Metropol

Jeez, get off the fence!

ali.james wrote: Are you seriously implying that following WW2, without the EU there would have been any possibility of such a war happening?

You've just set up a false choice. I'm not saying there was no chance, but while western alliance was informally there during the cold war, the EU took it further at when the end of the cold war could have seen it disintegrate. There are some other (IMHO pretty solid) reasons:
1. They do a lot of border dispute arbitration work, keeping it in the family (so to speak)
2. It provides a framework to let poorer countries gain more trade routes without territorial disputes
3. Some vulnerable former soviet republics joined and enjoyed relative prosperity and security from membership. I think bringing eastern european states in was a good move for keeping the peace.
4. Increased military co-operation degrading sovereign capability makes it physically harder to fight wars between EU members, just like NATO countries don't tend to fight each other.

Because if you are not, how on earth could you arrive at the conclusion that, on balance, the EU has been 'cheap' ?

What you just asked was "If you totally change your opinion about something, how can you have the same opinion?". That's a silly question so I'll pose a better one: "If you set aside war, is it cheaper to be in or out of the EU?"

That's where my knowledge runs out. That's what annoys me about the "debate" so far - there's just no-one setting out the clear advantages and disadvantages of membership in a sensible measured way. I have a feeling not being in the trading area would be financially quite expensive, and not engaging in some of the binding agreements about aspects like the environment could be expensive in a non-monetary way.

The euro project has driven countries into deep financial trouble

No - they're in deep financial trouble because they were shit at collecting taxes and good at spending money (Greece) or enormous housing bubbles bursting (Spain). There's a valid question as to whether they'd be recovering more easily if they weren't in the Euro, but it's a question of default versus bailout. Either way it wasn't being in the Euro that drove them there.

Sput, I had no particular issue with your point in your earlier post - i.e. the oft-cited fact that " [there's not been] a war between the major powers for a generation in Europe". You said that this is 'widely credited to the formation of the EU'. It is indeed widely credited to it. But whether the formation of the EC really can be attributed as the reason for European peace in the wake of the wars is dubious to say the least - Europe has seen far too many changes over the decades for this assertion to be justified on such narrow reasoning.

My argument was actually directed to willps, who took your premise to point out the rather obvious, but arguably irrelevant (IMO) fact that 'compared to the terrific cost of such wars the EU is very cheap'. If there was no chance of a war then how is this relevant - especially to today?

My point (since the thread was about the British referendum) is about our present involvement with the EU. The 'peace/ prosperity/power' argument no longer bears any relation to the realities of supranational political integration. There is peace in Europe, prosperity has been curbed by the single currency's mindless one-for-all interest rate, and power is now increasingly undemocratic.

You might well be right in your points about former soviet nations and east-european inclusion. To me, though, that doesn't in any way shed light on the question of the value of our own membership.

As for the environment, I don't believe the EU's environmental programme (especially regarding climate change) will be helpful in the long run. Kyoto and EU targets have been easy for the UK to meet because of the contingencies of the energy industry in the last two decades. Without similar commitments by the developing countries (India, China, etc - whose CO2 output is surging) , it is meaningless.

Whilst I dislike what the EU has become, I cannot agree with the notion that it is not appropriate to argue that the EU has prevented further wars breaking out in Europe. You only have to look at history to determine that the single biggest creator of conflict in Europe was intense nationalism and rivalry. And such rivalry was no more real and dangerous than between France and Germany.

I'd argue that keeping peace in Europe has been the greatest single achievement of the EU. By encouraging its member states to work together for a common good, it has directly prevented rivalries and extreme nationalism from resurfacing. I may not agree with monetary or greater political union (as I do think a little nationalism is a good thing, or else we'd lose our own identity as a nation) but I do agree that the EU has held together the continent in peace.

My head hurts. Any chance we could get through a sentence in this thread without several double negatives?

Agreed, lukey.

I'm starting to find the thread as heavy weather as the EU itself.

lukey wrote:My head hurts. Any chance we could get through a sentence in this thread without several double negatives?

Come on, Lukey. It isn't not hard to see why he's not unclear.

I think the underlying reason why there is *so* much scepticism about the EU is nothing to do with its aims, but more to do with how it is run. Right or wrong, the impression people have of it is that it is run by bureaucrats with their noses in the trough, who spend their time making up silly rules about the shape of bananas, and with little or no consideration for how much things cost.

I think the approach David Cameron has taken with it is exactly right. If he can instigate change that involves restraint on how much money the EU spends, along with some reform about its aims and its involvement of the member states' governance, then I for one will be happy to vote to stay a part of it.

I reckon, as an aside, we'll also see UKIP and the Conservatives form a pact at the election, now that the referendum pledge has been made. It's what UKIP ultimately want, but it'll never happen if they are still taking Tory votes and they therefore don't win.

ali.james wrote:My argument was actually directed to willps, who took your premise to point out the rather obvious, but arguably irrelevant (IMO) fact that 'compared to the terrific cost of such wars the EU is very cheap'. If there was no chance of a war then how is this relevant - especially to today?

Who's to say though? All that is certain is that with the EU we've had no continental war.