British Politics

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Correction. I chose not to answer.

Yes, your specialty 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Yes, your specialty 

Well what would be the point? Dazey looks to his back pocket, whereas I look towards constitutionalism and sovereignty. It is two different sets of questions with two different sets of answers. 

[DieselDaisy]

It shouldn't come as no surprise that there exists objections to nation-states signing away their dearly won and ancient freedoms in legislative functionality and jurisprudence - Kompetenz-kompetenz. I wouldn't expect the Americans to act any different if an American version of Ted Heath signed away ''competences'' of the US Constitution - ditto, any other sovereign state. It also should come as no surprise that the Euro-federalist position held by people like Guy Verhofstadt, of ever closer integration reducing national parliaments to the equivalent of a county town hall, is listened to with much foreboding, as is the EU Army (Macron) and further supranationalism - people are going to object to this stuff and they aren't all ''racist yokels''!

Yet it is I who is peculiar for fashioning my objections to the EU around these and similar arguments, rather than reducing the entire Anglo-EU conundrum to, ''how Brexit will affect my back pocket?'' à la Dazey. My position is not so peculiar in fact and merely reflects my academic discipline which has been splintered in two by Brexit. This summarizes the positions, leave and remain,

 https://www.ft.com/content/86c8faa8-1696-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

Now I don't want to debate the strength of the leave historians' arguments just yet, sufficing to say the views set forth in the above link, both leave and remain, ask the same type of questions and create the same type of context, as what I ask, but not the questions Dazey asks. Read the link and you'll see a completely different world, of people debating ''Brexit'' on terms similar to my own. And some of them espouse remain! But they do so by arguing through the prism of historical understanding.

PS

If pay-walled,

Spoiler

 

 Rival historians trade blows over Brexit

David Cameron is not the only one invoking the past to decide Britain’s future. There are two sides to every history

Gideon Rachman MAY 13, 2016 Print this page174

When historians get sucked into a political controversy, it is often a sign that a country is going through an identity crisis. In Germany in the 1960s, an academic argument about whether the country had been responsible for the first world war provoked a ferocious public debate — because of its implication that Nazism was not a solitary aberration in German history. The bicentenary of the French Revolution in 1989 provoked a sharp division between French historians about the true meaning of the events of 1789 — with the left celebrating the revolution as a triumph of liberty and the right emphasising the way in which it had descended into terror and despotism.

Disputes between historians of Britain have not tended to be so obviously political. Generations of undergraduates have enjoyed, or snoozed through, arguments about the standard of living in the industrial revolution (better or worse?); or the “strange death of liberal England” (organised labour or the first world war?) — and such debates sometimes did pit Marxist historians against conservatives. But these arguments generally remained some way removed from the rough-and-tumble of daily politics.

So it is perhaps a sign that Britain is now much less sure of its national identity that the country’s historical profession has got sucked into a heated argument about the most vexed political issue of the moment: Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe.

With Britain’s referendum on EU membership just weeks away, David Cameron has appealed to British history to make the case for the UK staying inside the EU. In a speech at the British Museum earlier this week, the prime minister argued that, “From Caesar’s legions to the wars of the Spanish succession, from Napoleonic wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . Britain has always been a European power.”

In his efforts to ground his arguments in British history, the prime minister was tapping into a debate that has already been rumbling in the country’s universities. The trigger for the dispute was the formation of a group called “Historians for Britain”, chaired by David Abulafia, professor of Mediterranean history at Cambridge. In a letter released ahead of Cameron’s attempted renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership, the Historians for Britain argued that the UK should stay only in a “radically reformed European Union” that reflected “the distinctive character of the United Kingdom, rooted in its largely uninterrupted history since the Middle Ages”.

The declaration from Historians for Britain was signed by a sizeable group of academics and authors across the UK. It swiftly provoked a blistering response from a much larger group of historians, based in universities all over Britain, including Cambridge. An article for History Today, headlined “Fog in Channel, Historians Isolated”, laid into the idea of Britain’s “largely uninterrupted history” — arguing that “such continuity would indeed be spectacular, but it is illusory. Britain’s past is neither so exalted nor so unique.”

The tone of the initial letters was reasonably polite. But subsequent contributions were not so restrained. Neil Gregor, professor of modern history at Southampton, who helped to draft the response to Historians for Britain, later fulminated in a blog post that “it is difficult to know where to start when engaging with a narrative that, as any Lower Second Class undergraduate can tell you, the profession abandoned decades ago.”

One place to start, it strikes me, is by trying to break down the argument into its component parts and then talking to historians on both sides of the debate. I swiftly discovered that my journalistic tendency to refer to the two camps as “pro-” and “anti-EU” drew pained responses. Both sides are keen to insist that their view of history is not distorted by anything as vulgar as political prejudice. Nonetheless, signature of either letter is probably a reliable predictor of a vote to either Leave or Remain in the EU.

The claims made by the Eurosceptic historians can essentially be broken down into three words: continuity, moderation, separation.

On the continuity front, the Historians for Britain argue that “the British parliament embodies principles of political conduct that have their roots in the 13th century” and that “this degree of continuity is unparalleled in continental Europe”. The Europhile historians gleefully attempt to punch holes in this narrative — pointing out that parliamentary sovereignty did not prevail in Britain until the late 17th century, after the “devastating bloodshed” of the English civil war. As for universal suffrage, that was not established in Britain until 1928 — well after many other European countries.

When it comes to moderation, the Historians for Britain argue that “the British political temper has been milder than that in larger European countries”. They cite the country’s immunity to fascism, communism and extreme nationalism. This claim of an exceptional “mildness” in British history is also disputed. Ruth Harris, professor of modern European history at Oxford, told me, “That’s a view of British history that essentially leaves out the empire, and I think that is very pernicious.” Neil Gregor makes the same point, citing Britain’s “history of aggressive imperialism”, and adding — “expropriation, slavery, massacres, oppression, anyone?”

The third claim made by the Eurosceptic academics is that a certain separateness from Europe is in Britain’s historical DNA. David Starkey of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, a “Historian for Britain” well known to TV audiences all over the country, argues that “England’s semi-detached relationship with continental Europe is neither new nor an aberration. Instead it is deeply rooted in the political developments of the past 500 years.” This claim of semi-detachment is also disputed by the pro-Europeans. In their letter, they argue that “political, social, cultural and economic life in Britain has always depended upon, drawn upon, and given back to Europe . . . The centrality of Christianity to Britain’s cultural past makes sense only with reference to the broader world of Christendom.”

The occasional elision made by the Eurosceptic historians between Britain and England, and noticeable in Starkey’s talk of “England’s semi-detached relationship” with continental Europe, is something that has been picked up by some Scottish historians, who argue that the Historians for Britain are, in fact, Historians for England. It is true that Robert Tombs, one of the biggest names to sign the Historians for Britain, letter has recently published a much-acclaimed book called The English and their History. Yet the attempt to portray the Historians for Britain as Little Englanders is a little unfair. Most of Tombs’s work is actually on France, and Abulafia’s magnum opus, The Great Sea, is a history of the Mediterranean.

To pursue the argument, I decided to visit Cambridge — starting with lunch at Caius college with Abulafia, who seems unruffled by any suggestion that he would struggle to get a third at Southampton. Talking to Abulafia, it becomes clear that he regards many of the arguments made by his critics as quibbles or qualifications that do not disrupt the broader thrust of his case.

In an article for History Today, for example, Abulafia argued that “fascism and anti-Semitism never struck deep roots” in Britain. The counterblast pointed out that “Edward I was the first European king to expel Jews from his entire kingdom” in 1290, and cited the Marconi corruption scandal of 1912 — which featured anti-Semitic rhetoric — as a reminder “that 20th-century British history was uncomfortably similar to European history in this respect too”. As far as Abulafia is concerned, this is nitpicking. Sipping on his tea in the Caius senior combination room, he argues that “to mention the Marconi scandal in the same context as the Holocaust or deep anti-Semitism in Poland is silly and frankly offensive.”

To get a counterview, I contemplate simply crossing the courtyard at Caius and knocking on the door of Professor Peter Mandler — who had signed the response to the Historians for Britain letter. Instead, I opt for a five-minute walk across town to Jesus College to find another of the Cambridge historians who signed the “pro-Europe” letter.

As a French national teaching British history at Cambridge, Dr Renaud Morieux seems to embody his own argument that British identity has been shaped by a constant cultural exchange with Europe. Yet it also seems to me that the period that Morieux specialises in, the 18th century, is potentially helpful to the themes of British “continuity” and “mildness”, favoured by the Historians for Britain. After all, France experienced the violent rupture of revolution in 1789, while Britain’s political system evolved relatively peacefully, through reform rather than revolution, during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Morieux, who likes to pluck books from his shelves to illustrate his argument, acknowledges that there is something to the idea that Britain’s political development was relatively “mild”, from the 18th century onwards — but he argues that the Eurosceptic narrative is “too narrowly focused on political history and on the nation-state. The lives of ordinary people, shaped by trade and migration or simply survival, suggest personal identities and experiences were much more fluid than a stress on British uniqueness might suggest.” Battles that form a central part of what a patriotic children’s history book from 1905 called Our Island Story were actually multinational affairs. The majority of the troops under Wellington’s command at Waterloo were not British, and there were even French seamen in Nelson’s navy at Trafalgar. Morieux’s own recent book on the English Channel portrays this mythical stretch of water not as a guarantee of British separateness, but as a medium for constant exchange between Britain and Europe.

All of these points certainly complicate the narrative promoted by Historians for Britain. But it does not seem to me that they drive a stake through the heart of the Eurosceptic historians’ case, which is focused above all on political institutions — precisely the area where it is easiest to argue that there is a distinctly British (or English) path of development. In search of a referee in this dispute, I set off to Peterhouse, a college once famous for its conservative history dons — and now the home of Brendan Simms, a professor of European history whose new book is a large history titled Britain’s Europe and who, I notice, has not signed either letter.

Whatever their positions on the dispute at hand, I am beginning to notice that the rooms of Cambridge history dons have a certain family resemblance — with books and papers piled up on the floors as well as on the shelves. Professor Simms does not disappoint in this respect. Talking to him, it strikes me that his views are an eclectic mix of those of the Historians for Britain and of the “pro-European” camp.

On the pro-Europe side of the ledger, Simms is a firm believer that the EU can and must move towards a federal state. But he is resigned to the fact that Britain will stand aside from full political union. However, to complicate matters further, he also thinks that Britain should vote to stay inside the EU next month — because he fears that a Brexit would represent a grievous blow to the development of the EU; and the collapse of the EU would also undoubtedly have negative effects on Britain.

Although this view sounds convoluted, it is not unlike the argument set out by Winston Churchill in 1946 — when he argued for a United States of Europe, but suggested that Britain should not be part of it.

In Simms’ view, there will come a time for the UK to separate itself from the EU — but that time is not now. As he explains his views, he remarks half-apologetically, “Now you understand why I could not have signed either letter.”

The complexity of the Simms view of Britain’s relationship with Europe also makes him an interesting observer of the two sides in the historians’ debate. He thinks the pro-European camp have been too dismissive of the idea that “there has indeed been something quite distinct about Britain’s political deve­lopment” and “not just in the banal sense that everybody’s different”. This, Simms speculates, might be because the pro-Europeans have a “cultural discomfort with the notion of exceptionalism, because it can shade into chauvinism”. On the other hand, Simms thinks that the Historians for Britain have not thought hard enough about the political stability of continental Europe after Brexit. As he writes in his new book, “the storm fronts are rolling in again from Europe.” A British departure from the EU will not protect Britain from these storms. Instead, it may increase their ferocity.

As I walk back to Cambridge station, I pass the lamppost that marks the boundary between the university and the real world, and is known to students as “reality checkpoint”. I feel oddly reassured that I do not entirely agree (or disagree) with any of the historians I have met. I will be voting for Britain to stay in the EU, largely for the Simms-like reason that I think that a British departure from the EU could unleash dangerous political forces in Europe. On the other hand, my experience as a correspondent in Brussels (and my own view of history), makes me think that Simms is deluding himself if he thinks that a political union in Europe is either likely or desirable.

On reflection, I agree with Abulafia and the Historians for Britain in one important respect: their argument that the UK has been unusually good at creating successful political institutions and that this is an inheritance worth cherishing and protecting. But I do not think that this adds up to an argument for Britain leaving the EU — since it seems to me that the threat the EU poses to the integrity of British political institutions is relatively tolerable compared with the geopolitical dangers that could be unleashed by the destruction of the EU.

And while, like most British voters, I will be making my decision primarily on political and economic grounds, I think that the cultural arguments made by the likes of Renaud Morieux have real force. This is not just a vote about parliamentary sovereignty and GDP figures — it is also about openness to immigration and to cultural exchange. And that part of the argument also inclines me to vote to stay inside the EU.

I doubt that many voters will be swayed by heated historical debates conducted in Cambridge colleges. What is true, however, is that Britain’s referendum on Europe is ultimately about national identity. In that sense, the argument between Historians for Britain and their opponents is much more than an academic dispute. It goes to the heart of the question that Britain will have to answer on June 23.

Gideon Rachman is the FT’s chief foreign affairs commentator

Illustration by James Ferguson

 

And the comments continue the debate.

Edited August 12, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It shouldn't come as no surprise that there exists objections to nation-states signing away their dearly won and ancient freedoms in legislative functionality and jurisprudence - Kompetenz-kompetenz. I wouldn't expect the Americans to act any different if an American version of Ted Heath signed away ''competences'' of the US Constitution - ditto, any other sovereign state. It also should come as no surprise that the Euro-federalist position held by people like Guy Verhofstadt, of ever closer integration reducing national parliaments to the equivalent of a county town hall, is listened to with much foreboding, as is the EU Army (Macron) and further supranationalism - people are going to object to this stuff and they aren't all ''racist yokels''!

Yet it is I who is peculiar for fashioning my objections to the EU around these and similar arguments, rather than reducing the entire Anglo-EU conundrum to, ''how Brexit will affect my back pocket?'' à la Dazey. My position is not so peculiar in fact and merely reflects my academic discipline which has been splintered in two by Brexit. This summarizes the positions, leave and remain,

 https://www.ft.com/content/86c8faa8-1696-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

Now I don't want to debate the strength of the leave historians' arguments just yet, sufficing to say the views set forth in the above link, both leave and remain, ask the same type of questions and create the same type of context, as what I ask, but not the questions Dazey asks. Read the link and you'll see a completely different world, of people debating ''Brexit'' on terms similar to my own. And some of them espouse remain! But they do so by arguing through the prism of historical understanding.

I find it odd that you insist on accusing me of only caring about what's in my pocket when all I'm arguing for is trying to protect British industry and working people. It's even more bizarre having read your comments on the CAP and CFP. A no deal Brexit will only further damage these core industries which you apparently feel so strongly about.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I find it odd that you insist on accusing me of only caring about what's in my pocket when all I'm arguing for is trying to protect British industry and working people. It's even more bizarre having read your comments on the CAP and CFP. A no deal Brexit will only further damage these core industries which you apparently feel so strongly about.

But I have argued with you about this stuff before. In the above post I am merely demonstrating my priorities regarding Brexit which I believe are grounded in my educational backgrounds and pursuits. You'll see, reading the article and comments, that I am not alone in regarding Brexit in such terms, and this includes remainers. 

You did have problems understanding my position, so I am attempting to explain it.

[Dazey]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But I have argued with you about this stuff before. In the above post I am merely demonstrating my priorities regarding Brexit which I believe are grounded in my educational backgrounds and pursuits. You'll see, reading the article and comments, that I am not alone in regarding Brexit in such terms, and this includes remainers. 

You did have problems understanding my position, so I am attempting to explain it.

I understand it, I just disagree that it is worth the cost to our country to achieve it.

[action]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I asked him whether he wants less immigration than what the UK has been having the last years. It really isn't hard to answer. It is a "yes" or a "no" or, if he feels it requires depth he could say something like, "only less muslims" or "I want more, but only Scandinavians". He did everything he could to avoid answering, and in the end just ignored the question which is very telling. It is similar to the time I suggested he is a xenophobe, to which he could easily just have denied and thus ended the discussion, but instead opted for arguing that someone who speaks Japanese and eats foreign food, can't possibly be. Basically, he prevaricates and evades hoping that people will be tricked by his non-answers or just give up pressing the issue.

watching you two argue is like watching a '60s batman episode, where the joker (soulmonster) is always trying to catch batman (dieseldaisy), and the episode always ends in a cliffhanger, something like the ceiling coming down on batman (or a cleverly constructed post holding vague accusations of racism) and time is ticking (how is he going to save his ass THIS time??), but batman escapes in the next episode through the air vent (or something about a romantic love for the commonwealth history).

Edited August 12, 2019 by action

[bucketfoot]

It makes me laugh when the Remain lot argue that they want to take a great big, steaming shit all over democracy in order to protect others and not because they simply have to have their own way. I'd have more respect for them if they were at least honest about their motivations. Fucking give it a rest.

[bucketfoot]

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm starting to believe remainers are utterly cracked. They've lost it mentally. I am genuinely starting to believe this. Case in point,

No doubt about it. Certainly, the extreme element of the Remain camp have completely lost the plot. They had a collective breakdown and we've had three extremely tedious years of their dribbling. Absolute loons.

[bucketfoot]

Caroline Lucas, dear oh dear. She really is a figure of fun nowadays.

[DieselDaisy]

Even the French, the head of the channel ports, are criticising Project Fear,

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1565588260022173200/dover-to-calais-route-to-run-smoothly-post-brexit---french-ports-head.aspx

[DieselDaisy]

9 hours ago, bucketfoot said:

No doubt about it. Certainly, the extreme element of the Remain camp have completely lost the plot. They had a collective breakdown and we've had three extremely tedious years of their dribbling. Absolute loons.

You'll need earplugs,

 

[Dazey]

12 hours ago, bucketfoot said:

It makes me laugh when the Remain lot argue that they want to take a great big, steaming shit all over democracy in order to protect others and not because they simply have to have their own way. I'd have more respect for them if they were at least honest about their motivations. Fucking give it a rest.

I've been perfectly honest about my motivations and the reasons why I think Brexit is a ridiculous idea. 

Maybe you can answer the question I put to Dies' earlier. What tangible changes to your life and situation do you expect to see personally from November 1st as a result of leaving the EU?

[Len Cnut]

22 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

And I can't wait for Brexit.  No disrespect, mate.  The U.S. Dollar will be close to par with the British Pound for the first time in history.  The Euro could suffer as well.  Good chance that the Pound, the Euro and the Dollar will be close to par within a decade.   Ouch.  

 

Yeah but every morning, when you wake up, you'll still be Americans

[soon]

If the EU implements this virtual broader guard lie detector test post Brexit that would be an additional kick in the balls, I would think. Especially since the test model scored 4 false positives when tested by a reporter. False positives trigger "additional screening" by humans.

https://theintercept.com/2019/07/26/europe-border-control-ai-lie-detector/

[action]

on a technical / juridical side, I'm undecided which one of the two is better: remain or leave. I'm simply not knowledged enough in the juridical / economical aspects of the EU membership, and all it's far reaching consequences it has.

If you ask me, which do you prefer: remain or leave, then my natural instinct says "leave". this comes purely from a certain nostalgic / romantic background. I dont live in the UK, but I can imagine some people want to "leave" because they think if they "close the doors", then all sorts of problems will be kept outside too. 

I compare it to being fond of quiteness, calmness and the confined security of your own home. Some people open the doors of their house, and happily invite people, while others prefer their peace and quiet. I tend to belong to the last group. In this digital age, where privacy is becoming less and less achievable, and where everyone has an opinion about everyone, I tend to hold on to the last remnants of peace and privacy: your own home.

If I could chose in what timeframe I'd rather live, it would be the age just before the industrial revolution, say 1550 - 1650. The age when life was slow and carefree.

Now, if you belong to the EU, you open your borders, and you don't know what or who you're going to attract. People with good or bad intentions, it's uncertain. companies that will further erode our remaining open space. Exotic cultures, that may clash with your own preferences and lifestyle.

I can imagine, with leaving, if not in practise then at least the delusion is created, that we're going back to a bit of quiteness and serenity of the old times.

Like a farmer that loves his boring life, and is wary of the increasing urbanisation and all the infringements on his peace this entails, I see EU membership as a one way ticket to an increasingly stressfull life. Increased economic growth, pressure and stress go hand in hand. I prefer a boring, romantic, old fashioned lifestyle.

Edited August 13, 2019 by action

[DieselDaisy]

The soft-Eurosceptic position, sometimes called Eurorealist, most associated with the UK, Poland and Finland, has argued for a EU that consists of the single market, and removes the impediments of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. It also espouses a European Parliament with more legislative initiative, and either the abolition of the Commission, or a Commission which is more democratically accountable. The problem with this position, a ''remain'' position, is the EU never changes! People arguing for reform hit a brick wall. Just recently we have seen the spitzenkandidat cast aside in favour of Ursula von der Leyen as a consequence of a Franco-German powerplay. The EU is actually getting worse on this front!!

So, Brexiteers are created from soft-Eurosceptics. 

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The soft-Eurosceptic position, sometimes called Eurorealist, most associated with the UK, Poland and Finland, has argued for a EU that consists of the single market, and removes the impediments of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. It also espouses a European Parliament with more legislative initiative, and either the abolition of the Commission, or a Commission which is more democratically accountable. The problem with this position, a ''remain'' position, is the EU never changes! 

Except that the the EU has changed. Since its formation in 1993, the EU has introduced the EEA (in 1994) which brought Norway into its free market, its relationship to NATO was defined through the Amsterdam treaty (1999), its foreign policies were developed through the CSFP which also came in the 90s, the Nice Treaty of 2004 allowed continued growth, the Central European Bank was established in 1999, the European Constitution came in 2004 (?).

More on the various ways the EU has evolved over the years can be found here, with its various treaties, amendments and ratifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union

So you are incorrect. The EU does change.

 

[SoulMonster]

And an interesting article on proposed changes to the EU after the referendum in the UK and what they have achieved so far: https://www.politico.eu/article/after-brexit-the-eu-promised-to-reform-how-did-it-do-bratislava-declaration/

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Except that the the EU has changed. Since its formation in 1993, the EU has introduced the EEA (in 1994) which brought Norway into its free market, its relationship to NATO was defined through the Amsterdam treaty (1999), its foreign policies were developed through the CSFP which also came in the 90s, the Nice Treaty of 2004 allowed continued growth, the Central European Bank was established in 1999, the European Constitution came in 2004 (?).

More on the various ways the EU has evolved over the years can be found here, with its various treaties, amendments and ratifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union

So you are incorrect. The EU does change.

 

I listed the Eurorealist position and those aspects have not changed. Please pay attention next time.

Edited August 13, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

Should have listened to the peasants and started an anarcho-syndicalist commune 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I listed the Eurorealist position and those aspects have not changed. Please pay attention next time.

I referred to this statement of yours which is patently wrong but which you seem to not want to give up: "The problem with this position, a ''remain'' position, is the EU never changes!"

The EU has changed drastically since its inception. And it will continue to change. But not with the Brits because instead of fighting and fixing you chose to flee. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I referred to this statement of yours which is patently wrong but which you seem to not want to give up: "The problem with this position, a ''remain'' position, is the EU never changes!"

The EU has changed drastically since its inception. And it will continue to change. But not with the Brits because instead of fighting and fixing you chose to flee. 

I was referring to the Eurorealist position of a EU,

51 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

that consists of the single market, and removes the impediments of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. It also espouses a European Parliament with more legislative initiative, and either the abolition of the Commission, or a Commission which is more democratically accountable. 

I am well aware of the various incarnations of the EU and don't need you to remind me. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I was referring to the Eurorealist position of a EU,

I am well aware of the various incarnations of the EU and don't need you to remind me. 

Every EU member state surely have desires on how the EU will change to their advantage. But most member states who realize that this is unrealistic don't start crying before they leave slamming the door. They accept that a union is there for every member state, not just them.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Every EU member state surely have desires on how the EU will change to their advantage. But most member states who realize that this is unrealistic don't start crying before they leave slamming the door. They accept that a union is there for every member state, not just them.

The Eurorealist position has existed since the original expansion. It is a lone voice, engulfed by Franco-German federalism.