Little Englanders
Little Englanders
A comment allowed on the Yes Campaign Blog tackles one of the Pro EU augments that EU realists are nationalist and isolationists of course this is a PC Term for “little Englanders†and one we will be hearing a lot of as the referendum draws closer
(I say allowed because they vet the comments before posting them and remove arguments they do not like)
There are some assumptions in your post that warrant comment:
Peace is kept by countries engaged in freely entered into and mutually beneficial trade agreements. It’s also maintained by some of the powers (UK and France) having the wherewithal to nuke the living daylights out of a potential aggressor. Finally, peace is maintained because the last two wars have finally taught us that domination (by warfare, at least) is a lost cause. The EU has NOTHING to do with this. Do you seriously and honestly believe Hitler would have decided against exterminating Jews if he’d had to face the wrath of the ECJ?
You deride EU-realists as ‘nationalists’. Either you have no idea about the basis of our objections to the EU (in which case you really ought not to write about them) or, worse, you do know why we object but you seek to deceive your readership (an ability to deceive being a positive attribute in the EU, of course).
Assuming the former, let me help you out: we seek to be *global* players, not isolationists in a federal Europe. We want to be close enough to our law-makers - be they on the left or the right - that we can remove them easily from office if we disapprove of them. We object to a body we have little or no influence over issuing directives at the rate of thousands a year which simply are unknown to us until we fall foul of them. We want to be masters of our own destiny as part of a free world, overseen by accountable leaders who govern only the area of the world they most understand - their own country.
It’s worth pointing out also that governance by bureaucratic means is essentially a European idea and is alien to our culture and history. British law tends not to grant ‘rights’ but simply allows everything unless it sees fit to ban it. In this way, we the people can remove bans if we really want to by voting appropriately. Bureaucracy – the EU culture - is a method of governance via unelected officials seeking to create fixed procedures and methods by which the governed should live. ‘Rights’ are something granted to us by these people. And something granted by bureaucrats one day can be removed by bureaucrats another day.
The desire to be able to influence our own lives and to hold our rulers to account is not the product of nationalism. It’s the common aspiration of many people who would not consider themselves even patriotic. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic and *that* is one of the primary reasons why so many of us find it objectionable.
Your two assertions – that we’re nationalists and that we loath other countries – are statements typical of pro-EU people with little to add to reasoned and proven objections to their favourite federation. That you feel compelled to say such things demonstrates the lack of solid argument in favour of the EU. What is much more sad though is that your politically-correct slurs against Euro-realists and supporters of freedom, democratic accountability and free association with all the world’s peoples will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by many of your casual readers. It suggests that maybe that’s the best you can hope for as, maybe, you realise the argument is already lost
First up - broad assumptions about the “other side” are blatantly not helpful, utterly agreed. Also, censorship of comments is rather stupid. I can understand why they are doing it but think they are sorely mistaken. I shall, as a fellow pro-blogger, politely suggest they stop it.
Just a few semi-related points raised by your intro, though:
“EU realists” are, by definition, not nationalist and isolationist. But then very few people who would describe themselves as such - no offence, but yourself included - actually are realists when it comes to this. “Realism” implies a certain amount of objectivity, while you have described yourself as being a “Eurosceptic”, thus identifying yourself with one particular camp.
Once anyone from an EU member state starts looking into the situation, it becomes very hard to remain objective, because this stuff - either positively or negatively - affects all of us. I’ve also certainly lost a lot of the objectivity I thought I had when I started blogging about this purely because I have often been forced to defend my arguments from attacks by the anti-EU camp. Thanks to this, I have been pushed closer to the pro lot than I initially was.
The terminology of the EU debate needs revision - that’s part of the problem with the “Eurosceptic” label. “Scepticism” merely implies a healthy doubt, yet many self-proclaimed Eurosceptics have gone further than simply doubting the claims of the pro-EU camp to drift into a Eurocynicism (for want of a better word) which finds fault with pretty much everything the EU does. Considering I try to explore the EU as much as possible, and will criticise the faults when I find them, I am probably more of a true sceptic (or realist) than many who have adopted the term.
“Europhile” is likewise a poor word - very, very few pro-EU people are entirely uncritical of the project, as it implies, because there is still much to criticise. A better description would probably be “Europtimist” - we think (and hope) that we can change the EU for the better, while “sceptics” seem largely to want - to a greater or lesser extent - to dismantle it.
Anyway, not really related to you major point. I’ll have a word with those Yes people. It’s not helpful for the debate to censor the other side or to call them names (unless they’re Kilroy, obviously), and such attitudes are - evidently - only helping to further convince Eurosceptics that their opinion of the EU and pro-Eu people as a whole is entirely justified. Not good for either side.
“Europtimist” and the opposite which seems to be pragmatist or realist however, sceptic means pessimist so I suppose the opposite of Euoptimist would Eusceptic.
I think this divides the stances; the optimist is looking from one side and the pessimist the other perhaps that is a truer definition of the situation.
As a pessimist I base my scepticism on the history of the Union, I do not see the light at the end of the tunnel that an optimist might; I do not share the belief that the Union is a force for good which an optimist must. To me if the union is not accountable to the voters now, I have no faith that eventually it might become so of its own choosing, like all powers it will have to be forced along that road and we the people are the only ones who have the power of force in our votes. But we must use it now, there will not be another chance because once the concept of a Constitution is accepted the following changes will not need a referendum, if we do not the institutions will be so entrenched that nothing but civil war will remove it. Of course an optimist will not see this, believing instead that the union either is or will become accountable automatically.
EU Surf has coined a description of pro-EU supporters, which given that this debate at bottom is about the legal and government systems of the EU V UK, Common Law V Roman Law is appropriate “Royalist Throwbacks†of course that makes me a roundhead.