument
I will answer some points in this later but feel that is should be on the main page rather than comments.
Seriously? Now I can’t give you any specifics here, but I’ve got the impression that most times the BBC holds any kind of EU based debate they generally call in people from the two furthest extremes. Most of the pro-EU lot they get in do no service to that side of the debate, usually painting eurosceptics with the broadest of “little Englander” and “xenophobe” brushes, sounding utterly patronising and making us all look like self-righteous arseholes, and the anti-EU vox pops often seem to be chosen for being hardcore pro-withdrawal voices.
The impression I’ve got of the majority of eurosceptics is that they largely object to further integration, and think that in certain areas we’ve already gone too far - not that the basic idea of a European trading and co-operation union is a bad thing. Plus I can - to an extent - see their point.
The withdrawl arguments seem utterly insane to me - other eurosceptic stances hold a lot more water and could, if the withdrawal question could be sidestepped, actually be an area where the pro and anti camps could find common ground.
As I’ve said many, many times, the majority of pro-EU folk know full well that there are major flaws with the current system (Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, lack of democratic accountability etc.), and want sweeping reforms of (almost) the entire thing. There are also plenty of pro-EU people (myself included) who aren’t convinced that the UK should join the single currency for the forseeable future.
But whenever any EU-based arguments are raised (in the UK at least), they always seem to end up boiled down to the most extreme viewpoints: pro-EU = federalist, anti-EU = withdrawalist etc. It’s just not that simple, and is preventing us from having a real and constructive debate. Any government attempts to claim that a “No” vote in the constitutional referendum is a vote to withdraw will simply give fuel to the more extreme eurosceptics, and distort the debate further.
It’s not helpful for either side for the debate to be so polarised - after all, even pro-EU people (again, myself included) are fully aware that the proposed constitution is flawed. It’s just we also don’t buy the claims that it is a final settlement, so reckon that - if everyone who wants reform can finally start acting together - we can make the best of its good points and get rid of the bad. (And yes, I know that we’ve been trying to do that when it comes to the EU for 30 years, but I reckon we’ve failed because we haven’t presented a coherent and united reformist front - we’re too busy bickering among ourselves to tackle the problems head on.)
In short, the argument between the UK pro and anti camps shouldn’t be boiled down to the utterly simplistic “withdraw or become a federal superstate” dichotomy, as it has often been. It should be over the extent to which reforms of the UK’s existing relationship with the EU are necessary - both camps agree that they are, just not how much. Only a minority on either side would argue for the most extreme options available.
Edit;
You must watch an entirely different BBC than I do, all I see is that the BBC allows pro EU spokes people to make claims that are never questioned, this is confirmed by the report>>>
The narrow focus of the BBC’s political reporting on MPs and the British Government causes other distortions. For example:
It has failed to reflect a significant minority opinion that the UK should withdraw from the EU because this does not figure in the policies of the Westminster parties.
Eusceptics do not think that the basic idea of a European trading and co-operation union is a bad thing we voted for this in 1975, unfortunately this has now been extended into a supra national organisation which is increasingly interfering in our day to day lives, in the process removing the ability of the people to set the political agenda of their own government, by voting for the party whos policies they prefer.
The withdrawal argument is based purely on the fact that we do in fact have two options, stay in or leave. The EU federalists do not allow a third option, because they continue to push for further integration. If you would like to sidestep the withdrawal argument you must put a stop to the integration motor, otherwise any debate will work as a ratchet towards further integration.
That really is the reason why we cannot accept this Constitution because it does not limit the EU it in fact allows it compleate freedom to continue with integration.
Sorry - hadn’t seen your edit on this before.
That’s one of the most rational explanations of the sensible eurosceptic viewpoint I’ve heard in a while. I disagree your take on the BBC, but your reasons for not wanting the constitution are entirely reasonable. If the anti case could be presented in these more rational terms more often it would help the debate immensely.
My principle objection to the current debate is that - as has been pointed out many times - the arguments aren’t over the constitution itself, but the very nature of the EU. Both sides are equally guilty of this, and it is causing immense problems.
Neither side is entirely happy with the constitution. But the referendum is - and has been since it was first mooted - being portrayed as a referendum on whether or not we see benefits to EU membership, not on the constitution itself. Both hardcore eurosceptics and hardcore pro-Europeans are presenting it as if the true question is “Do you want to be part of the EU?”
If we could calm it down a bit, both sides of the argument would reject the constitution - albeit for different reasons. Then a new constitution (or treaty, if you don’t like the “c”-word) could be drawn up, ideally with a provision in it for certain nations can set up a second tier of EU membership where the relationship stays much as it is (although tidied up and with further safeguards put in place), while others can go ahead with EMU and closer integration unimpeded by the less enthusiastic member states. Then hold a referendum on which group we want to belong to. I’d say that’d be ideal for all concerned.
Instead, us pro-EU lot are feeling pressured to defend the very concept of the EU - past, present and future - in the face of constant attacks from you antis. This is despite the fact that the resl debate should be over the constitution, and from what I can tell, most of us don’t like that much more than you do, but see it as necessary to pass simply because it has been transmogrified into a personification of the EU itself.
I think the EU is a good thing for Britain. I think a new treaty to tie up all the loose ends of six decades of European integration is necessary. I don’t think the current constitution does the job as well as it could and should. But I may end up voting in favour of it anyway (I haven’t yet made up my mind) purely to register my support for Britain’s membership of the EU itself. That is not what the vote should be about, but that is what it is turning into.
Remove the Contituion simply because it is a contituion and not a treaty. Change the preable so that it no longer states we the people are “Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and
history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions, and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny”,
remove the clauses that suport this contention and then remove the motor for intergration, by removing that power from the commission we just might be getting somwhere but I do not think is is possible.
So we really have to decide if want to forge ever closer links towards a common destiny if not vote against the comstituion.