UK should ‘make up its mind’ on Europe

I wonder how much longer the Tories will manage to keep their contractictory positions and especially act in favour of (one of) them.

Unlike most of european consevatives, they claim both their full commitment to a globalised free-economy, purged from any state / national intervention, but they maintain borders for the Euro and Schengens agreements, though the latter allow free mouvements of people, goods and capital.

Or the Tories ferociously defend british sovereignty, always complaining about Brussels undemocratic intrusion, but they never seem to have a word for the much more influencial and untransparent ruling from Washington, which everyone knows though occurs in considerably much wider proportions than Brussels can ever be suspected, i.e. the Trident deterent or the Irak war among other examples.

Same thing when the conservatives, following the established political correctness, pretent to be shocked by anything sounding the slightest racist, fascist or seemingly nationalist, and then call themselves "Europhobes".

Either they should admit their traditionaly conservative tendencies for protectionism, isolationism and defend proudly their national sovereignty, rejecting any foreign intervention from Brussels or the US, as any free market economics by the way, suggesting to sell national assets to Wall Street or Las Vegas in the name of a free world with wide-open doors (not exactly inherent conservative values).

Or they should firmly embrasse this globalised world of free markets on the contrary and dismentle any public/national intervention for rejoycing in unlimited greed with their neo-liberal EU fellows from Brussels and Frankfurt, just as with those from the Pentagone, Las Vegas Casinos or Hollywood.

Otherwise the conservative would only have the option of becoming socialists, if they want any coherent reason to longer stand against the EU and hope to succeed. Or they'll stay deluded as they are and unsurprisilgly get further eaten up by the EU, the US and globalised bankers all together, however much they meanwhile lose time and energy on wordy contradictory discourses claiming to defend the UK's sovereignty.

what a detriment :-(

A team with a member seated at the table to eat but out to pay is a weak team.
The British should join they heart and pocket and go away.

Dear Paolo Di Carli Said

There are great Incompatibilities between EU UK because Barroso said Federation of Nation States!!
As European i take in consideration the "United Kindom"
We will benefit from a federation policy!
I sincerely must say that I promote this system and it will come ! So the question is :
What concretely will this mean for EU and UK ?
United States is Powerfull with no doubt !
Europe is going to this way ! What do You think!
Is that so bad to continue trading together if EU has one Economic policy?
Keen answers only please no insults!
Thankyou

Should UK keep financing the Royal family from the EU budget.

Should the people of the United Kingdom continue to finance the United Kingdom Government that should be Governing the UK as a whole according to its Constitution yet cannot do so and can only obey EU law simply because of the EU Treaties that THEY have Ratified? HOWEVER (and isn't there always a "HOWEVER"). The people's long standing Common law Constitution prevents the people from legally/lawfully encouraging in any way-even financially, allowing foreigners to govern this Country. The Act of Supremacy:"…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever." The central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament. It therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament.

Every Country in the EU is pouring Billions of their money in to the EU-they too are still voting and paying for two Governments and two or more Parliaments. Here in the UK we will be paying for an extra layer of EU Governance for the EU REGIONS. We will have even higher debt when the REGIONS get going.

Your question should be, "Should the people of this Country be paying the EU, and our Government paying EU FINES from the people's money when they do not do jump to obey EU Rules? (When the EU can stop the Women's Institute (WI) from re-using Jam Jars there is some-thing dreadfully wrong and it is time to withdraw from the EU. However, when the WI's 'dander is up', even the EU might have over-stepped the mark for the WI are a formidable group when roused-The EU should watch out for the flying hand-bags) The people fought in two World Wars to keep their the British way of life which includes their Monarchy. The UK Government should not be contributing any money to the EU Budget and keep their position in Parliament when they are no longer able to Govern this Coun try according to its Constitution.

Re your question. THIS COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE SENDING ANY MONEY TO FOREIGNERS TO GOVERN THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE (See our Constitution) and it certainly should not hold out its hands for an EU Budget. My sworn allegiance(As is each and everyone one in our Houses of Parliament), swear faithful and true allegiance to the British Crown before they may take up their seats in that once proud House, even though the people have voted for them. The Crown represents each and every one of us here in the UK and Long may our Queen reign.

The only Treaties that affect the daily lives of the British people are the ones indeed from the European Union. "WE" are not in Glorious Isolation. Although the last Commonwealth meeting in Perth was "different" from previous ones, and to which Mr Cameron and William Hague attended and proposed certain constitutional changes without the vast majority of UK Citizens being made aware of those delicate proposed changes, those constitutional changes have not come about as yet, and perhaps it would have been "more polite" if those two people concerned had put their proposals to the people of Britain before they introduced them to other members of the Commonwealth? However, that is how this government work for now! The UK has been a member of the Commonwealth for far longer than it has been a member of the EU.

Anne you've already tried the Commonwealth, it collapsed more than half a century ago and after the massacres and apartheids nobody there is likely to want you back again honestly. Anyway there is no place in the world that can provide you access to such a huge market as the EU, so close to your territory.

Otherwise the British constitution is unwritten, so very much flexible (that's precisely how it managed to survive that long). Being occupied by american GIs from the 2nd world war onwards, the UK could have better prevented this if really the british constitution genuinely mitigated against any form of foreign diktat (same with the Irak war and so on). By comparison, this so called "special" relationship would constitutionally be unthinkable in France for example, a country which truly seeks to defend its independance, yet joined the Euro, Schengen etc...

By the way, you can always try to beg the american Senate for participation in congress elections or use any veto as you seem to enjoy that, democratically, in the EU. They will only agree in your dreams.

Don L

The british electorate, before voting to join the EU knew the Uk was in EFTA's trading bloc, which was precisely competing with the EU, as a purely "trading bloc" (contrary to the EEC, which obviously had a political agenda from the begining on, starting by sharing the french and german steel / coal industries one needs for war).

Do you think the British voted yes for joining the EEC, because they thought it had in fact become the same as their failed EFTA? I mean Brussels supra-national commission was perfectly known for being set up, long before the UK ended up joining. You must really despise the British voters as foolish sheep, if you declare that their sovereign vote to join, only was guided by such ignorance and manipulation.

I think you are right Anne, In or Out referendum will put britain in front of a challenging choice in terms of strategy for sovereignty in todays world. Either the UK

1.engages fully in the EU and actually exerts its influence as a major member or
2. after a No vote it sees the whole world seizing their opportunity to join the commonwealth, cos they can't wait to be free subjects of HM.

Quiete a challenging choice for Britain but who knows? Anyway, as you sensed it so well, there is no third way left that would favour britain's influence in the world. Wonder though on which of the two the bookmakers will be betting...

George Mc, however angry the british may get when facing the fact that their position in world affairs has almost disappeared for more than a century now (to the benefit of successivly: post-WW1 Germany and Japan, post-WW2 Russia and the U.S., the post-colonial 3rd world and emerging giants such as China, India, Brazil plus so many more to come tomorrow...), their anger won't help to reverse this course of continuous loss of international power. How many more years before the UK has to leave the G8 or the G20, like it or not?

It won't either be enough to simply get out of the EU (which is precisely meant to retain for its members some bits of this lost influence) and just present individually a "new easy-cheesy trading partnership worldwide, dancing in freedom, happiness and independance all together". This wouldn't change the minor role Britain has been playing for already quiete some time. Rather the contrary...

Maybe British politicians should give a bit more detail about how exacly being a middle-range offshore european dwarf and getting further marginalised from the continent will magically pave them a golden road back to Victoria's times. Hearing the slightest credible positive argument in this direction would give their alternative strategy to EU membership a chance not to appear pathetically doom to fail.

I'm struck and amused at the similarity of arguments and cases being made on here with those being made by all those involved in the Scottish Independence debate! People are rebelling against centralist control and resultant disenfranchisement of citizens.

Seen from Norway, the British discussion of the relationship to Europe points toward an exit as a EU member state in 10-20 years from now. When UK (and Norway) negotiated with the EU of six member states in 1971-72, the British government was so desperate to join, that the negotiations were made in such a hurry, that the terms for becoming member, both for the UK and Norway, were quite unbalanced.

The Norwegian goverment at the time, led by PM Trygve Bratteli, a survivor from death row in a concentration camp in Germany, was extremely frustrated over the entry terms the government had reached with the EU, but at the same time desperate to join a cooperation he saw as the only peacful way forward for Europe. His government resigned when they lost the referendum 25th September 1972.

The next government to try was led by PM Gro Harlem Brundtland, also a minority social democratic government. The terms of entry were slightly better than in 1972, and the EU had increased in size. She made a plan B, a European Economic Area (EEA). When also the second Norwegian referendum on a government proposal to become member lost, we created the EEA with Iceland and Lichtenstein. A joke really, EEA is almost 99% Norway. But it works fine, it seems, both ways. And though the great majority of Norwegians don't want to become members of the EU, the majortity also supports the membership in EEA. So if UK leaves the EU, you will be very welcome to join us in the EEA. It wouldn't be the first time Norway and Britain joined forces. Might be a perfect match!

Wouldn't the Scots remain in the EU, love to see England leave? I'd assume that's a dream scenario for the Scottish nationalists?

It's a tricky one. Many Scots have always felt more connected to the Scandinavian countries than the EU countries and would welcome more connection. Discontent with Westminster governance crystallised in the Thatcher years and the die was cast with the illegal war in Iraq approved by Westminster. Scotland has a corporate consciousness which marries more naturally with the Scandinavian countries but the EU has provided opportunities to work with like minded nations sharing similar values and building partnerships absent from Westminster. Westminster MPs in Scotland, have become a distant irrelevance, superseded by the less distant and more active MSPs and MEPs. I guess ultimately, whatever happens in the Scottish Indy Ref, there is little to fear, whether in or out of the European Union. If the UK doesn't leave, they will have to accept the possibility of Federalism and I'm not sure that Westminster is ready to relinquish present power. The bottom line for both Brussels and Westminster is that they MUST begin to devolve power outwards or implode.

It is about time the UK decides either in 100% or out. We need a federation not an union of states.

So thank you and bye bye. Or Welcome!

Thanks for that, Daye. I can see where you are coming from on their perspective of independence. I still feel that they are trading one entity, Westminster, for another in Brussels and that, however much they are allowed to speak and lobby whoever they need to, it will always be e.g. France that calls the shots on CAP and Germany on pretty much everything else but I do wish the Scots, in all sincerity, all the very best regradless of the referendum outcome. I have always liked Scottish people for their warmth, hospitality, generosity, pride and yes, their fierceness!!

Don Latuske re you post to UKsceptic I totally agree with your comments regarding military action. As a country we have been punching well above our weight for some time with our brilliant armed forces.

Time for us to look at defence with a rapid action force available to help our friends. If they ever get a EU army up and running (excluding the UK) it will be interesting to see if it ever leaves barracks. It will of course really be the final nail in the coffin of NATO.

Regards
George Mc

What ever the English with their deeply rooted xenophobia think globalisation and internationalism can not be stoped. Unity is strength

Daye,

in your post you said quote
Westminster MPs in Scotland, have become a distant irrelevance, superseded by the less distant and more active MSPs and MEPs.unquote

Daye are you sure about that? In my experience many people know there Westminster MP. In the West of Scotland if you have a problem with the DSS, Job Centre or the Tax man then these issues are not yet devolved and are dealt with by your MP. Outside the chattering classes no one knows too much about their MSP. Just as well really as they are absolutely dire. Have you ever watched the Scottish Parliament on the TV? Granted it is not as dire as the EU parliament which I have watched for 2 hours at a time with the assistance of a bottle of the 'falling down water'. I have absolutely no idea who my MEP is and why would I want to? I don't know what you have been smoking but next time can we share!

George Mc

UKsceptic you wax lyricle like Eric Cantona, you must be French!
The UK can solve its dilema with Brussels by renegotiating a more equitable agreement where we repatriate the following powers:
1. Deal with our own Human Rights, ie kick Strasbourg into touch as they are increasingly out of touch. Deport enemies of our country as decided by parliament and the courts
2. Control our own borders deciding who has a right of entry EU or not
3. The Foreign Office would run our foreign policy separately from the EEAS. We may also enter into agreements to share diplomatic facilities with other like minded countries, much like the agreement we have recently agreed to share facilities with Canada.
4. Set our own welfare rules and regulations. Without Strasbourg we can decide who is entitled to what without unfounded interference.
5. Employment laws, working time directive etc handled by Westminster.
6. Take back control of Agriculture and Fisheries.
If this is unacceptable to our EU neighbours then in the best possible terms we should leave the EU. Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty says that the EU has to negotiate exit terms with any country which decides to leave.
We should then negotiate an agreement similar to Switzerland who incidently do not buy nearly as much from the EU as the UK. The Swiss refused EEA membership in a referendum in 1992 and instead set about negotiating a series of free trade agreements with the EU. It would appear that Switzerland are sitting pretty with non of the disadvantages of the UK's membereship. I think you will find their costs are minimal compared with the £18 or £ 19 billion a year that we dip into our bank account for.
How many hospitals, schools and roads would that deal with? How much help could we give to our SME's?

The deal that Switzerland has allows them most of the EU benefits. As I understand it they have free movement of goods and services, people and finance. Good deal, job done!

In addition Switzerland and Lichtenstein have joined with Norway and Iceland (EFTA) and has signed 24 free trade agreements (FTA), covering 33 countries. (see Euractiv link)
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-free-trade-growth/efta-model-eu-trade-deals-news-515357
Norway and Switzerland have signed a freed trade agreement with Canada and probably on better terms than the one that the EU has been trying negotiate. Britain would be able to negotiate better terms with countries in these situations as we are only concerned with ourselves. In fairness to the EU they will be trying to negotiate agreements which have to try and protect all the EU member countries. This sort of agreement will be like meat and drink to the UK as it is well known that we have no problem with FTA's unlike our European cousins.

We also need to look at the facts; trade over the last two years with Russia is up 80%, China 40% and Brazil 25%. The really telling fact is that for the most recent figures our trade with the EU is down by 7.3% and up with the rest of the world by 13.2% according to information that I have read this week. With the European Unions current problems and no solution in sight then things can only go further south.

Euskeptic disparages the Old Empire and the current Commonwealth. He really should not do that as the growth in the EU's larger member states is fairly static while most of the Commonwealth can look forward to dramatic increases. I believe that the IMF have forecast increases of 7.3% per year for the next 5 years.
We still have many good contacts with these countries where so many people still have kith and kin and affection for the old country. Not to mention the great advantage of the same language and a better understanding and affinity than we will have with France or Germany.
This does not stop us being friends with our neighbours and while pursuing trade around the world we should still be able trade with our EU neighbours.

The only fly in the ointment could be if the EU adopts a spiteful attitude. However we need to remember that they have offered this said deal to Switzerland which buys an awful lot less than we do from the EU. If we leave we will become the EU biggest trading partner as in 2010 our deficit with them was £46.6 billion and we had a surplus with rest of the world of £10.3 billion.

That £46.6 billion is an awful lot of Mercedes Cars and Trucks, BMW's, Peugeot Citroen and Renault without looking at all the Bosch and Siemens etc. etc.
If they employ spiteful tactics then we will have to put large trading tariffs on their goods while negotiating new deals with Korea, Japan and others.

I am sure that this action would cause much gnashing of teeth from the CEO's of the aforesaid companies when they see lucrative business going west.

George Mc

Don Latuske,

Coming from a small country, I've worked in Poland, France and Vietnam, in addition to Norway, and found good friends in all of them. Some not so nice, too.

But the political construction of the world isn't given to us for free, its something we have to build bottom up. If you like your children and grandchildren to live in a world without terror, great wars and violence, we have to find other ways of dealing with conflict of interest between nations and regions, than wars and trade wars. The way forward, obviously, is to create political entities able to work together constructively, on a global basis. Hey, that's just what most nations did little by little over the centuries. Some with the use of civil wars, others by peacefully means.

The United Nations was constructed at the end of WW2, and need serious improvements in order to be an effective global parliament. The Security Council is even worse, with veto power for the superpowers paralyzing the organisation even on burning conflicts like the war in Syria. To move forward, small countries have to band togehter to create a world where justice rules, and not military or economic muscles.

In such a light, EU is the work of genius, even if its desperately insufficiently structured and financed. The basic solidarity among Europeans needed to make EU work much better, just isn't there. But to quarrel, negotiate and discuss, even to call each other names, demonstrate and make fools of themselves, like some Greeks did recently, is a far better method than the wars waged in the first half of the last century. At the time, Europe learned the lesson, and created the EU embryo. But they had to build on the existing solidarity in 1948. Everybody was fed up with wars. But there was no love between the European nations at the time. So the founding fathers made the best of it, with the Coal and Steel union, following up with the European Economic Area (EEC) later. They assumed, correctly, that the unstable institutional structures, would lead to a social dynamic, forcing the European nations to cooperate more and more closely. Much remains to be done. But Europe today is working together in quite impressive ways, if you take the birds eye view.

Coming from a Norwegian, this may sound strange, as we have declined membership twice. But, in reality, we work closely with the EU in a number of fields. And we have had a quite close Nordic cooperation even longer than the original six EU members. That's why the Nordic region; Denmark, Finland and Sweden inside the EU, Norway and Iceland outside, is considered to be the best places to live in the world. We are at the top, or close, on almost all indicators. But to create such living conditions, we have to make both politics, news media and business work closely together. And its really great to live in a peaceful neighbourhood. Applies both to your home street and to the society of nations. Just compare the Middle East, with warmonger nations like Iran and Israel, to a war-free zone like Scandinavia.

Olav, a very articulate piece and, in one sense, you make the same point as I have been trying to do. Ultimately, I would look to the UK to leave and recreate a relationship in the same way that Norway has. Your country and Switzerland are two good examples of how one can relate to the EU. I have to disagree with the comment that the eU is a work of genius. If it so brilliant, we would be clamouring to join. In the UK (and may be to a lesser extent in the rest of Europe), we were outrightly lied to. I am of an age when I remember Ted Heath being the first proponent for joiing the EEC as it was then. he and all of the other politicians were on record of stating that this was for trade. Perhaps it might have been better if we had been nurtured, as a country ove rthe preceding decades rather than being lied to. Or more frighteningly, perhaps our politiciuans actually believed whgat they were telling us and they have misunderstood/been lied to!!!! God help us if that's true.

Also, just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed reading George Mc's cool, calm and collected pieces.

I hold Ted Heath responsible for getting UK inside the EU with the wrong foot first, by tricks and treats. He also influenced the defeat of the Norwegian government in the referendum in September 1972: The Ted Heath government was in such a great hurry to join the EU that it really gave away lots of negotiating power, not only for the UK, but also for the other applicants. The terms the Norwegian government was able to negotiate, notably for the fisheries, were so terribly poor that the minister of Fisheries resigned. As a result, the the great majority of the people along the long coastline og Norway voted no. I know, I organized the No campaign in Nothern Norway at the time. Even though the government of Trygve Bratteli, a really great PM almost cried when they received the details of the negotiated terms, they were so determined that the EU really was the right way forward for Europe, that they campaigned with great energy for entry. They lost, and resigned. Since then, the majority of Norwegians don't believe in the ability of EU, to really understand the situation of Norway, and the different challenges we meet. And although Norway probably would have been an attractive member, in the eyes of most EU member states, we consider our negotiating position to be just as hopeless today, as it was in 1972. And honestly, the EU haven't really proved itself competent and up to its taskt to anybody, since the day Jaque Delors resigned. And obviously, the present crises isn't severe enough to bring forward a united leadership, able to mobilise popular support across Europe for its visions.

Olav,

You sound like a really nice guy, but forgive me, a little too trusting. I tend to follow Don Latuske and others who are more distrusting than you good self. Let me share with you something that I stumbled over a few weeks ago which I feel proves just how distrustful and dishonest the EU in the form of its commission and officials.
Waking up to the European Commission's stealthy power grab by Justin Stares 23 May 2012

Brussels is only now waking up to the fact that the European Commission has grabbed a huge amount of power from the other EU institutions under treaty rules introduced more than two years ago

One of the biggest power grabs in the history of the European Community has just taken place – and no-one even noticed. Right under the noses of those who are supposed to maintain the checks and balances of democracy, the European Commission has taken control of decisions affecting everything from the food we eat to the medicine we give our children.

Those robbed of power have been left bewildered. Even the Brussels geeks, those who make a living from deciphering impenetrable European Union texts, are only now sobering up to the vastly changed reality. They are slowly realising that the Lisbon Treaty, in force since 2009, brought with it a seismic shift in the balance of power between the EU institutions. "National governments didn't know what they were signing," explains Daniel Gueguen, chairman of consultancy Pact and professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. "A huge amount of power was captured by the commission. Not by the commissioners themselves, but by the bureaucracy. The master of the EU is now the basic civil servant."

The remainder of the article is at the link below which will just confirm that the EU commission's contempt for democracy is breathtaking. I would appreciate any comments on this

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1972/waking-up-to-the-european-commissions-power-grab

The current Orphacol scandal is the ideal example of the ways these powers are being abused, says Guegen. Acting under the new treaty rules, and without any explanation, unnamed commission officials have refused to authorise the use of Orphacol, a medicine used to treat a rare, life-threatening liver disease. This is despite its approval by both the European Medicines Agency and EU member states. Frustrated by the refusal, governments went to the EU's new appeals committee, and won. But still the commission is refusing approval. The case has now reached the European Court of Justice, where a decision is eagerly awaited.
This is a classic case of the commission lawyers writing a treaty which none of the member states or EU parliament understood and are now flexing their muscles.
Perhaps my education has been lacking but I swear I had never heard of  "comitology"  before.  This to me just proves that there are no circumstances in which the EU can be trusted.

Democratic deficit sums it up.

I remember running into a very exuberant MEP at our local livestock mart a few years ago. The cause of his excitement? He and his fellow MEPs had just succeeded in getting agreement from the Commission to let them have early and regular sight of the stages of issues being brewed up towards Directive status. This would allow MEPs time for their own research and questions before it was too late to make a case against. DG SANCO's EID disaster, which has cost the farming industry dear and created animal welfare concerns through ear mutilations, could have been averted if democracy had been embedded in the Directive building process.

"Don L.: Bad luck! My country unlike Britain has its own language/culture, isn't occuppied by the GIs, and its army doesn't go to war when ordered by the pentagone. It has its own detterent and doesn't rent it like Trident, as well as has the 2nd biggest diplomatic network in the world. But it's always been in the EU"

You must be French then -which explains everything. De Gaulle was a petulant, arrogant ingrate, as are so many in the Gallic political world of EU support and beyond. Many of you made friends with the Germans during the Great Misunderstanding of '39 - '45 and so it continues to the detriment of the other 25. Of course the GI's you refer to have always been a thorny issue, although where you see them today I don't know.

Edward99, I guess the french and german alliance has benefitet to every other european countries, at least given that it preserved the continent from war ever since. But whatever what the nasty french may have done, I was only mentioning my nationality because Don L. said "Even your country, assuming it has any military force of any meaning". Anyway my origins won't help much understanding what better kind of magical stream off the EU will all of a sudden lead Britain around todays world, when the famously humble British people happen to vote OUT.

1. British empire 2 (ask america if they let you)
2. 51st american state (ask america if they let you)
3. Nothing changes, England stays as dependant from Europe as Switzerland / Norway / EFTA (but loses inflence)
4. Cuban style isolationism, cut off from the world
5. Bits of everything in a very new special british way, (but what one then exactly?)

Will the British know before the referendum which option-B stategy the UK plans? After staying-out, getting-in, negociating opt-outs, getting-out again, are the british also planing to negociate "opt-ins" and organise another referendum for them a few years later?

UKsceptic says "ask america if they let you...."

Which of you doesn't ask Merkel for permission to do anything involving cash spends, the Greeks? Spanish, Portuguese etc? How often did/does Sarkozy, Hollande go ask nicely hoping to get a favour? How much do they grovel to be at the top table and continue the pretence that the EU is their thing?

You should get real about the world, the EU,the East, and all the power blocks and all the games and backstabbing that goes on.

George Mc, we can also speak french or german or hungarian if you can? Should I really remind you that exept such folkloric british concepts as "gentleman's fair-play" and "Lady's tea-time", the world only started being influenced by the English language when the US rose up in the world and imposed american-english as a lingua franca (instead of French). Not sure France would have retained as much military, economic and cultural power though, if Quebec had become 10 times more powerful and had collected every french strategic assets in the world, after the french would have got bombed and ruined in WW2.

You should go and ask your american masters what they think about your lonly way off the EU, given that they forced you since Suez to abandon your empire for joining the european integration after the war, as they had encouraged and financed it (with your gold) and don't seem yet to have changed their mind about it.

Don L.: Sorry to disturb your certitudes and make you seem just like this english knight who cannot believe the words being heard. Very clever self-derision and ironic humour, still depicting very well the tendancy for british people to prefer being let imagining whatever they fancy dreaming of, rather than facing the actual crualty of the real situation they are anyway in. What's funny about it is that everyone knows including them that their making up of the situation doesn't help them at the end of the day, to escape it.

Edward99

Spot on I was just about to say the same. Unfortunately you will not be able to hide as he turns up all over the place. I think he may have more than one trading style as well.

It will be most interesting to see what happens in the months ahead as although they have had about 17 meetings and done nothing, I think the Euro group will have to do something to steady the ship. Otherwise UKskeptic may turn up at Dover claiming refugee status!

Good luck to you and the other posters.

Regards
George Mc

Edward99, Don L., George Mc, If speaking english and understanding already american and australian medias (like me or many other continental europeans) hadn't stoped you though from learning other languages enriching your points of view, we probably could discuss that more clearly in german, or french.

Sorry I didn't take more time to explain here your own films. If you think the Monty Pyton episode is just funny because it's anti-french, you don't really grasp your own humour. The english knight pretending not to have heard the insults and asking his ridder to repeat them, while he invariably displays a disconcerted reaction, it's a funny caricature of british behaviourism, renouncing on a coherent response to the unconfort of the situation, by making it up, as it simply wouldn't exist. That's how you look like when you can't propose any credible alternative for Britain to EU membership, or pretend not to know America has already eaten-up your country's sovereinty. It's not out of talking about the war 70 years ago or how nasty the french may have been to you, that it will any better explain how Britain suddently will prosper alone in this world, out of the EU.

My suspicion that UKskeptic is none other than a certain Mathias seems to be confirmed by the syntax, spelling mistakes and general ranting nature of his posts. Mathias is a prolific poster at Euractiv, and never misses an occasion to knock anything British / English and generally tell the world how wonderful everything is the other side of the channel, and how the EU is the saviour of mankind.

The strangest thing is that the said Mathias currently lives in London, in the land of the great satan. No doubt he is forced to live here in order to claim benefits, get an education, hold a job, or some other compelling reason. Maybe he can tell us how long he plans to stay in this hell hole, and why is here?

Sorry, Edward99, you must be the one living in this corrupted and deluded country, I live at the moment in Berlin myself, the capital city of a productive country which isn't covered with debts, as the UK is like no other place in the world. I meet here a lot of english people too, who appreciate "logic" and also prefer to have a reasonable handeling of debates, as most of people do in the western world for about 250 years but in britain (in Germany, as in France or the US and elsewhere), instead of giving grammar lessons and play hide-and-seek when confronted with contradiction.

confirmed then