EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

EU takes UK to court over labour restrictions

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 31 May 2013

Brussels is taking Britain to Europe's top court over its benefits rules, accusing it of denying thousands of EU citizens living in Britain the right to welfare - a claim London rejects.

The European Commission said Thursday (30 May) that two years of talks had failed to resolve a conflict over Britain's rules that require EU nationals to pass a special test to access a range of benefits including unemployment payments.

The British government, which is trying to cut its budget deficit while addressing public unease about immigration and abuse of its welfare system, says it will continue to enforce a "right to reside" test and pursue further benefit reforms.

Britain signed up to EU rules in 2009 allowing EU nationals living and working there to receive such benefits, while British citizens living abroad can receive benefits in those countries.

The Commission's decision to go to the European Court of Justice will be seized upon by eurosceptics as further evidence that Brussels' reach is overbearing and that Britain should leave the European Union.

Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to hold a referendum on Britain's membership if he wins the next parliamentary election in 2015.

The Commission says the "right to reside" requirement violates EU law since, it argues, you can be living and paying taxes in Britain for years and still fail the test.

"Tens of thousands of EU nationals living legally in the UK have been refused access to benefits to which they are entitled," EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told a news conference.

Official figures showed London refused benefits to 28,400 EU citizens living in Britain between 2009 and 2011, Todd said, out of more than 42,000 who applied.

The Commission says it received complaints from citizens who worked in Britain and paid taxes to the British government but were denied unemployment benefits when they were made redundant.

The ECJ in Luxembourg must now rule on the issue, a lengthy process which could result in large fines for Britain if the court were to find it in breach of the law.

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • And the right wing seems to do all necessary to force leaving the European Union !
    What a strategy...

    Simply let Brittland leave the European Union and give it their citizens back!

    By :
    an european
    - Posted on :
    31/05/2013
  • We just want out. We're not cut out for Communitarianism.

    By :
    Sue
    - Posted on :
    01/06/2013
  • Well it's one way of getting the UK politicians to regard the EU in a single way. Within a day all three parties including the rabidly pro EU Liberal Democrats made their anger at this move clear.

    Makes improving the image and support levels for the EU in the UK just that little bit harder. Good move !

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    02/06/2013
  • The European Commission is already as popular as a fart in a spacesuit in many countries - their job is to act for the best interests of the EU, not break it apart by enacting stupid unwanted regulation. Keep it up!

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    03/06/2013
  • Surely this is about simple reciprocity? If Brits have rights in Europe, shouldn't (other) Europeans have rights in Britain?

    Is fairness, same rules for all, such an alien concept to brits? Maybe it smacks of too much common sense for those raised on a tabloid press that does not shrink from bare faced mythmaking (bananas, cucumbers et al.)

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    03/06/2013
  • Piotr

    Welfare payments are not standard across the EU so reciprocity is a little hard to judge. The residency test is designed to prevent wide scale abuse of UK welfare provision which is relatively generous through benefit tourism. This is an issue which is of increasing concern to several states, indeed the UK along with Germany, Austria and The Netherlands has written to the Commission stating that "EU migrants" were causing "considerable strain" on their welfare systems, health care and schools. They have gone on to state that the free movement directive cannot be unconditional, and added that they want the right to deny new EU citizens the right to social benefits if they have never been employed or paid taxes in their new country. This does not seem to be a purely UK issue.

    As a country we have taken considerably more immigrants than any other EU country (Eurostat figures 2008 – 11 UK 2.3m, Germany 1.9m, Italy 1.8m France 734K)and have consistently welcomed such immigrants. But the uncontrolled movement has rightly or wrongly fed fears that people who have never made a payment into the system will arrive and claiming benefits. While there is a three month threshold before claims can be made, in practice anyone claiming to be self-employed is eligible for welfare payments from day 1.

    Re the myths of the tabloid press, EU reg 2257/94 covers the shape a banana is allowed to be, it prohibits ‘abnormal curvature’ without actually defining what that means.

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    03/06/2013
  • UKSSR OUT

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • I love the eurosceptic fixation on banana curvature norms (as if genuinly british normes delivered more pleasure thanks to their superior dimensions...). That really shows what kind of concerns and inspiration these politicians have.

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout, what about the foreign hedge funds which the UK hosts the most in Europe (in the City) to close british and european industries, suppress jobs and spoil the european coutries' public money. Aren't they a little more preoccupying for the british finances than the few benefits immigrant might claim (they anyway work more than the lazy locals as they haven't come all the way to Europe to stay in bed in front of big brother and complain all day because jobs are to far away from the couch and the fridge for them)?

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout: Reciprocity in this case means not treating non-Citizens any different from Citizens. Fully agree that there are different rules, and level of payments, in different countries - the UK being relatively hardline in terms of welfare payments.

    Not to argue that UK has taken more migrants than many other EU countries (arguably for the same reason that the UK has managed to become HQ for many multinationals - i.e. language and location).

    Re: bananas - "abnormal" curvature is listed with blemishes and other defects and is no ban on even pronounced bendiness. Not defining abnormal is a feature of the law: it's a law protecting consumers from dodgy bananas (and protecting producers from unfair competition as well, of course which is where these laws tend to come from. It's all patch and parcel of free trade agreements).

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout: Reciprocity in this case means not treating non-Citizens any different from Citizens. Fully agree that there are different rules, and level of payments, in different countries - the UK being relatively hardline in terms of welfare payments.

    Not to argue that UK has taken more migrants than many other EU countries (arguably for the same reason that the UK has managed to become HQ for many multinationals - i.e. language and location).

    Re: bananas - "abnormal" curvature is listed with blemishes and other defects and is no ban on even pronounced bendiness. Not defining abnormal is a feature of the law: it's a law protecting consumers from dodgy bananas (and protecting producers from unfair competition as well, of course which is where these laws tend to come from. It's all patch and parcel of free trade agreements).

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Hi UK-sceptic,

    I’m not in the slightest fixated or indeed even interested in the curvature or otherwise of bananas, I was not the one who introduced the legislation, the EU was. I was simply providing Piotr with a reference on a subject which he raised and which he seemed unaware of.

    We are talking here about the UK residency test before individuals can claim the universal UK welfare payments not about other financial instruments. Although quite how we can be the UKSSR in one of your posts and then rampantly capitalist in another is beyond me. I note you do not contest that the UK has taken more immigrants than any other EU state, even those much larger in terms of population and geography. Given how appalling you keep on telling us life in the UK is, one has to wonder why they come ?

    As I have already shown, The Netherlands, Germany and Austria have very similar views. I think the use of the phrase ‘EU immigrants’ in the formal letter from the four countries to the Commission is revealing. It means the signatories believe each of the countries in the EU is entirely sovereign and that people are not moving from one part of a single entity (the EU) to another, but are moving from a distinct country to another and that this should be controlled, to use their words, it “cannot be unconditional.” All this once again illustrates the complete lack of an EU demos.

    If I may I will provide you with some quotes made by the four countries in their letter –

    “These immigrants avail themselves of the opportunities that freedom of movement provides, without, however, fulfilling the requirements for exercising this right.”

    “This type of immigration burdens the host societies with considerable additional costs, in particular caused by the provision of schooling, health care and adequate accommodation.”

    “On top of this strain on vital local services, a significant number of new immigrants draw social assistance in the host countries, frequently without a genuine entitlement, burdening the host countries’ social welfare systems.”

    Anyway at least four countries have a common position, but once again all the publicity about being a bad European falls on the UK. It is nice to think apart from the money, we provide the EU with a valuable resource, we are the scapegoat of choice.

    Never mind, I can at least agree entirely and absolutely with the sentiment of one of your posts, the UK should definitely be out of the EU.

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Piotr,

    The UK is hardline in terms of wanting to make welfare payments only to those who are entitled to them.

    I don’t know how many multi national HQs you think we have or indeed how many people they employ across the country but we do not have literally millions of such positions.

    Re bananas, why can people not choose what bananas they want to buy themselves? If they want to buy bendy, straight, blemished etc. bananas that is surely a matter for them. Food not fit for human consumption is already covered by local legislation.

    Cheers

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout: Perhaps a poor choice of words. The UK has relatively low levels of welfare payments compared to many other EU member states is what I was driving at.

    Re: multinational HQ's - no I doubt we're talking millions of jobs, we are however talking significant economic activity as it means that London and the South East is a globally leading business hub.

    Re: bananas - because people should get what they expect when they buy bananas. It's not just health issues its consumer protection too. If you buy a banana expecting a tasty snack and get blemished goo then you've basically been defrauded by a producer of sub-standard bananas.

    And regarding leaving the EU. Why on earth would you want to do that? You come across as someone concerned about sovereignity (and please let me know if that is not the case). I can imagine few greater blows to sovereignity than going from a seat at the table and co-equal status as part of the EU to the in principle subservient (apologies to any norwegians et al.) status of the EEA where you're not involved in the directives you're subject too and you still pay a substantial contribution to the EU.

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Hello Iwantout, as you certainly know, the expression EUSSR doesn't refer to communism (the EU historically was created by the US and Monet, a CIA agent, to make western Europe unite against the Eastern bloc, Brussels has always favoured therefore liberal and christian democrat policies, deregulation, privatisation and competition through the single market and against nation-state's protectionism, public services and barriers to the free market). It is rather used as a comparison for the lack of democratic checks and balances, electoral responsibility of deciders and representative institutions.

    To this extend, the UK is the least democratic country of the EU, i.e. the absence of local government and regional parliament in Britain (except for London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a third only of the British population) as nowhere else in Europe, even in its most unitarian and centralised member, France, which still has regionaly elected assemblies. But one could also add the 1st-pass-the-post least democratic and representative electoral system in Europe (unproportional), the monarchy regime, the House of Lord quango, the lowest electoral turn-out in western europe for 30 years, the never elected PMs as Brown (an apparatchik only nominated head of government by his party politburo) as before Arthur Balfour, Neville Chamberlain, Alec Douglas-Home and Jim Callaghan (never ever in power with the consent of the british electorate) or HH Asquith from 1908 untill 1910, David Lloyd George from 1916 untill 1918, Stanley Baldwin from 1923 to 1924, Anthony Eden from 1955 to 1957, Harold Macmillan from 1957 to 1959, or John Major from 1990 to 1992 as well.

    Regarding the most fascinating subject of the costs of immigration (how very interesting as a concern!) Germany has the highest number of foreign citizens in Europe: 7.2m. The UK is third with just over 4m. Check the graph on the guardian made out of eurostat's last available data from 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/07/immigration-europe-foreign-citizens). Anyway, what about the 13 million British nationals living outside the UK (one of the world highest proportion for a western country). Is the UK then such a horrible place as well or is it just because of the rain in Britain? Should the british in France, Spain, the US or Hong Kong also be deported back home, if it is so bad to host them?

    Immigrants are net contributors to solidarity budgets as they work in general much more than nationals and therefore claim less benefits (anywhere in European countries as in other developed economies). Also, immigrants benefit mostly to national business companies (and profits, which is to say taxes and public finances) as they often accept to work longer and for lower incomes than nationals. But, blaming it on the foreigners isn't relevant as far as public budget deficits are concerned: if cutting immigration or deporting them was profitable we would all have done that for a long long time (we already tried). Don't you think the UK exploding debt has other emergencies than cutting the few benefits immigrants might claim? This would surely be more expensive for the whole society if they remained uneducated, excluded from medical care (especially if they are contagious for example) and sliding mechanically into criminality as a result?

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Piotr,

    Regardless of whether the UK has generous or low levels of welfare payments, the general view is they should only go to people who are genuinely entitled to them. The letter from Germany et al makes it clear that at least four countries in the EU see attempts by individuals who are not entitled trying to claim benefits as well as significant costs to infrastructure etc.

    Re bananas – surely it is like every other product, you look at what you are buying, consider the price and previous experience with the trader, then make a decision as to whether to buy it. Why on earth does a bureaucracy have to become involved ?

    I am concerned about sovereignty, I would just like the same sort of deal with the EU as South Korea has (signed July 2011). Access to the single market, no right to impact on internal EU legislation and the EU unable to interfere with internal UK matters, able to negotiate trade deals with any other country in the World, no payment to EU, etc. Please don’t forget there is a very big world out there that the EU does not control and we are just as happy trading with them as we are with the EU. None of this is to say that I do not want cordial relations with the EU as a trade body.

    Uk-sceptic

    My understanding of SSR is that it stands for Soviet Socialist Republic by definition a communist structure, as in USSR. If you are using it as a different abbreviation I would be interested in what you believe it stands for. I am aware of the history of Monnet and the use of the American Committee on United Europe to funnel CIA funds to pro integrationist individuals and bodies.

    I am sorry but I just don’t see your description of the EU as a liberal deregulating body. My reading and experience tends to show that it is by nature protectionist and prone to unnecessary interference, the silly discussion re bananas surely illustrates that.

    As I have pointed out to you in previous debates the UK population have been offered referenda on regional government (2004) and on proportional representation (2011). In both cases the opportunities were decisively rejected by the electorate. We do actually comply with the voice of the people and so the government did not require the people to vote again until they got the result they liked. We can argue all you like about democracy in the UK, the simple fact is that our system works for us, has been offered to the people for change and they have opted to keep it.

    Regarding the Queen, she is highly popular as the Head of State, but has no political power. The members of the House of Lords are nominated by the political parties. It consists of ’retired politicians’ and a great many subject matter experts who can challenge proposed legislation. But ever since the Parliament Act 1911 they have not been able to stop the House of Commons having their way. Please look at how the system works rather than the titles.

    Yes we can change PM without an election and have done so many times. In the UK you vote for an MP and a party not a PM. We have the right to remove the party and the new leader at the next election if we wish.

    I was not aware I had blamed anything on ‘the foreigners’, looking back at my posts I certainly can’t see such a comment and if that is the impression I have given I would apologise. I simply pointed out a large number of EU nationals come to the UK and that the UK position is that welfare benefits should only be paid to those who are genuinely eligible. The question that the article raised is whether the tests the UK has in place are unfair because they check whether someone who is not a UK national actually has a right to the payment, personally I have no problem with that or indeed any other EU country testing whether a UK national in their country has a right to benefits and denying them if appropriate.

    Yes we are told repeatedly that immigrants benefit an economy and where they have a necessary specific skill that is without doubt true. Whether this is also true when no such special talent exists is more open to debate. There have certainly been claims that such migrants serve only to drive down wages for all workers and reduce the employment opportunities for local people. I can only wonder why socialist politicians in the UK now accept that they completely mishandled the entry of people into the UK since 1997. My bottom line is that immigrants bring much to a state, but also require much. I will examine the arguments of those better qualified than myself before I take a final position. I do note however that Theresa May (UK home secretary), Johanna Mikl-Leitner, (Austria’s federal minister of the interior), Dr Hans Peter Friedrich,( Germany’s federal minister of the interior), and Fred Teeven, (minister for immigration in The Netherlands) all felt that matters need addressing. I would assume given their positions they have access to good information on the subject.

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout: If you say so. The EU-South Korea trade deal is pretty limited (manufacturing, agricultural products). It would be a severe economic blow to a UK that does more than 50% of its trade with Europe compared to the deep economic integration of the single market. It is, as you say, a big world out there. The question is why anyone would want to invest in the UK when it is no longer part of the 450 million strong market across the channel.

    But you're right, and I forgot to mention, economic isolation is of course an alternative to compromised sovereignity. I am just surprised you would be willing to take that blow.

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Piotr,

    The single market doesn't cover most services which is by far the largest portion of the UK economy. Indeed many observers regard it as largely ineffective. Official UK stats (BIS figs) show it is estimated to add between 0.2 - 0.3% to UK GDP but this does not take into account the cost of EU regulation.

    I hope we can agree to differ, the simple fact is that the EU is a political entity with trade aspects. We only ever wanted the trade element and the associate membership raised by Jacques Delors in December 2012 would probably suit both sides admirably.

    Cheers

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • It's simple really, we shouldn't be expected to hand out free money to foreigners from europe who have never contributed anything to our country. We shouldn't be expected to find foreigners from europe social housing when they arrive ahead of nationals who have waited for a long time to get it. We shouldn't be expected to let foreigners from europe to get free healthcare ahead of nationals who have paid for it. Our welfare system is already overloaded, genuine claimants are being denied help from a state that they have paid into, whilst foreigners from europe have no problems getting it. I have no wish to live in any part of the eussr than my own country, and see no reason why my country should be inundated with these idle foreigners, and foreign criminals, because unelected foreigners called the commission have decreed it, and unelected foreign judges say it is ok.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout: Happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of solution it is clear that the UK is not looking to form part of an EU core, member or not. Thank you for striking respectful tone and presenting your arguments well, whether I agree with them or not.

    By :
    Piotr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Every country claims to want to be at the heart of europe, unfortunately that is not possible, the country at the heart of europe is Switzerland, not an eussr country. The idea that any national elected politician has any say on europe is currently a joke, it is run by an unelected bunch of failed politicians, and a democratically deficient parliament where people rarely get to speak unless they are a leader of one of the few groups allowed by the eussr, and more often than not it is a rubber stamp job.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2013
  • Iwantout,

    Hitler also was elected and popular but his ruling surely wasn't democratic as a result. Democracy requires a little more than whether someone is or not popular.

    If you are aware that the EU is a creation of the americans in the cold war, I wonder how you can call it sovietic socialist republics. I also wonder how you can only stick to the initials SSR and their meaning but write in the same post one shouldn't care to much about the titles and rather focus on how institutions work when it comes to the house of Lords. This institution doesn't exist anywhere in the democratic world (even in other European monarchies) but maybe the British institutions in your mind aren't comparable to any other. It is always as simple as this with you.

    In the UKSSR the problem is that MPs are completely under the control of PMs nobody within the electorate ever voted for (but a few apparatchiks from the party politburo). This also doesn't exist in any other democracy in this world.

    Barry, I think you should also say to your fellow countrymen in France, Spain and else (the UK has many immigrants in the EU) they shouldn't either get any health care if they have an accident, nor either be helped by the fire-brigade if their house is burning, that they have to put their children in private schools etc... What about all the British sick people who travel in our countries just for the health care they can't get in the UK or all those in the alp resorts, Mediterranean beaches, or eastern European cities who drink their head off every week ends and congest our police stations and hospitals, because they don't know how to behave as a normal civilised person abroad. This seems to be a specific feature of British tourism (as many many newspapers repeatedly reported) like no other European national. I suggest they better spend time in Leeds and Glasgow for their holidays and stag parties as using foreign public services apparently isn't ok enough for the UK.

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2013
  • Iwantout, if the UK had voted for holocaust (or fancied it in opinion polls) would that also be democratic for you?

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2013
  • uk-sceptic clearly you have run out of any coherant argument and as such have decided to play the Hitler wild card, well established as the answer to anythin you can't substantiate.

    I can use the eussr because it is clear that the manner in which the corruption ridden democratically deficient eussr works is very similar to the original ussr with its politbureau running everything the political failures who make up the commission are the politbureau of the eussr. the united kingdom is just that two united kingdoms created the word, it has never had any republican history so your inane attempt to use the ssr suffix is without any foundation whatsoever.

    It may surprise you to hear that David Cameron was elected, not the first time he stood, he actually lost a safe tory seat in my constituency, but he was elected, unlike barrosso. rumpy and the rest of the political failures.

    The Americans created the eussr, but as with everywhere else they have got involved with in their foreign policy, it went a different way to what they were expecting, there was no reason at the time to expect it would turn into an overbearing political monstrosity interfereing at a micromanagement level, and introducing ill considered pointless and ultimately dangerous edicts.

    In my opinion if you live abroad that is your choice, and you have to accept the health and social care system within that nation. I have no problem with those who have been forced out of my country by the massive influx of foreigners getting the help they need from my country, they are paid for by the uk not the country they live in, but, the foreigners should not be using it.

    Obviously the fire brigade, or police don't even come into the equation no one could think that they do. In fact the criminals coming from foreign european countries keep our police very busy, just as the welfare and health tourists from the foreign european countries are flooding our system. This is preventing the people who have paid for it getting their care needs met.

    The foreign countries where people go for stag and hen nights do very well out of it, it adds to their ailing economies, personally I wouldn't have dreamed of doing that at all in fact I take all my holidays in the UK or outside of the eussr. The Caribean, for example is a far better choice for value for money and the service and the conditions. Glasgow Edinburgh Cardiff Manchester Birmingham and London would all be great places to visit and enjoy a night out, you don't need to go to some foreign place.

    I note that you haven't mentioned the Dutch and German tourists who have far worse reputations for trouble than the British, but then that wouldn't fit your utopian vision. What is a European national there is no such thing unless you mean nationals of countries that are subsumed by the eussr.

    Also it would appear to be that you are of the same mind set as the muslims who are still refering to atrocities that happened in the crusades as being a good reason to attack non muslims, although the atrocities worked both ways, by you insistance on using atrocities from WW2 as your arguments, although you are not using them against the country that was guilty of them, but the uk just as the muslims should really be only attacking Italy, Pope Urban 2 and France where the crusader leaders came from.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2013
  • I like the way you get so shocked when talking about the UKSSR , it is most amusing.

    Though, I don't see why Hitler shouldn't be used as a historical reference for comparing how a leader or a regime could despite its popularity not be democratic at all. Is it forbidden to talk about Hitler? Because if you don't like referring to him, I could give you many other examples in history of popular systems which have nothing to do with democracy (i.e. sharia in the Arab world or Hamas in Gaza, if you prefer)... Anyway you refer apologetically to the EUSSR which in terms of comparison isn't much more moderated given the deportations, purges, totalitarianism and massacres having taken place under Stalinism.

    In terms of corruption I wonder what is so pure in Britain as everybody heard about the MPs expenses scandals, the Libor rate manipulations, the secret proximity between Cameron and some media magnate, between Scotland Yard and HSBC... Banks and Oil being the British jewels I wonder how this country wouldn't be as corrupted as any petro-monarchy or tax-heavens.

    I didn't know only foreigners were criminals, don't you think the British can also be criminals and actually harmful abroad as Richard Reid for example?

    I can tell you dutch and German tourists may have the same reputation as the British trashy ones as far as eating sausages and stay only among themselves when they travel abroad, but the mess your fellow countrymen are responsible of everywhere they travel in Europe has nothing to do with civilised continental ones.

    Wasn't Richard the Lionheart british and actually an ancestor of HM Betty 2 the return?

    By :
    uk-sceptik
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2013
  • Richard the lionheart was a norman and hardly spent any time in Britain which was then as now used as a cash cow by a foreign dictator, clearly your lack of understanding of history is in line with your lack of understanding of the current situation. I mentioned your use of hitler because it is the usual method used by those with no real argument.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2013
  • I wonder why you find references to Pope Urbain 2 and the crusades more accurate to understand both "history" and "the current siuation" than the comparisons with the last World War a couple of decades ago. Which of the two historic reference would be the one used by "those with no real argument", according to you?

    Anyway if Richard the lionheart isn't part of the british history according to your expertise, was then Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and the 3 decades of norman dynasty (in direct line) together with all the most visited historic monuments of England (Tower of London and many other castles, Gothic cathedrals, Westminster Abbey...) as well as instutions such as the monarchy, the Parliament, the State builing, also not genuinly english then?

    What about the jute, saxon, dutch, roman, celt and other english heritages the simple langage is full of alongside wth french, aren't they either part of the english culture or do you consider these coming from a more democratic influence maybe (at least enough in your mind to be legitimatly called english, I mean historically speaking?).

    By :
    Andrew Finningly
    - Posted on :
    06/06/2013
  • Sorry Barry, uk-sceptic talking here to you... again

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    06/06/2013
  • The reference to Pope Urban2 is relevant because he was the one whose political needs created the current situation between Muslim and Christians is a direct result of that action, there are no direct results of Hitlers reign of terror has no influence on the present and those with no real position on a subject have been shown to fall back to using his name when all else fails, that is a proven and well documented sociological behaviour.

    I stated a fact that Richard the lionheart was a norman, do you say that is incorrect? I also stated that he hardly spent any time in England, a historical fact after all normandy and the crusades were more important to him. Most of the castles built by the normans were there to keep the populace in order. The norman kings, and the barons never really integrated with the people of the nation, but that was over a thousand years ago. Of course we could always claim Normandy and Brittany back from the french as they are ours from that time period, using your ideation of history.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    06/06/2013
  • Well Pope Urban 2 was born before the conquest of England by William so if things over a thousend year old don't anymore matter in terms of history, I wonder why that works for the Norman but not for Pope Urban 2. Anyway I can tell you nobody in France regards Richard the Lionheart as a part of the History of France, but maybe he isn't part of any nation's history in your mind.

    The british claiming back Normandy? Chronologicaly this would be a bit like the USA claiming back the UK, it would rather be the contrary that could if at all make sense (Ireland should then also claim all Britain as well as brittany, but the Saxons should also do that then together with Rome, and the dutches provinces too... ) Where the hell are the genuinly english people or territory legitimatly coming from then, as the island of Great Britain has probably hosted more european invaders in history than any other place in western Europe (even Sicily) long before the norman invasion?

    I think that WW2 teaches us much more today in all the western world than the crusades do, at least as far as the rise of populism in every european countries or North America is (for the last decades) concerned (or for example all the propaganda at work in every media or pseudo opinion polls, leading to some aguments like Iwantout's, buisy demonstrating unapoloetically that something is necessarily democratic as long as he believes it is "what people want", strangely always the way he himself thinks).

    Anyway I'm not going to follow you on "THE" explaination for religious wars (since the middle age) between the 3 monotheisms, but I doubt pope Urban II (as important as he might for you be) can take full responsability for the fact that the world isn't yet living in religious peace today as ever before.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    10/06/2013
David Cameron delivers a speech on Europe, January 2013

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Social Europe News videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Social Europe Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising